AAS-Conferences and lectures-16.07.03

In eating your lunch you have just placed some billions of genes into your intestinal tract, genes from a number of species of plants and from animals. But none of you will acquire any of the characteristics of those plants or animals. It is possible that one or two of you in the room didn't eat all of your lunch because you know that you have an allergy to one of the foods on the plate but mostly you have enjoyed the food knowing that it is safe. You have unconsciously relied on the regulatory mechanisms of your body and on the regulatory bodies of our society. You feel safe with your food. Genes are a natural part of food and yet we now seem to have a lot of emotion surrounding genes and the food business.

Australia is in a puzzling position in regard to genetically modified crops. Transgenic cotton has been a part of Australian agribusiness for the past six years and has been a major success, bringing with it a number of benefits. In fact, it has saved an industry which was under threat from pests resistant to the available insecticides and it has transformed the industry into one that is sustainable and high-earning for Australia.

The introduction of an insect-proofing gene has reduced insecticide sprays by 60% and, as from the coming season when a second gene will be introduced, we are expecting a 90% reduction in the application of insecticides – a major environmental success. The specificity of the insect-proofing has meant that many of the beneficial insects that live in the cotton crop are not killed as they were with the sprays. They are now controlling the other insect pests of the crop.

In addition to the insect-proofing, another transgenic trait has been introduced – tolerance to the herbicide, glyphosate, or Roundup. This, too, has had major benefits. It has done away with a need for the labour intensive removal of weeds out of the cotton crop. In the past the cotton chippers were exposed to the area's agricultural chemicals. Apart from the environmental and health benefits, farmers now enjoy a better lifestyle and increased profits and regional economies are stronger. So, why aren't we repeating this success story with other crops? What has gone wrong?

Six years after the introduction of GM cotton, we now have moratoria or freezes in five States and one Territory against commercial GM canola. Why have we come up with a negative position?

The major issue that has driven governments to apply a moratorium seems to have been concern over market access, both for transgenic and non-transgenic canola crops. This concern is without factual basis.

Canada grows 85% of its crop as transgenic canola and has absolutely no difficulty in marketing the crop, most of it going to Japan, a country that accepts both transgenic and non-transgenic canola. Canada, our principal competitor, is enjoying the increased yields of hybrid canola associated with the transgenic trait. Australia could find itself in great difficulty in maintaining a future position in the global market if we don't soon introduce the new technology.

Who is to blame for this situation? Is it the politicians? Is it the public? The media? Farmers? The activist groups? Scientists? Probably all must bear some of the blame.

The politicians have had pressures put on them because of concerns of pollen contamination, the need for crop segregation, and other market matters. But there is a suspicion that at least some of the moratoria rest on political issues. It is odd that some of our States are intent upon putting out the message that they are champions of biotechnology, seeing it as a driver of the future industries of Australia whilst, at the same time, they are rejecting the use of some of the most powerful and beneficial biotechnologies available.

The public have concerns about the technology, driven largely by media reports, often fed by activist groups who for one reason or another speak ill of GM crops. Just what their agenda is I don't know but in most cases their messages are not supported by factual information.

Scientists, generally, have not been effective in helping the public understand what gene technologies can do for our industries, our food supply and our environments. But they haven't failed in every case. Let's look at why cotton was successful.

The industry recognised that it did not have a sustainable agricultural system – it was on the way out – it was dependent on chemicals and the pests were fast becoming resistant to those chemicals. There were negative environmental effects from the heavy use of insecticides – our waterways were under threat. So, farmers were aware of the need for a new technology, a new way of farming.

I think it was important that a public research body, CSIRO, was directly involved in the development of transgenic cotton here in Australia. CSIRO worked with a Monsanto gene construct which was incorporated into Australian-bred cultivars and the seed was sold by a non-profit farmer cooperative seed company.

Another major factor of success was that the purchased licence to grow transgenic cotton brought with it an agreement by the farmer to carry out certain management actions which would reduce the possibility of any build-up of resistance in the pest insects. This is a technology we can't waste – correct management has to go hand-in-hand with the new genetics.

Farmers were also involved in the extensive trials of the transgenic crops preceding the commercial release.

An important factor was that global markets for the lint and for the seed were assured prior to the commercial production phase. Extensive communication ensured good community awareness of the development of the crop and its potential advantages.

The regulatory bodies in Australia made sure that every potential hazard was examined. We have native cottons in this country and CSIRO were required to do thousands and thousands of tests to determine whether there was any possibility of gene transfer to our native cotton species. There wasn't. There was a complete genetic block. Every aspect of safety was thoroughly worked through.

I believe that transgenic cotton provides a model example for the successful entry of this new and sustainable technology into productive agriculture.

Our cotton crop isn't alone in the world. Fifty-eight million hectares of transgenic crops were grown in this past year and all of them found ready markets. They include cotton, canola, soybean and maize. Most of these crops entered the food chain.

I have calculated that at least thirty billion meals involving the products of these crops have been eaten in the last six years. This is a lot of food consumed by a lot of people and there is not a single report of adverse health effects. Nor is there a single case of negative effects on biodiversity or on other aspects of the environment in which these crops were grown.

At the International Genetics Congress last week I heard the paper by Professor Ammann of Switzerland who examined some two hundred reports of transgenic cropping and found not a single case of untoward effects on biodiversity, not a single case of environmental damage. So, the claims that are often made which argue that GM foods are potentially harmful to our health and to the environment simply have no factual basis. They are mischievous and misleading.

I would go further – they can be cruel in their effects as in the recent case of the refusal of food aid in Zambia. Corn from the United States was refused because it contained some GM seed. Food so badly needed was rejected and many people starved.

