US scientists have questioned GM monitoring protocols in the US after investigating escapee canola plants living outside of cultivated fields. These populations were found to persist from year to year and reach thousands of individuals. The authors also found that the escaped plants could hybridise with each other. Below several Australian scientists independent of the study respond.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you would like to speak to an expert or for a copy of the embargoed research, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

Other resources:

There is an Office of the Gene Technology Regulator fact sheet on GM canola approved for commercial release in Australia online here, including key dates for state approvals.

The Regulator is currently considering an application for the commercial release of another GM canola line into the environment. Information on this application is available here.

The Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plans for each of the canola lines approved for commercial release in Australia are also available through the GMO Record on the OGTR website here, including question and answer sheets.

———–

Professor Mike Wilkinson is  Professor of Genetics in the School of Agriculture, Food and Wine at the University of Adelaide

“The findings of this research first emerged in August last year following presentation of the results in a meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Pittsburg (for more details see http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100806/full/news.2010.393.html). This paper provides formal peer-reviewed publication of the same work.

In essence, it reports on the appearance of GM canola (oilseed rape) in roadside verges and field margins in much the same way that has been reported previously (since the 1990s) for GM and non-GM canola in other parts of the world. However, the authors then state that this appearance is unprecedented in scale and that it “raises questions of whether adequate oversight and monitoring protocols are in place in the U.S. to track the environmental impact of biotech products”. So, time for alarm?

Well, in all honesty, no. The presence of these plants was predicted more than a decade earlier and even the scale of their presence is not surprising given the scale of GM canola cultivation in North Dakota. The real issue facing the regulators and those charged with GM oversight everywhere, as the authors themselves acknowledge, is whether these plants are (or are likely to) lead to any real ecological harm? This issue is not addressed by this study in any way. Thus, whilst mildy interesting from an academic standpoint, from a regulatory stance, I very much doubt it will necessitate any changes to the current practice of focussing on the potential for harm rather than on the mere presence of the GM plants.”

———–

Professor Graham King is Professor of Plant Genomics & Epigenetics at Southern Cross University

“Crop plants have been domesticated and selected to provide nutrition and plant-based products that underpin human civilisation and modern economies

Rotations of crops such as wheat and canola maximise soil fertility and long-term health, but often suffer from ‘volunteers’ (e.g. canola plants growing within wheat and vice versa), as well as many weed species that drastically reduce yields and waste energy in food production. Crops tolerant to weed-killers (herbicides) enable farmers to reduce energy wastage in crop production. Herbicide tolerant crops have been generated using both non-GM and GM methods.

Feral populations of canola (a species of Brassica) occur regularly in regions where the crop is grown and alongside roads where the harvested seed is transported. Their presence is not at all surprising. Feral canola tends to be more noticeable and prominent (due to yellow flowers) than feral wheat populations.

The potential for cross-fertilisation (hybridisation) with other feral populations will always exist, as will cross-fertilisation with other species of Brassica- the latter has been documented in many studies. However, Brassica species do not occur in the native flora of Australia.

There are different classes of herbicide, and each herbicide-resistant cultivar is typically resistant to a single class. GM populations may therefore be controlled using other herbicides. However, the finding in the Schafer paper indicates that that hybridisation appeared to have occurred between different GM cultivars. Over time this may pose more complex issues for weed control.

Research into the impact of GM (or other forms of herbicide resistant plants) has been carried out in many countries.

There is some value in research to understand the wider environmental impacts and extent of any specific weed populations in un-natural roadside environments.

However, this has to be set against the continuing need to understand the regional impacts ofnotadopting GM to feed the world, and the beneficial consequences in terms of reduced pesticide and energy use. In particular, weed control needs to be set in the context ofglobal crop production, food security, and energy efficiency.”

———–

Professor Peter Langridge is CEO of the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG) at the University of Adelaide

“There is no great surprise from this study. Canola is known to establish along roadsides in many parts of the world and the GM canola is no different from normal canola in this respect.

Generally crops are not invasive and rarely become weeds because they have been bred and selected to grow in highly managed farm environments. Many key traits needed for wild plants, and particularly weeds, have been largely removed from our crops – such as seed dormancy and shattering (seed dispersal). This limits the likelihood of crop species becoming weeds in natural ecosystems. However, roadsides provide a special environment where crop species often flourish due to the extra water from runoff from the roads and regular mowing. This is why we often see wheat, barley and canola growing alongside roads.

It was always expected that the GM canola would behave in the same way and, as the area sown to GM canola grew, the incidence of roadside populations would expand. This does not present an environmental or safety problem for the community. The GM canola has been rigorous evaluated and presents no health issues and the roadside populations are essentially the same as the non-GM roadside populations. However, councils that use herbicides to control weeds along roads, will need to ensure they use the appropriate herbicides to also control the GM canola.”

———–

Professor Rick Roush is Dean of the Melbourne School of Land and Environment at the University of Melbourne

“This paper is unremarkable and not at all surprising. The authors have presented no evidence that GM canola is any more weedy or problematic than non-GM canola, or that any harms whatsoever have resulted.

