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

 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 Nancy Millis AC is from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne

“It is extraordinary that an organisation that claims to act rationally should have broken the law of trespass and then destroyed a GM field trial (the property of CSIRO). Those who engaged in this unlawful behaviour, appear to believe that lawful, appropriately, scrutinised and licenced activities of which they do not approve, can be destroyed whatever they wish.

The modification of wheat to improve its nutritional value, its agronomic properties and/or yield are surely in the best interests of the Australian community and the world’s under nourished populations. The behaviour of the misguided zealots who destroyed, in dead of night important scientific work shows a planned, wilful contempt for the law, OGTR, science and the Australian community. Those who behave in this way must be speedily brought to account.”

———– 

Professor Mark Tester is a plant scientist at the University of Adelaide

 “I am deeply disappointed at the news that Greenpeace has stooped so far in their desperate attempt to gain publicity for their campaign against genetically modified wheat. GM technology is not a magic bullet but it does offer new opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of wheat. Scientists are trying to reduce the environmental impacts of farming and so help farmers in the developing world and Australia.

 One cannot make any generalisations about GM or any other technology – it all depends on how it is used. It’s like saying that all nuclear technology is bad and then getting radiotherapy to treat cancer. Some applications would be bad but others have the chance to do some real good for the world. One cannot say that all GM is good or that all GM is bad but it is one of many tools in our toolbox to try and help protect the environment and feed people around the world.

 We have been modifying the genomes of plants for thousands of years using breeding technologies and continue to do so, giving them the properties that we desire. Previously we have been crossing plants and hoping for the best – now we are able to selectively choose the genes that we want and discard the ones that we don’t.

 Genetic modification may not solve all the problems, but with growing populations and climate change causing more extreme weather events, then it doesn’t make sense to ignore this potentially useful tool.”

 ———–
Anna-Maria Arabia is CEO of Science & Technology Australia which represents 68,000 scientists nationally (formerly FASTS)

“Destroying research that provides answers to important questions affecting our health and safety is counterproductive and insults scientists who undertake their work professionally, with integrity, and without fear or favour.

The scientific process of testing, analysis and peer review is rigorous and yields information we can rely on to make big and small decisions every day. Peer reviewed science gives us confidence to use new technologies and new medical treatments. Agricultural research is conducted via the same robust scientific process and has contributed to improved farming practices, helped tackle food security, climate and disease challenges. To shut down a scientific trial by effectively destroying the laboratory it is conducted in is deplorable, undemocratic, and will not give us answers to important questions raised in this area of research.

Science is relied on by everyone, every day. Whether using a pace maker, WiFi or simply getting the daily weather report, we can have confidence that these products and information have their foundations in rigorous peer-reviewed science and give us information we can trust.”
———–

Michael Jones is Director of the WA State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre at Murdoch University in Perth

“Australia is destined to become the ‘stupid country’ if it condones acts such as Greenpeace’s destruction of the CSIRO wheat trials. Farmers, researchers and the agricultural industry in Australia have long recognised the need for research to underpin development of better wheat varieties with improved productivity and quality. These advances are increasingly more effective when they are based on knowledge of the genes that underlie crop traits. Gene technology is an increasingly important part of providing the knowledge needed to produce better wheat varieties, and field testing of GM wheat is an important part of that process. Greenpeace’s Luddite destruction of GM field tests does nothing to address global agronomic and food security, and simply wastes taxpayers and farmers’ funds.”

———–

Dr Christopher Preston is an Associate Professor in the School of Agriculture, Food and Wine at the University of Adelaide

 ”As an active scientist, I am appalled that a fellow scientist’s experiments have been destroyed through this action. I would be extremely upset if a member of the public had knowingly interfered with and destroyed some of my own scientific research that aims to improve the sustainability of Australian farmers. The destroyed trial was a small research trial that had been approved after assessment by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). The OGTR had assessed the trial to offer no significant threat to human health or the environment.

 These trials are not just about the development of genetically modified crops that may at some future time be developed commercially, but frequently provide spin-off information that is of use in our understanding of gene action in the environment. This important information is also lost.”

 ———–

 Dr Jeremy Burdon is Chief of CSIRO’s Plant Industry Division

 ”CSIRO can confirm there has been a break-in overnight at their crop trial site at Ginninderra in the ACT. The police, and the government’s gene technology regulatory authority – the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) – have been informed and are inspecting the site. CSIRO is currently assessing the damage to the trial crops and considering next steps.”

