Learn how to

A diverse range of influential people are entering the GM debate, strongly opposing the use of genetically modified crops as a potential solution to world food shortages.

Prince Charles, organic agriculture advocate, has nominated the mass development of genetically modified crops as the world’s worst environmental disaster, and says multi-national companies trialling gene manipulation are engaging in a “gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which I think has gone seriously wrong”. And he mentioned the effects of hybrid crops of Australia as a worst-case-scenario in particular.

“Western Australia has huge salinisation problems which have come from some of the excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture.”

His comments have been nominated his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food so far, with the Prince expressing fear that - far from being a solution to world hunger - food would in fact run out due to the damage on the earth’s soil by scientists’ research. He said in the future relying on “gigantic corporations” for food, would result in “absolute disaster”.

“We have gone working against nature for too long… this is a classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future” he said, noting focusing on food security was not the same as focusing on food production. He also referenced India as one example where premature action on GM had created environmental havoc.

“I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place as result of the over demand on irrigation because of the hybrid seeds and grains that have been produced which demand huge amounts of water. [The] water table has disappeared. They have huge problems with water level, with pesticide problems, and complications which are now coming home to roost.”

His comments come as Australia begins harvesting GM Canola crops. Farmers in Australia have also adopted rapidly GM cotton, which ABARE estimates now accounts for more than 90per cent of total land dedicated for cotton crops. The commercial growth of genetically modified carnations is also permitted. ABARE notes over the long term, other broadacre GM crops may be up for adoption by Australian farmers, with their own quantitative assessment focused on canola, soy bean, maize, wheat and rice.

However the uptake of GM is not something Australian consumers and the food industry seem particularly pleased about. Australian chefs have become strong anti-GM campaigners. Over 150 of the nation’s top chefs have signed a food labelling petition expressing their opposition to serving GM goods in restaurants.

More recently, leading Australian chefs Tobie Puttock and Dur-é Dara have joined nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton and Greenpeace in launching another national petition – “Our right to know” – demanding more comprehensive labelling and testing of GM food products.

“We have no idea about the long-term health impacts of GE food because appropriate tests have generally not been done and the products have not been labelled. The lack of labelling concerns me,” says Dr Stanton.

The Biological Farmers of Australia also is concerned about lax GM labelling laws which currently do not extend to highly refined GM food products, and will allow oil from GM canola to be used in subsequent products without identification.

Dr. Maarten Stapper, Australian soil health expert and former CSIRO scientist, says the environmental problems inherent in GM crops could damage agricultural environments. “Genes don’t fix soils degraded by modern farming – isolated genes are but a small part in highly complex production systems” says Mr. Stapper. “We need to regenerate our soils by increasing soil organic carbon and re-activate soil biology to achieve sustainable farming, enhancing internal plant resistance to insects and diseases.

“Focus should be on productive and resilient biological-organic agriculture for healthy soils, the production of mineral rich food and a regenerated landscape that demonstrates biodiversity and clean water and air. Commercial GM would likely be introduced at the expense of soil health.”