THE prospect of growing genetically-modified crops appears to be a pipe dream for SA farmers, with the state government and opposition confirming their ongoing support of a moratorium.
A recent report from the Australian Productivity Commission recommended all GM crop moratoriums be lifted, while the United States-based National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found GM crops did not harm the environment and there was no evidence of health risks from eating their food.
In WA, a bill to overturn the WA 2003 GM Crops Free Areas Act has passed through the Upper House of WA Parliament and will be discussed in the Lower House in mid-August.
But the SA government has confirmed its commitment to a moratorium until at least September 2019, with a government spokesperson saying SA’s non-GM status provides a point of difference in the global marketplace.
Agriculture Minister Leon Bignell told an Estimates Committee on Tuesday he had commissioned a report by the University of Adelaide – which he had yet to receive – to investigate the economic benefits of being GM-free.
“From what I understand, they were sceptical at the start about whether there were widespread benefits, and they were pleasantly surprised in their investigations into the benefits of SA remaining GM-free,” he said.
Opposition agriculture spokesperson David Ridgway said the party supported a moratorium but would commission a study, if elected in 2018, to measure the benefits of being GM-free.
“Our position has always been, and still is, we support a moratorium but we will do an assessment, if we're elected, to measure that benefit so we can make a decision to either continue the moratorium or not,” he said.
Mr Ridgway said if there was indeed an economic benefit from remaining GM-free, the government should invest in projects and facilities – like the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics – to help croppers combat natural phenomenon like drought and frost.
Market analysis by Mecardo showed a premium for non-GM canola had diminished during the past season, with WA Kwinana GM canola bridging the price gap to Adelaide non-GM canola.
Grain Producers SA chief executive Darren Arney said there was a variable price differential between non-GM and GM varieties, but it was countered by increased yield and higher oil content in GM varieties.
“The price received on a hectare of crop is not just the price of canola,” he said.
“It’s price times yield, and some of these GM varieties have a higher yield than conventional varieties and a higher oil content.”
Mr Arney said “evidence was stacking up” that there was no need for a moratorium and the ban was “holding back efficient research and development”.
“If we can get rid of the moratorium, and use plant breeding and GM to fast-track genetic improvements in crops, there could be advantages,” he said.
“We’re not saying farmers have to grow them, it’s about giving them the choice that farmers in other states have.”
Buckleboo farmer Tristan Baldock believes allowing genetic modification in SA crops could help growers manage weed and disease pressure, and help develop drought tolerant and insect resistant varieties.
“It would add another tool to the toolbox,” he said.
“We’re in a fairly risky business, particularly when you farm in marginal country like we do, so you need a whole raft of tools at your disposal.”
Mr Baldock crops 5500 hectares of wheat, barley, canola, peas, lupins and export hay.
“What disappoints me about today’s GM debate is this notion farmers should have the choice not to have it,” he said.
“At the same time, farmers should be able to choose to have it.
“What I think we’re missing out on – by ruling GMs out of the equation – is using that technology in research and development, and development of other technologies in other crops.”
Mr Baldock also worked in the advice and retail sector of the cropping industry, and feared SA was missing out on R&D dollars due to its non-GM stance.
“I see first-hand where investment by seed companies, in particular, is going and if you look at canola, there’s not a lot of investment left in Australia that’s focusing on open-pollinated varieties,” he said.
“A lot of it is focused on hybrids and the focus within them is on genetic engineering for various traits.
“Because they can’t play in SA, those dollars are going elsewhere and we’re losing out on possible advances in varieties because we won’t allow GM.”
Mr Baldock said science tended to be ignored in the “emotionally-charged” GM debate, and encouraged the state government to “engage with growers as a collective and listen to what they’re saying”.
“It’s time they came to the fore and said ‘we’re serious about agriculture in SA, it’s not just our cash cow’,” he said.
While SA’s clean green image is one of the major reasons behind the GM ban, Mr Baldock says SA’s grain export markets are largely unperturbed by that notion.
“The countries we export to are not concerned about food labelling, they’re concerned about whether they're going to get a meal tomorrow or not,” he said.
“GMs are just one of those tools that can help us take that next step to make sure our markets can be satisfied.”
