News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 GM wheat report anger 

GM wheat report anger

06 Jul, 2011 10:41 AM
A GREENPEACE report on genetically modified (GM) wheat, due to be released tomorrow, will “irresponsibly create fear and undertake scaremongering”, critics say.

Agrifood Awareness Australia chief executive Paula Fitzgerald said to those who did not have an understanding of the Australian grains industry the report on GM wheat would appear credible.

However, she said it contained questionable claims, such as suggesting GM wheat would be available in 2015.

“This is their second attempt to irresponsibly create fear and undertake scaremongering about perfectly safe plant science and new crop varieties that are at least seven to 10 years away from the marketplace," Ms Fitzgerald said.

The report also attempts to portray a negative view of work done by the CSIRO in biotechnology research, including new plants with health benefits.

“To suggest the organisation is engaging in unsafe science and not delivering public benefits to Australia is both false and mischievous,” she said.

“Australian farmers do not, and will not in the future, produce unsafe food."

Industry members have also questioned why Greenpeace sent the report, titled Australia’s wheat scandal: The biotech takeover of our daily bread, to selected reporters, suggesting they had cherry-picked “susceptible journalists” to increase the likelihood of favourable media coverage.

Rural Press journalists were not among those presented with the report.

Greenpeace also failed to consult leading grower and industry groups during the document’s development, including the National Farmers Federation, Grain Producers Australia, Grain Growers Limited and the Grain Exporters Association.

“Nobody in the Australian grains industry knew about this before it appeared in the media on Monday,” one industry source said.

“It’s fair to say the Australian grains industry was taken by surprise at this latest attempt by Greenpeace to disrupt the industry and take it backwards.”

National Farmers Federation President, Jock Laurie, said providing misleading information to city-centric audiences with limited industry knowledge was a “regular tactic” of several organisations, “as we have seen in the live export debate over the past month”.

“Unfortunately, we need to make sure that there is balanced commentary going out from all groups when it comes to these issues and they are not skewed one way or another,” he said.

Mr Laurie said the NFF believed any new technologies, like GM wheat, needed appropriate protocols in place.

“We need to make sure people have choices and if they choose to be organic they can be organic,” he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Paula Fitzgerald would say that really wouldn't she? Given that most of her funding comes from the GM crop industry. There is no market in the world for GM wheat - this is why Monsanto gave up plans to market it in 2005.

Now they are trying to find a way to make GM wheat more 'pallatable' to farmers and the public by trying to develop drought and salt tolerant strains. Well we're not fooled. Other techniques exist for developing drought and salt tolerant crops that don't pose the sames risks as GM - and don't put the control of our food supply in the hands of giant multinationals.

Posted by Lou, 6/07/2011 11:45:55 AM
Who do you work for Lou? (I'm guessing one of the anti-GM groups)
Posted by Pete, 6/07/2011 12:29:48 PM
This is simply an opinion piece. Completely biased. I would like to see both sides thanks. I guess this is why they contacted media that would provide some detailed information, not one sided opinion from within the questioned industry. This is not journalism, it's blogging. Label it accordingly.
Posted by Lee, 6/07/2011 12:39:23 PM
This article missed the point. If GM wheat is released commercially in WA, the market perception is that all of our wheat is GM unless we prove it is non-GM (meaning zero GM). In other words, we are all forced to market as GM and yet no market in the world wants GM. That is industry sabotage.

Paula Fitzgerald is paid $100,000/year by GRDC to push a pro-GM policy through farm lobby groups in support of the research sector who has alliances with Monsanto.

Why should farmers support GRDC when research is clearly in the hands of the corporate sector?

Posted by Julie Newman, 6/07/2011 12:45:06 PM
This is an Amercia company and the farmers in America wouldn't have a bar of it. So it looks like we are the patsies again thanks to our regulators.

Next question who the hell is going to eat this!!!

Posted by Holisticmick, 6/07/2011 1:07:41 PM
I wonder how much the executives of Greenpeace are paid annually to peddle the anti GM line? How dare this multinational organisation scare monger and work to keep Australian agriculture from exploring technologies that may assist us to become more environmentally sustainable, reduce our use of chemicals and be better prepared for the effects of climate change
Posted by GRDC levy payer, 6/07/2011 2:13:10 PM
Greenpeace has published a number of reports on GM which are misleading or just plain wrong.

Farmers in both rich and poor companies are finding GM the technology of choice for some or all of their farms.

Farmers check on Greenpeace and find overwhelming independent evidence that the Greenpeace claims and studies are wrong.

Consumers eat GM food every day without concern.

Why must anti-gm activists lobby governments to lock up GM food. In the face of food shortages people have to resort to theft to access food gifted to them and grown by farmers in neighboring countries.

Posted by 1Aussie, 6/07/2011 2:17:40 PM
The so-called organic industry opposes GM food for the basest of self interests. It is just squalid old anti-competitive behaviour.

Given the costs involved in developing and testing new gm strains, any new strain must have a significant productive advantage over non-gm product, otherwise it would not be worth releasing at all. And this means that gm products will have a lower break-even price than the non-gm strains and be able to deliver a larger volume.

Organic farmers with lower prices and lower volumes will not be able to compete with gm growers.

Posted by Ian Mott, 6/07/2011 3:35:54 PM
@ Pete - no I don't work for an anti-GM group - I'm just tired of Colin Bettles constantly passing off Paula Fitzgerald's media releases as his own work. Where is the balance?
Posted by Lou, 6/07/2011 4:07:41 PM
we'll see if farmers associations were consulted or not when the report comes out and how valid the claims are;

how do you dispute something you don't have yet? come on people, both sides have had their respective propaganda machines in overdrive for a while now, have some patience

Posted by Ty Bennet, 6/07/2011 5:05:22 PM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you see more positive environmental changes taking place now that the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate?

Yes
(12%)

No
(88%)

Total Votes: 707
Poll Date: 04 July, 2011

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...