Food is so important in our world. We are going to need all the new technologies as they are developed to help us meet the challenge of producing more food on the same amount or less arable land, and to achieve this without damage to the land – a precious resource. We need to double our food supply for the population that will exist in the next thirty to forty years.

Not all gene technology research leads to the production of GMOs or transgenic crops. In fact, at present, most gene research is leading to smarter, faster crop improvement using conventional breeding technologies, and it is very exciting.

The growing realisation that food can be a major factor in preventative medicine will be a key driver for our future agribusiness. A number of major diseases in western society are associated with diet. Their incidence can be reduced by food which has optimised health-promoting characteristics. We know a lot about human nutrition these days and we should be eating food which matches our health needs.

We are just at the dawn of realising how important agriculture will be as a preventative health industry. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer, obesity all cost our societies billions of dollars in therapeutic treatments. Any measure to reduce their prevalence is something to be treasured.

Let me give you one example of an exciting prospect. About two years ago here in Canberra, we found a barley plant with a changed starch composition in the grain. The change to a high amylose starch suggested it could have positive health functionality.

In the past couple of years, we have conducted trials with rats, pigs, scientists, and now humans. The first human trial examined its suitability as a food for pre-diabetic and diabetic conditions. It has a low glycaemic index, very favourable insulin metering characteristics and is likely to be of considerable value in both the avoidance and management of diabetes.

This barley is not a GMO – it has a natural genetic change and can enter the food chain immediately as can any other variety of barley. Only one genetic letter in one starch gene has been changed – and, it's nice to eat.

We have further human trials underway where we predict a cholesterol lowering activity, and maybe most important of all, that our barley may have very positive health benefits for your bowel.

We found the same mutation in the world collection of barleys that is held in Fort Collins in the United States. It has exactly the same properties. We have also been able to produce the same change by transgenic methods – no new proteins, no chance of allergens, no new genes, just a volume control to turn down the activity of that one starch gene.

In contrast to the CSIRO and Fort Collins barleys, the GMO barley, although it has exactly the same properties, can't enter the food chain. It is not acceptable in our society at present because it is a GM plant – ridiculous isn't it? In this case it doesn't matter because we have the non-transgenic barley plants that can enter the food chain right away.

But there are many properties of our food that will be able to be optimised for health where we will need to use transgenic methods. Is it right for us to reject this new level of knowledge and this new, safe technology?

Gene technology will also be of major importance in the food supply of developing countries. Eight hundred million people didn't have enough food to eat this past year and six million children under five died because of malnourishment. Poverty, political instability and poor yields all played a part.

Crop yields per capita have levelled off around the world and in Africa they have dropped. Africa relies on massive food purchasing and food aid and still 30% of the population are under-nourished. We have to help overcome this problem.

In subsistence farming where the farmer has only a tiny area of land to produce the family's food supply, one pest event can wipe out a half year's food for the family. The addition of an insect-proofing gene or a disease-proofing gene would in many cases make the difference between starvation and a sufficient food supply.

Instructions to resist the challenges of pests and disease can be built into the genetic makeup of the seed providing a farmer-friendly packaging of the new technology not reliant on other infrastructure. Farmer saved seed will be able to be used from year to year.

Even in low input agriculture, the subsistence farmer can expect to produce about one tonne of food per hectare and this is enough to keep the family away from starvation. If the yield is increased to two tonnes per hectare, the families of the rural poor would then be able to earn some money by trading food and then be able to provide for some health and educational care for their children. Our world can't turn its back on problems such as these.

One-third of the world's population suffers from iron deficiency and/or vitamin A deficiency – massive diseases of poor nutrition. These are the people who have rice as their staple diet.

You may well have heard of Golden Rice which has been developed using transgenic technologies so that the rice grain will produce beta-carotene which our bodies turn into Vitamin A. The additional three genes built into the genetic tape of rice promise a lot of hope for removing the suffering of vitamin A deficiencies, particularly in children.

The other major nutritional deficiency is the lack of iron. Australian scientists have been attempting to teach the rice grain to produce more haemoglobin in the hope it will increase the amount of bio-available iron and alleviate the dreadful suffering that iron deficiency brings in developing children and women of reproductive age. Rice, like every other plant, actually produces haemoglobin, just a tiny amount in the grain. It is a natural product of plants – it isn't just an animal protein. The strategy is to turn up the volume of production of haemoglobin in the grain. Results are promising but so far the needed daily levels have not been reached.

We need to accelerate these research programs and others like them. We need to accelerate publicly-funded research programs concerning food production, particularly in Australia where we have a competitive advantage. We need to improve our knowledge of the genes of crop plants, increasing the value of their products, and ensuring the possibility of forging partnerships with the major food companies, partnerships with appropriate and not exploitative conditions. We need to ensure there are policies in place to give clear access to these new genetic resources to all countries of the world.

Returning to the question of where we have gone wrong in Australia in recent years, I'd say that in the case of canola, in contrast to the cotton situation, we didn't have all the bits of the jigsaw together. It should be possible to put everything in place within the next one or two seasons.

GMOs do not deserve to have a reputation as something to be avoided or feared. We have an ethical obligation to explore the benefits of GM food, both to alleviate suffering in the developing world and to maximise the benefits of gene technology for environmental health, economic health, and human health in societies like Australia.

I'd like to give a message to the decision makers in our state governments who are deciding on moratoria and freezes. GM crops present big opportunities for biotechnology in Australia. By getting the facts straight about transgenic crops, I believe our political masters will see that as far as biotechnology is concerned, we can have our cake, and we can safely eat it too.

[ Home | Contacts | Search | Index ]