A review of scientific literature suggests moderate reductions in salt intake don’t lead to reduced risk of a person suffering cardiovascular events or dying prematurely.

The original review has been published in The Cochrane Library. A paper will also appear in the American Journal of Hypertension today, based on the study published in The Cochrane Library.

Below are comments compiled by our colleagues at the New Zealand and UK Science Media Centres.

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

———–

COMMENTS FROM THE NEW ZEALAND SMC:

Robert Beaglehole, Emeritus Professor, University of Auckland and former World Health Organisation Director of the Department of Chronic Disease and Health Promotion comments:

“I agree that there is not yet sufficient evidence on hard outcomes, though there is plenty of evidence that salt reduction reduces blood pressure. A decent mortality study is still required. In the meantime, we should be doing all we can to reduce salt intakes – current high levels serve no useful purpose and are probably very harmful. Further, the real problem is that giving advice to reduce salt intake doesn’t work. We need to reduce the amount of salt in manufactured food”.

Professor Robert Walker, Head of Department, School of Medicine, University of Otago, comments:

“An interesting analysis. I think the important issue is that it is from a relatively small number of studies 7 in total but only 2 were in groups that would be deemed at moderate risk – the more hypertensive group.

“Lowering salt intake has clear cut evidence for reducing blood pressure. However blood pressure is not the only cardiovascular risk and therefore it has to be seen in the global context of reducing risk not as the sole intervention to reduce heart attacks.

“In addition, the impact of salt is not solely on blood pressure, elevated salt intake also has direct effects on blood vessel function independent to that of blood pressure. This may be more critical to the risk of stroke or kidney damage, rather that heart attack, which the meta-analysis did not address.

“Therefore in the context of general good health, it is not appropriate to go out and reload the salt shaker. Dietary reduction in salt for those at risk of cardiovascular disease should still be encouraged and placed in the same context as exercise, healthy diet and smoking cessation.”

Elaine Rush, Professor of Nutrition, Auckland University of Technology, comments:

“Cutting down on salt does not reduce the likelihood of dying or experiencing cardiovascular disease.

Facts:

“Both the elements of “common salt”, sodium and chloride, are essential for animal life. Sodium is also found in food as sodium bicarbonate, monosodium glutamate and food additives. The daily intake of sodium is exquisitely balanced by the body through excretion in urine and sweat.

“Higher blood pressure is associated with high intakes of sodium and also obesity and existing high blood pressure. There is a genetic predisposition for risk high blood pressure in some families and ethnic groups. Across the lifecourse all the environmental pressures that drive obesity also drive hypertension

What we do not know:

“The authors state that there is insufficient data to exclude clinically important effects of reduced dietary salt on mortality or cardiovascular morbidity.

“For the studies reported ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, menopausal status, age were not included in the overall analysis. Most of the participants were white and male. The percentage female is not reported.

What we should consider:

“Hypertension does not just happen, as we age blood pressure increases. Relatively high blood pressure in young children and adolescents is a risk factor for high blood pressure in later life. Reducing salt intake may help, but increased physical activity, less stress, losing extra weight and improving the nutrient quality of the foods eaten also help reduce blood pressure and improve health.

“Putting the spotlight on single nutrient trials and generalizing dietary advice for a single nutrient, in this case to reduce salt intake, is not helpful. What is helpful is for the food industry to reformulate products to reduce sodium AND increase the nutrient quality of foods by using real ingredients.

“Junk food and marketing to children are elephants in the room. Changes in our attitudes to these would markedly reduce salt consumed, shift consumption to real foods and be more friendly to health and the environment – long term.”

Delvina Gorton, National Nutrition Advisor, Heart Foundation, comments:

“The Heart Foundation welcomes the Cochrane Collaboration’s robust review of the effect of moderate salt reduction. As the author’s acknowledge, however, there was simply not enough data to allow them to draw firm conclusions around whether moderate salt reduction has an effect on risk of heart attack or death.

The authors estimated they needed 18,000 participants to draw firm conclusions – substantially more than the 6,489 participants in the seven studies included in the review. Reduced risk ratios suggested a beneficial effect from moderate salt reduction but the sample size was too small for the trend to be conclusive.

