1.GM critics ignorant, says chief scientist
2.Farmers critical of scientist
NOTE: According to a former chief executive of CSIRO - Australian Chief Scientist Jim Peacock's previous employer, "Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense... Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=458
What makes sense for Peacock and CSIRO, and what makes sense for Australian farmers wanting to retain their markets, are two rather different things - see item 2.
For more on the dubious mindset and spin of pro-GM scientists like Peacock see "Genetically Modified Language - Professor Bullsh*t unspun!"
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=68&page=1
---
1.GM critics ignorant, says chief scientist
Chee Chee Leung
The Age, May 16 2007 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gm-critics-ignorant-says-chief-scientist/2007/05/15/1178995158653.html
AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist has criticised opponents of genetic modification, describing them as "unprincipled minorities" that were spreading false facts and hype.
Speaking at a conference in Melbourne, Jim Peacock said those circulating misinformation about GM were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists".
His comments were made during a session on biotechnology and food at the Future Summit, where Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, said he believed resistance to GM was starting to wane. "The fear I think is gradually and slowly receding," Sir Gustav said after the session. "But I also think this is something that doesn't need to be rushed."
The Sunday Age reported last weekend that the Bracks Government was preparing to end the state's moratorium on commercial planting of GM canola, which expires at the end of next February.
But on Monday, Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper denied that the Government had made up its mind, saying there would be broad consultation before any decision was made on the moratorium.
Dr Peacock, who played an important role in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO, told yesterday's conference that gene technology had improved the world's understanding of living things, and "this new knowledge should be put to the best possible use".
"I'm saddened by the delay that has been brought about by what I think are unprincipled minorities." This group was denying Australia the environmental, health and economic benefits of biotechnology.
The Biological Farmers of Australia described Dr Peacock's comments about organic farmers as inappropriate and "a cheap shot". Greenpeace campaigner Louise Sales said the statements were "outrageous", and that those opposed to GM made up a majority of the population, not a minority.
The latest National Technology and Society Monitor, released by Swinburne University and based on a survey of 1000 people, found that a majority were uncomfortable with GM plants and animals for food.
Dr Peacock said that GM foods were unlikely to become part of the regular food supply until consumers could see a real, personal benefit from the products. "It could be convenience, and it could be cheapness, but I think the telling one will be health."
Dr Peacock said that people like himself had "probably failed miserably" in recent years to help the public gain a better understanding of gene technology.
Sir Gustav said the technology's most valuable contribution was "how it helps us to learn". "Even if we never deploy a genetically-modified food organism anywhere in the world, the amount of learning that we are doing through genetic modification in the laboratory is of the most profound importance," he said.
---
2.Farmers critical of scientist
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2312
Press release: for immediate release
Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), July 2005
In response to the pro-GM statements made by Australian Academy of Science president, Dr Jim Peacock during a televised address at the Press club, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) are asking farmers not to trust scientists that have a vested interest.
"It is rubbish to say that GM crops are going to feed the world when non-GM varieties appear to be yielding more," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers.
"Over 90% of the worlds crop is non-GM despite the huge push for these patented GM crops over the last decade. The truth is being modified more than the genetics and farmers aren't gullible enough to be conned for long."
"The last people farmers should be listening to for direction and advise is the scientists and industry players that have a vested interest in this patented product. We need to listen to our marketers who clearly state the advantage of being GM-free."
The NCF claim Mr Peacock should have revealed the financial ties that scientific sectors such as CSIRO have with companies such as Monsanto. Mr Peacock stated in his address the science sector had failed to win public support for transgenic crops. Mrs Newman explained that a major reason for failing to gain support from farmers is because the reluctant public buy farmers products, the sums don't add up to a profit and the costs are too high on those that do not want to adopt GM crops.
"Farmers need to be aware that the real yields fall well short of what has been promised and this has been proven by independent trials. We should be very suspicious that further independent trials have been rejected by the GM companies until there is an unhindered clear pathway for commercialisation. It is obvious they don't want us to know the truth until it is to late to salvage our GM-free status."
The NCF claim there is some support for GM but it is based on farmers being frightened of the future and want to urge farmers to base decisions on facts, not unsubstantiated claims.
The NCF believe that GM may soon be an outdated technology superseded by better non-GM biotechnology advances. Mrs Newman gave an example of non-GM biotechnology techniques capable of short-cutting the breeding processes by crossing arctic grasses with cereal crops for frost tolerance. The NCF believe that because scientists will financially benefit more from GM technology, they are reluctant to explain these better non-GM alternatives.
"If GM is released commercially, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to market as GM-free so we need to listen very carefully to our markets. It is clear that market rejection is worsening and we need to be extremely cautious to ensure we have risk management to prevent non-GM farmers being affected."
Mrs Newman explained that consumers prefer a non-GM product and non-GM farmers were expected to be liable for testing costs, duplicate storage and handling and trying to keep GM out of their product. If segregation failed, non-GM farmers were to be liable for the cost difference if the product is downgraded to GM or for economic loss experienced if the product can not be sold. The NCF believe it will not be possible to control contamination to satisfy market and legal demands.
"Those pushing GM crops must realise that non-GM farmers will not accept any contamination if we are expected to be liable for the economic loss caused by it," insisted Mrs Newman.
"A strict liability regime is essential to ensure the polluter pays, not the polluted."