———–

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.”

———–

The AusSMC has rounded up Australian experts to comment on this research. Feel free to use these comments in your stories. If you would like to speak to one of these or other experts, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 8207 7415 or by email.

Dr Christopher Preston is a Programme Leader for the CRC for Weed Management and Head of the Discipline Plant & Food Science in the School of Agriculture at the University of Adelaide.

“Farming systems can be quite different in Europe compared to Australia. In Europe, deep cultivation is often practiced, which will bury canola seed and induce secondary dormancy. The seed will not germinate until exposed again by another tillage operation. In Australia, most farmers practice minimum tillage, with shallow cultivation, or no-till with no cultivation. In these systems, canola seed is left on the soil surface for longer and either germinates, is eaten by ants or decays.

Recent surveys of farm canola seed banks in South Australia have shown the seed banks decay rapidly and are almost extinct by 3.5 years after harvest. The seed remaining in the seed bank 2.5 years after harvest are mostly unable to germinate. Farmers in Australia can manage canola seed banks easily by ensuring no deep tillage and no tillage over the summer months in order to leave the seed on the surface.”

Dr Peter Vesk is a Lecturer with expertise in ecological management at the University of Melbourne’s School of Botany.

“This work along with other studies of GM- oilseed rape (canola) indicates the likely persistence of GM seed for over 10 yrs after a single GM crop. While much of the decline in soil-stored seed happens in the first year or two, some seeds last for a good deal longer.

The question is how many seeds persist to different times? I don’t know of any longer study than this. As more studies are done, longer persistence times will certainly be reported. But predictions of the actual number of seeds left after long times are highly uncertain. It will come down to what risk of GM-contamination people are prepared to bare.”

Professor Mark Westoby is a plant ecologist in the Department of Biological Science at Macquarie University.

“This study confirms that GM crops are difficult to confine. Like any life-form, they have potential to disperse across space or (as in this case) through time. Although the great majority of seeds produced were killed by harvesting or by good management through the ensuing decade, the small percentage surviving after ten years still amounted to about 100 GM seedlings per hectare.”

“We should assume that GM organisms cannot be confined, and ask instead what will become of them when they escape, or when the genes they contain escape to wild relatives. In the particular case of GM herbicide-tolerance, there is no reason why it should have competitive advantage anywhere except where herbicides are being used. So its escape is a potential problem for crop production but not for natural ecosystems.”

On Friday 29 February, the moratorium on the planting of GM canola effectively ends in NSW and Victoria. Yet debate continues about what the impact of planting GM canola will be. While genetically modified cotton has been grown in Australia for the past ten years, the planting of GM canola brings new questions about the role of GM in Australian farming.

BRIEFING DETAILS:
DATE: Friday, 29 February 2008
TIME: 10.30am AEDT
VENUE: Melbourne & Online
DURATION: 60 min

Along with the potential for reward, planting GM canola brings risks. From reduced herbicide use to the creation of ‘superweeds’, uncovering the science behind these risks and benefits can be difficult. Which concerns are the most scientifically justified? What is to be gained or lost? Which risks can be managed and which can’t?

Join this AusSMC background media briefing on the day the Victorian moratorium lifts and hear from the Chair of the Review and three GM scientists discussing the risks and benefits of GM canola.

FOOTNOTE: For a broader range of views from other experts, go to our Rapid Roundup on GM canola.

SPEAKERS:

Introduction by Dr Susannah Eliott - CEO of the AusSMCProfessor Sir Gustav Nossal - Chair of the Review of the moratorium of GM canola in VictoriaProfessor Rick Roush - Dean of Land and Food Resources, University of MelbourneDr Chris Preston - Programme Leader for the Weeds CRC and University of AdelaideDr TJ Higgins - Deputy Chief, CSIRO Plant Industry

PRESENTATIONS:

Full Briefing:
View here (arf)

Susannah Eliott’s Presentation:
Listen (mp3)

Gustav Nossal’s Presentation:
Listen (mp3)

Rick Roush’s Presentation:
View PowerPoint (pdf) | Listen (mp3)

Chris Preston’s Presentation:
Listen (mp3)

T J Higgins’ Presentation:
View PowerPoint (pdf) | Listen (mp3)

Q & A Session:
Listen (mp3)