Other types of research have conclusively linked moderate salt reduction with reduced risk. The Heart Foundation maintains its position of advocating salt reduction for all New Zealanders and will continue to support the food industry in reducing salt levels in pre-prepared foods.”

———–

COMMENTS FROM THE UK SMC:

Professor Francesco Cappuccio, Head of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Nutrition at the University of Warwick, said:

“This is a surprisingly poor piece of work under the Cochrane banner. The analysis bears little relevance to policy. The results are in keeping with a protective effect of salt reduction but due to the very small number of events, they do not reach statistical significance. Furthermore the conclusions in patients with heart failure are based on a single questionable small clinical study in very sick hospitalised patients treated with extreme doses of water tablets, a practice not recommended by international guidelines.

“This study does not change the priorities outlined worldwide (NICE, WHO, PAHO, IOM, Ministry of Canada) for a population reduction in salt intake to prevent heart attacks and strokes, the greatest killers in the world.  What is important is not whether to reduce salt intake but how to do so to save lives. The published study confirms that individual choices may have little effect because salt is added to food before it is sold. Voluntary and regulatory reformulation of food by the food and catering industries must be implemented. Governments have an obligation to act to facilitate this process.”

Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool said:

“This is a disappointing and inconclusive meta-analysis, with mixed data and small numbers of events. It is fronted by a potentially misleading press release from the American Journal of Hypertension.

“The main Cochrane message is that advice to individuals only succeeds in getting them to reduce their salt intake a little.

“This is not a new finding.

“Crucially, it does not change the public health consensus from the WHO, PAHO, NICE etc, which is that:

1.         Dietary salt raises blood pressure (this is bad),

2.         Reducing dietary salt intake lowers blood pressure (this is good),

3.         Government actions are far more effective and cost saving at reducing dietary salt intake, than is advice to individuals.”

———-

* Reduced Dietary Salt for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (Cochrane Review), Taylor et al., American Journal of Hypertension, doi:10.1038/ajh.2011.115, July 6, 2011

(A more detailed review has been published and will be updated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Taylor RS, Ashton KE, Moxham T, Hooper L, Ebrahim S. Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2011, Issue 7] Available in The Cochrane Library)

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has also updated its advice for Australians in Japan.

The Science Media Centre of Canada produced a backgrounder on radiation monitoring (updated by us to include Australian info)

We thought the comments below from UK experts might be helpful. They were compiled overnight by our colleagues at the UK Science Media Centre.

There is also a comment on concern about food contamination by radioactive contaminants from Australian scientist Professor Stephen Lincoln.

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 or by email.

———–

Stephen Lincoln is a Professor of Chemistry at the University Adelaide

“These contaminants which we’re currently concerned about are fission products which have apparently leaked from Fukushima. At low level, they are not a major danger. However, the International Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies have set safe limits for such contamination and once it rises above that, one should not consume food so contaminated. Generally speaking, a restriction or ban on particular foods is only enforced when these safe limits have been exceeded.

There are likely to be three major radioactive contaminants. One is iodine-131, which has a half-life of eight days and decays away quite rapidly. In other words, its radioactivity is reduced to half in eight days and then to a quarter in 16 days, one eighth in 24 days and so on. Iodine-131 accumulates in the thyroid gland and can cause cancer there. Fortunately, it can be rapidly replaced with non-radioactive iodine by treating a contaminated person with iodine tablets. Such treatment should be immediate.

Two other contaminants are of longer-term concern. One is cesium-137 which has a half-life of 30 years and only halves its radioactivity over 30 years. It accumulates in soft tissue and can cause cancer there. The other one is strontium-90 which has a half-life of 28.8 years and only halves its radioactivity in that time. It tends to accumulate in teeth and bone and can cause bone cancer. Both of these contaminants are difficult to remove from the body.

There are other contaminants but these are the main worries.

There are two likely sources of food contamination around Fukushima. The simplest is that the contaminant could have been deposited on the food from the air or by rain, in which case you’d be able to wash it off. In the second case the contaminants could either be incorporated into plants as they grow on contaminated soil, or fish and animals could ingest them from contaminated water and plants. There’s only one thing you can do with such food, you have to destroy it and safely store the radioactive remains.”