All of the results documented in the paper have been made elsewhere, and repeated now in the US state of North Dakota.

The survey was explicitly only for roadsides and neighbouring highly disturbed habitats.

These are not important to biodiversity, and no claims were made for adverse environmental impacts on roadsides or anywhere else.

Herbicide resistance in canola is of no consequence if the canola is not sprayed, and that’s not likely in habitats of environmental significance.

Canola has been known to persist along roadsides in Europe, North America and Australia for decades, including French and Canadian research from 2001 and 2003, as cited in the paper.

We can expect to find GM canola growing on roadsides in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia, alongside non-GM canola, with no more consequence than brightening the roadsides with yellow during their flowering.

Hybridisation between canola lines of different GM and non-GM herbicide resistances was documented by Dr Linda Hall in Canada more than 10 years ago, and is still not a problem of any sort in Canada.

Many other feral crop plant species can be found on roadsides, including lucerne, without causing harm. The more important threats come from weeds such as wild radish and escaped garden plants, such as Pattersons Curse, and many more recent but not yet as well-known weeds.”

———–

*The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S., Schafer et al., PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025736.g001, 2011

Animals and humans are exposed to a cocktail of chemicals daily, some of which come from agriculture. What are the effects of these chemicals?

This briefing looked at scientific research on agricultural chemicals in waterways and the wider environment. It also gave an overview of Australia’s regulation of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

Note: Please see below the briefing details for a statement from the national pesticides regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. There was unfortunately not enough time to include Dr Les Davies on the panel.

The briefing discussed the following issues:

• Case study: a Queensland fish hatchery – two-headed fish embryos have been discovered at the hatchery, as well as other losses of fish, birds and other animals. This was possibly caused by agrichemical run-off.
• New South Wales’ Richmond River – where have all the fish gone?
• Which agrichemicals are most prevalent in Australian waterways?
• What are some of the proven effects they have on animals?
• The current state of research – what has been done and what needs to be done to measure agrichemicals in the environment? At what levels are they harmful to animals? What do we know about their combined effects?
• Overview of Australia’s legislation – is it sufficient? How does it compare with global restrictions?

Watch the full presentation here (Webex)

SPEAKERS:

• Dr Matt Landos, Honorary Lecturer and Associate Researcher at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Veterinary Science and Director of private consultancy Future Fisheries Veterinary Service | Listen (mp3)
• Dr Vincent Pettigrove, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Aquatic Pollution Identification and Management, a Principal Research Fellow at The University of Melbourne and Principal Ecologist at Melbourne Water | Listen (mp3)
• Listen to the Q and A here (mp3)

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE:  Thursday June 2, 2011

START TIME: 10.30am AEST

DURATION: 50 min

VENUE:  Online

———-

Statement from the independent national pesticides regulator – the APVMA

Dr Landos has claimed that ”the permissive nature” of the existing regulatory system for agricultural chemicals in Australia is a factor behind freshwater, estuarine and inshore fishery declines. The independent national regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), is not aware of any evidence to support these claims. Yet it maintains a watching brief for credible new scientific information that suggests the existence of new risks associated with pesticide use. It can, and does, respond to new risks through reviews and interim regulatory actions.

“Australia can be proud of having a contemporary regulatory system that is well regarded by its international peers,” said Dr Les Davies, Principal Scientist – Pesticides, at the APVMA. “The Australian system is closely aligned with that of other OECD countries. It uses the same frameworks and assessment processes to evaluate new pesticides, it provides expert advice to other countries and its assessments are accepted by countries such as the United States, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom.”

To arrange an interview with Dr Les Davies, please contact Felicity McDonald, Acting Manager, Public Affairs at the APVMA on 02 6210 4812.

———-

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email us.

Change is hard. There’s no question that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will be challenging for all sectors, particularly the agricultural industry. But change can also present opportunities.

This briefing, held in conjunction with the CCRSPI conference in Melbourne, looked at the science behind opportunities for farming communities to reduce, avoid and offset their emissions or profit from creating new carbon credits. How can farmers not only secure their futures but learn how to prosper in a low-carbon world?

The briefing provided an independent explanation and update on the Federal Government’s new Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), announced in November. The Initiative aims to legislate to establish a carbon crediting mechanism, develop methodologies for offset projects and provide assistance to help farmers and landholders benefit from carbon markets.

Speakers covered different ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including through trees, soils and livestock.

Watch the full presentation here (Webex)

SPEAKERS:

See bio note for speakers here

• Professor Annette Cowie, Director of the National Centre For Rural Greenhouse Gas Research, a collaboration between University of New England and Industry and Investment NSW. Slides (pdf) | Listen (mp3)
• Dr Jeff Baldock, Leader of the Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Balance in Agricultural Lands stream, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship. Slides (pdf)|  Listen (mp3)
• Dr Richard Eckard, Associate Professor with the Melbourne School of Land and Environment, The University of Melbourne, and Principal Scientist of the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, a joint venture with the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. Slides (pdf) | Listen (mp3)
• Listen to the Q and A session here (mp3)

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE:  Wednesday, February 16, 2011
START TIME: 10.30am AEDT
DURATION: Approx 45 min
VENUE: Online

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email.

