23) Greenpeace and the Agricultural Policy of GMO Wheat

Greenpeace's destruction of a GM wheat trial: a more political than ideological act?

In the early hours of Thursday morning, Greenpeace destroyed a GM wheat trial plot in a northern Canberra suburb, sparking outrage among scientists. The destruction was called “mindless vandalism” by the Australian Academy of Science, and was roundly criticised on Twitter, even compared to Chris Monckton’s anti-science.

Debates Around GMO Crops

Opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops ranges from outright denial to measured criticism of the testing and regulatory processes. Greenpeace stands out for its concerns about the testing, approval and labelling of GM products. The organisation has drawn attention to the fact that Australian parents could be feeding their children GM soya products without proper labelling, following a deal between the Howard government and the agribusiness lobby..

Contamination: The Economic Risk

The heart of the conflict is the potential for contamination of Australian wheat crops by GM wheat trials. Greenpeace is concerned that GM wheat trials currently underway or planned across Australia could result in contamination of non-GM wheat crops. This concern is reinforced by the example of GM soya, where contamination has become part of the regulatory framework for some foods.

Responses and Criticisms

Greenpeace critics, such as the president of the Academy of Sciences, Professor Suzanne Cory, argue that the trials are approved under strict containment conditions. Greenpeace counters that 13 of the 29 contamination incidents recorded in Australia have occurred during trials approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and that the CSIRO has committed 17 breaches of OGTR conditions in recent years.

The Risk for Export

The major concern with GM wheat contamination is that it could harm Australian wheat exports to key markets that reject or require strict GM labelling, such as Japan, Europe and South Korea. Australia is the only one of the five largest wheat exporters to continue GM wheat trials. Other countries, such as the United States and Canada, have abandoned or suspended GM wheat projects after negative reactions from their farmers.

Interests at Stake

A major obstacle to GM wheat trials in Australia was AWB, which was reluctant to support any potential threat to wheat marketing. The acquisition of AWB by Canadian giant Agrium in 2010, and the sale of its grain management business to Cargill, eliminated its opposition to GM wheat. Greenpeace also questions why GM wheat trials were approved by the CSIRO when Doug Rathbone and John Stocker of Nufarm, Monsanto’s distributor in Australia, were on the CSIRO board.

Farmers' Reactions

The anti-GMO farmers group, the Network of Concerned Farmers, remains opposed to GM wheat testing, arguing that GM canola contamination reflects the GM industry's failure to prevent contamination. They have expressed support for the National Farmers Union of Canada's position against GM wheat testing.

Conclusion: A Political and Economic Conflict

GM advocates argue that global consumers are softening their opposition to GM foods and that GM wheat will eventually be accepted in export markets. Greenpeace and anti-GM farmers remain skeptical, believing that the costs of contamination, based on past experiences with other GM crops, would be too great. Opposition to GM wheat is therefore motivated more by bitter past experiences than by scientific skepticism.

Source: HERE