———–

UK Science Media Centre ongoing rapid reaction: Fukushima nuclear incident

[FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, WEDNESDAY MARCH 23^rd 2011]

Regarding Tokyo tap water precautions:

Dr Mike Thorne, independent consultant in radiological and environmental science, said:

“If we take 500 Bq per litre of I-131 and assume that this concentration is maintained for about two weeks (it cannot be longer because of the 8 day radioactive half life of I-131) we can calculate the total intake.  Total fluid intakes in adults (exluding milk) are around 1.65 litres per day (though typically only about 0.15 litres of this is tap water).  However, if we take 1.65 litres on the assumption that they make all their drinks with tap water, we get an intake of 1.65*14*500 = 11550 Bq.  The effective dose per unit intake of I-131 for adults is 2.2E-8 Sv/Bq.  Therefore, the effective dose that could be received from 500 Bq per litre of I-131 in drinking water is 0.25 mSv. This is around one tenth of the natural annual dose received from background sources. [See Prof Wakeford's comment below.] The dose factor for infants is larger at 1.8E-7 Sv per Bq, but their intake of drinking water would be rather less than for adults, so their dose would not be very much larger.  However, the decrease in consumption rate does not fully compensate for the higher value of dose per unit intake, hence the need for stricter standards for infants.  Overall the situation is rather different from the case of milk, where infants consume as much (or rather more) than adults.”

What are UK safety levels?

Prof Steve Jones, independent nuclear and environmental consultant, said:

“In terms of ‘safe’ levels of 131I in water, the EU Community Food Intervention Levels are 500 Bq kg-1 for dairy produce and liquid foods, 150 Bq l-1 for baby foods. The figure I have for 131I in Tokyo tap water is 210 Bq l-1, reported by Associated Press today. So I guess if the water was used to make up baby milk formula, the CFILs would say it shouldn’t be consumed.”

What might effects of the reported radiation levels be?

Prof Richard Wakeford, Dalton Nuclear Institute and Visiting Professor of Epidemiology, University of Manchester, said:

“No early effects, the consequent doses are way too low – the conservative assumption is that water contaminated at the level of the limit is consumed at a reference rate over a prolonged period (a year) and the consequent radiation dose is calculated accordingly – the resulting effective dose after one year drinking water at the Japanese limits is 0.4 mSv for an infant and 0.3 mSv for an adult.  This compares with the annual effective dose limit (excluding medical and natural sources) of 1 mSv. The annual effective dose from natural background sources is about 2.5 mSv.”

Why different advice for children and adults?

Dr Jim Smith, Reader in Environmental Physics at the University of Portsmouth said:

“Children have different body sizes and water consumption rates than adults; also, they are more vulnerable to radiation risk because they are growing. Radiation tends to damage rapidly dividing cells more.”

Prof Richard Wakeford, Dalton Nuclear Institute and Visiting Professor of Epidemiology, University of Manchester, said:

“The primary objective is to limit the radiation dose to the thyroid gland of infants and young children, because it is well established that infants and young children are at the greatest risk from the accumulation of radioactive iodine in the thyroid.  The contamination limits keep the resultant doses to tolerable levels.”

Is it safe to bathe or wash food in contaminated tap water?

Prof Richard Wakeford, Dalton Nuclear Institute and Visiting Professor of Epidemiology, University of Manchester, said:

“Yes, because only small amounts of water would be ingested from these practices; but the advice of local authorities should be followed.  If infants or young children have already consumed some water this will not be a problem since the limits are based on prolonged consumption of contaminated water.  The rise in radioactive iodine levels in water probably results from a change in wind direction (and possibly rain) and is likely to be a transient problem when the wind swings from Tokyo (which it is forecast to do).”

Dr Jim Smith, Reader in Environmental Physics at the University of Portsmouth said:

“Following the finding of up to 210 Bq/l of radioactive iodine in tap water in Tokyo, the recommendation that infants are not given tap water is a sensible precaution. But it should be emphasised that the limit is set at a low level to ensure that consumption at that level is safe over a fairly long period of time. This means that consumption of small amounts of tap water – a few litres, say - at twice the recommended limit would not present a significant health risk. I would expect that the recommendation not to drink tap water would also extend to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.”