Professor Monkombu S Swaminathan is often been hailed as India’s “father of the green revolution” for his extensive work in agricultural science. Along with Mahatma Gandhi, he was named by TIME magazine as one of the top 20 most influential Asian people of the 20^th Century and holds the UNESCO Chair in Ecotechnology at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation.

He is visiting Australia this week to speak at the CCRSPI conference on climate change and agriculture in Melbourne and will speak at a public forum (How do we feed and clothe the world in 2050?) on Wednesday with ABC’s Fran Kelly and several Australian scientists. The AusSMC has organised an online briefing for journalists with Swaminathan and Australian agricultural scientist, Professor Snow Barlow.

BRIEFING DETAILS:
DATE:  Tuesday 15 February 2011
START TIME: 1pm AEDT
DURATION: 45 min
VENUE:  Online

The briefing will discuss the following issues:

• An estimated doubling of global food production is needed over the coming decades to feed the world’s growing population
• This increased food production must be achieved in the context of a changing climate and reduced availability of land, water and fertilisers, and with an increasingly urbanised workforce
• Agriculture has responded to the productivity challenge in the past – can it do so again? What are the particular challenges and opportunities for Australia?

Watch the full presentation here (Webex)

SPEAKERS: See speaker bio notes here (pdf)

• Professor M S Swaminathan, M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, India | Listen (mp3)
  
• Professor Snow Barlow, Foundation Professor of Horticulture and Viticulture at the University of Melbourne | Listen (mp3)
• Listen to the Q and A audio here (mp3)
  

For further information, please contact the AusSMC on 08 7120 8666 or email.

These comments on the bird flu epidemic in Japan come from the new Science Media Centre in Japan and have been translated into English with support from the Australia- Japan Foundation. The SMCJ has compiled some comments from experts on the outbreak:

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (08) 7120 8666 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or by email.

————————————–

Professor Koichi Otsuka, Director of the Avian Influenza Research Centre, Kyoto Sangyo University

“High pathogenic avian influenza means that of all of the influenzas which affect birds, the majority of chickens who get infected by this highly lethal influenza will die.  While bird flu itself will not kill a bird, birds who live in close quarters, such as chickens in poultry farms, repeatedly infect one other.  This can lead to the virus changing into a more lethal strain.  Now when a bird is infected with this dangerous virus, it usually dies within three to four days.    The highly pathogenic avian influenza is only lethal to birds.  Mammals are affected differently.  Bird flu can infect humans, but in countries such as Japan where there is a high level of awareness towards hygiene, this rarely happens.

To date, avian influenza types which have caused Japan problems were H5 and H7 viruses.  These had outbreaks in the Taisho period (1912 – 1926), but over the last 79 years there have been no reported outbreaks.

To stop any widespread infections, Japan has chosen to slaughter all of the chickens in the poultry farm where the outbreak was first reported, and follows up with thorough disinfection processes.  This is the best way to create a clean, virus-free environment, and is also carried out in other developed countries.  What is important is that as soon as symptoms are noticed, the necessary precautions are carried out to stop the virus from getting out of hand.

Only in extreme cases have there been records showing humans had been infected with bird flu, so details about why or how these people were infected remain unknown.  The WHO’s reports are only the tip of the iceberg and I think it is necessary to send a team into the outbreak zone to pin point the cause.

In Japan, responsibilities are split between the Ministry of the Environment who deal with wild birds, and the Ministry of Agriculture who deal with poultry.  However, there is only one pathogen. The virus in this case has been reported to have been brought in by a bird outside the country, but the H5N1 avian flu strain is one broken out from a chicken.  This makes wild birds the victim.  The ministries need to go beyond their boundaries and take the necessary moves to get bird flu under control.  They need to get support from wild bird societies and share information in order to figure out the best way to block the virus from spreading between wild birds and domestic chickens.  Because the situation is different in every region, it would be important to take measures suited to the community.”

————————————-

Yuya Kimura, Vet, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine

“Not only does the highly pathogenic avian influenza threaten chickens and quails in the poultry industry, but it could also reduce the number or rare birds.  We still remember what swine flu was like and cannot forget that there is a danger the flu might change into something that could infect humans.

It might sound like a big story, but there are ways people can help individually.

The possibility of house and school animals coming in contact with infected birds is not impossible, so try to keep your animals away from wild birds and keep their habitats clean.  With proper hygiene control, you can reduce the chances of infection.  There’s also no need to stop breeding programs because you’re scared of the disease.

Please refrain from bringing wild animals together by doing things such as feeding wild birds.  When animals gather in one place, it can help spread the disease.  There shouldn’t be a problem with bird watching from a distance, but try to stay as far away as possible as people can act as carriers by stepping on the virus with their shoes, transporting it to another location.  Try to stay away from where the initial outbreak was.

Currently, if a domestic chicken is discovered to have been infected, the last resort is to cull all of the chickens in the area that might also be infected.  There is only a small chance that infected products would make it to store shelves, and even if humans were to eat contaminated chicken or eggs, it’s unlikely that they’d be infected.”

————————————–