The GM breakfast debate

Last week’s breakfast show at an inner city hotel gave an opportunity to both sides of the so-called debate on GM in agriculture a chance to strut their stuff.

The Australian chief of Monsanto, Peter O’Keefe is relatively new in his role and presented an overview to the Rural Press Club of Victoria of the progress made by his company in a key product area. The event was warmly anticipated by a hardy group of about 25 seasoned protesters (and that may be generous) who established a small stand in front of the venue, and about half that number of police and security again who were in wait for some excitement.

In the end the event itself was thankfully a fairly anti-climatic and tame affair. The Life Sciences company executive gave a very detailed chapter and verse of the story of the product and its progress in the Victorian market, followed by a set of well-rehearsed statements and fear-mongering anecdotes which were presented in return by a number of anti-GM protagonists.

Do we actually need a debate on the merits of the use of genetically-modified crops, pastures and foods in this country? It seems pretty clear that we do. For starters, some states retain a moratorium on their use; our national government is querying the resources applied in future to sustain the competitiveness of agriculture; the community is far more demanding of farming to minimise environmental impact and... a climate that is drier, but clearly prone to serve up extremes. In future there is little doubt world farming needs to make much more from far less to feed an expanding world market. For Australian farmers, it’s one of whether we take the chance to be in the game or not.

Frankly if this was the best material from each side of the debate, then it is a wonder there is even a debate at all, as the technical gains will surely speak for themselves and commercial business operators on farms and food companies will make their own calls. While the opportunities available to grain growers to save costs and improve yields are impressive, the case “for GM” needs a far better pitch, with a case that compels the community to come on board. There is a showcase of potential benefits for the environment, farming viability, human health and the future ability to feed the world that need to be far better conveyed by GM advocates.

On the other side of the fence, the critics of the advance of GM in this country prefer to retain the appearance of activists rather than well-informed thought-leaders. My own direct exposure to advocates of the non-GM movement show there is a very poor understanding of the structure of food industries, food markets and the acute pressures on the sustainability of food production in a country like Australia. Anecdotes about seed-drift, European consumer studies, the effects of rats’ testicles and “R&D funding corruption” amount to little or no credibility. Most glaringly, there is absolutely no response from that side of the fence as to how the hell we will fill the world food gap in 20-30 years? Until that fundamental issue is tackled, a debate on this issue will remain a non-event.