Regarding the environment and food:

Prof Steve Jones, independent nuclear and environmental consultant, said:

“I have seen one press report of much higher levels of radioactivity in green vegetables than those we have so far seen: 82,000 Bq/kg of 137Cs and 15,000 Bq/kg of 131I (in the vegetable ‘kukitachma’). Apart from being very much higher than those previously reported for spinach and leeks, the ratio of caesium to iodine is very much higher – this suggests that something has changed in the form of the release.

“Further, the IAEA monitoring update for yesterday reports some figures for ground deposition 28 to 50 km from the plant, at 200,000 to 900.000 Bq m-2. On a very rough calculation these suggest a release from the plant of 10¹⁵ to 10¹⁶ becquerels – 1,000 to 10,000 terabequerels. This would be rather larger than the release in the 1957 Windscale Pile Fire, and about 1% of the release from Chernobyl.”

Dr Jim Smith, Reader in Environmental Physics at the University of Portsmouth said:

“Whether the release was near the scale of Chernobyl is difficult to confirm without more information on measured radiation dose rates and radionuclide levels, particularly in the area of land and sea close to Fukushima. Information from the IAEA technical briefing (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html) suggests very significant contamination and external radiation dose rates in some areas outside the 20 km evacuated zone. In view of this, I would not be surprised to see further evacuations of some areas outside the 20 km zone around the plant. It is not really well known what the composition of different radionuclides is, so it is difficult to make any predictions as to how much of a health risk, and how long-lived the contamination is going to be. This should become clearer in the coming days as more monitoring information becomes available. In particular, information is needed on the level and composition of contamination in the vicinity of the plant. Such information, to my knowledge, has not so far been published.”

 The Australia-Japan Science Media Centre Collaboration is supported by the Commonwealth through the Australia-Japan Foundation which is part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

This comment originally appeared here:
http://smc-japan.sakura.ne.jp/eng/archives/1364

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 or by email.

 ———–

Professor Shunichi Yamashita

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University

President, Japan Thyroid Association

 Prof Yamashita has recently been requested by the Fukushima prefectural governor to be the area’s nuclear radiation health risk management advisor.

  About the initial evacuation

  ”During the first week, it was unfortunate that the quick succession of unpredicted events had made it difficult for everyone to share information.  I first became aware of the seriousness of the situation when the government issued an evacuation warning that didn’t follow the usual standards.  Normally people living within 10km of the site would be evacuated in the case of an emergency.  People would first be asked to stay indoors, and then be given the order to evacuate if the radiation levels wouldn’t drop.  In the current case, people living within 20km were evacuated, and then people living within 30km were told to stay indoors.  It doesn’t make sense that people who had been evacuated to a safer area should be asked to stay indoors.

   ”The series of troubles at the reactor were unprecedented.  Radiation continues to come out at an on-again, off-again basis.  The type of radiation coming out varies, and so do the amounts.  We need to continue monitoring the area and find out whether the 30km indoor evacuation order was necessary.”

  The effects of radioactive material as compared to the Chernobyl disaster

  ”Radioactive material has spread across a number of places.  In a way though, radioactive materials emit what’s called a tracer, which is very easily detected and measured.  The amounts that have been recorded so far will not have an effect on people’s health.  If the extent of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster could be represented by Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in the Philippines, the incident at Fukushima would be represented by the Mount Unzen or Shinmoedake volcanic eruption.  In either case, there’s a risk of getting burns or something more life threatening from the volcanic ash or lava, but moving away from the area lowers these chances.  The only difference between the two is that Mt Pinatubo’s effect spread across the entire world, whereas Mt Unzen or Shinmoedake only affected a small area.

  ”Radioactive material coming out of Fukushima Daiichi is like ash spewing out of an erupting volcano. Moving away 20km will significantly lower its effects.  The amount of radioactive material that has been released up to now is getting smaller and smaller as is the area over which it is being spread.  A person who gets radioactive material on their skin can easily wash it off.  It’s wrong to say that even a trace of exposure would be dangerous.”

 Currently, the chances of getting cancer are not rising

  ”Human bodies already contain about 1000 to 5000Bq of radioactive potassium.  Taking a radon bath will obviously result in your body absorbing radon too.  As long as the amount of these radioactive materials are small (10 – 500μSv) then there shouldn’t be a problem over a relatively short period of time.

  ”Right now iodine-131 levels in spinach and milk have gone over the standard limits, but it’s safe to eat it once or twice.  The other thing is iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days so its effects will wear off quickly.

  ”Being exposed to 100mSv of radiation at once could raise the chances of getting cancer, but if the levels can be kept below 50mSv it should be alright.  Radiation exposures considered safe for the nuclear power plant workers has been set to a total of 50mSv per year, and this is secure.

  ”People seem to be worried that radiation exposure will lead to cancer later on in life.  But if we exposed 100 people to a 100mSv dose of radiation, only one or two people would have a chance of getting cancer (one in three Japanese people die from cancer).  Thus, it’s unlikely more people will get cancer as a result of these events.”

No need to worry about radiation exposure for general public

  ”In the area between 10 – 20km from the nuclear plant, those who have already been evacuated might have been exposed to about 1mSv of radiation. However, there is no difference between several micro-SV and 100mSV in terms of their effect in causing cancer.

  ”It should also be noted that the effect of radiation of exposure, 100 times of 1mSv and 100mSv at a time, is very different. The people we should be worrying about in regards to radiation exposure are those working at the site of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. We need to think about how to secure their health.  Otherwise people do not need to worry about radiation exposure.

  ”It is argued that the effect of low-level radiation exposure on health conditions cannot be demonstrated. However, ‘no evidence of no effect’, does not necessarily mean we should worry about the effect. It is understandable that people fear the radiation exposure because it is invisible, but radiation can be measured in scientific ways. That is, we have a means to prevent harm from radiation. We should not panic. I would ask you to behave in a rational manner as a member of the society.”

 What’s next

  ”Radiation has spread across a wide area so it would be a problem if food is contaminated through the food chain and then sold at markets.  We need to collect data about what areas have been contaminated in what ways, and be open with sharing this data.  Using this information will help us to calculate radiation levels absorbed into our body within a year, and if the total annual intake is anywhere between a few tens of mSv to 100mSv, then regulations need to be put in place.  I do think this will toughen Japan’s already strict food safety standards, but we need to pay particular attention to prevent negative rumours from spreading.

  ”Given the scale of the impact of this earthquake and its consequent tragedies, I argue that people in this nation should be prepared to help relieve the burden the people of Fukushima now face.  It is now that we need to follow the example of the Japanese way and carry on in a harmonious and calm way as our ancestors have through history.”

 [NOTES]

・ The Science Media Centre of Japan (SMCJ) is an independent, non-profit group for the news media, giving journalists access to evidence-based science and expertise.

・ Regardless of the medium, we welcome our material to be used by journalists who want to make scientific views heard in society.

 ・ The views expressed in this post are those of the individuals and organisations indicated and do not reflect the views of the SMC or its employees.

 ———–

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 or by email.

———–

Dr Alan Barclay is an accredited practicing dietitian and nutritionist, chief scientific officer for the Glycemic Index Foundation Ltd and head of research at the Australian Diabetes Foundation.

“My initial assessment is that it’s a mixed bag – some, but not all of the recommendations are sound.

Worthwhile recommendations:

The reiteration of a need for a National Nutrition Policy to underpin any food labelling framework is an important step forward, even though a National Food Policy Working Group was established last year, with very little health professional representation.

The recommendations to use simpler words to describe food and nutrition concepts on food labels is also important for consumers.

Commitment to finalisation of a comprehensive Nutrition, Health and Related Claim legislation is welcomed given debate on the topic has been going on for nearly 20 years.

Elevation of the monitoring and enforcement of labelling issues to the same status as food safety issues is also an important recommendation.

The recommendation for the formation of a Trans-Tasman Food Labelling Bureau is also a good first step, but a more comprehensive Food and Therapeutic Goods Authority would be better for consumers and regulators given the widespread abuse at the food-therapeutic goods interface (where Govt Jurisdiction is a pathetic game).

Ill-informed recommendations:

The emphasis on added sugars but ignorance of refined starches is a concern as both are detrimental to health when consumed in excessive amounts.

More nutrition information on alcoholic beverages is welcomed, but limitation of full Nutrition Information to mixed alcoholic beverages will not help prevent the rampant consumer deception occurring with low-carb claims on beer, for example.

Recommendations to use a Traffic Light Labelling scheme are clearly at odds with the evidence from the UK where %DI/GDA labelling has been shown to be at least equally effective for consumer education when the two systems operate in parallel (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20546813).  %DI information is now on several thousands of foods in Australia – introducing a parallel scheme that is not demonstratively superior is not in anyone’s interest. “

———–

The study was conducted by independent company IPSOS Eureka Social Research Institute between December 2009 and June 2010, using focus groups and mixed telephone and computer polling of a random sample of more than 1,000 Australians aged 18 years and over.

A report of the full findings is available here.

The press release is available here.

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 or by email.

———–

Dr Megan Munsie is Senior Manager, Research and Government at the Australian Stem Cell Centre

“We are pleased Australians continue to support stem cell research as shown by such a high level of awareness and acceptance in this Report. At the Australian Stem Cell Centre we have worked tirelessly to make stem cell research accessible to the community through our engagement with teachers, students, patient groups and community groups such as Rotary.

It is not a surprise that stem cell research enjoys such a high level of support as this branch of science still offers unheralded potential to ease pain and suffering. It is important though that the public continue to be informed of the true progress of the underlying science and its appropriate medical use and isn’t misled by hype. There is a danger that community expectations are outpacing the rate of scientific and medical progress and that this is creating an “expectations vacuum” with the Australian public. Such a vacuum creates the opportunity for exploitation of the Australian public by overseas companies and clinics offering stem cell treatments now with little or no scientific basis let alone proof of safety. Our Patient Information Handbook provides a wealth of information for those who are interested in finding out more about stem cell research and therapies, in particular those offered overseas.

In Australia we are fortunate to have a well regulated health system that tests and approves new drugs and treatments. Whilst the progress of medical research can often seem painfully slow and frustrating for those in need, the public can be assured that when new stem cell treatments are approved in Australia they will be both safe and effective which warrants a high level of confidence and support from the Australian public.”

———–

Associate Professor Kuldip Sidhu is Director of the Stem Cell Lab and Chair of Stem Cell Biology at the University of New South Wales

“The benefits of biotechnologies in human health, food and environment are quite apparent and there are more to come, particularly in human health by the use of stem cells in regenerative medicine. By and large the general public is quite aware of the recent development in these areas and endorsing the benefits of such technologies. Any scepticism that remains about the use of such technologies can be eliminated by proper education through media and more importantly by proper labelling on the products. Transparency of the information thus is the key to its acceptability.”

———–

Associate Professor Christopher Preston is an Associate Professor in Weed Management at the University of Adelaide

“Two-thirds of the Australian public continue to support the use of biotechnology in food production, despite the considerable amount of negative comment on the subject made by some activist groups. Genetically-modified crops have been grown worldwide for 15 years and are now grown by 14 million farmers, most of whom are in developing countries. This demonstrates the power of biotechnology in helping to develop solutions to agricultural problems. However, these technologies still need to be adopted in the correct manner in order that other problems, like pest resistance, do not arise from their use.”

———–

Professor Mike Jones is a Professor of Agricultural Biotechnology at Murdoch University, Perth

“Rapid advances in fundamental knowledge of the biology of plants and animals, including humans, is being applied through biotechnology. The application of this knowledge to benefit the world’s population will continue to expand at an increasing rate. The public attitude towards biotechnology is often based more on perception and misinformation, than on a sound understanding of the science and relative risks.  This is the case for GM crops, which have been embraced by globally by farmers, and in 2009 there were 134 million hectares grown in 26 countries. In the current year, in Western Australia, growth of GM canola has expanded from about 800 hectares to 72,00 hectares – a real vote of confidence from farmers. Growing GM crops reduces pesticide use and contributes increased yields and tolerance to drought and other environmental stresses – this is needed to feed an extra 70 million people each year. The major threat to biodiversity is a low yielding agriculture, typified by organic farming, and low yielding agriculture leads to further encroachment into marginal lands where much of the biodiversity now resides. The latest survey to public attitudes indicates a continuing shift towards an understanding of the benefits of biotechnology in Australia, a trend that is likely to continue as biotechnology is increasingly applied to help solve some of the world’s challenges in the future.”

———–