News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 GM crops divide public, but nation backs its farmers 

GM crops divide public, but nation backs its farmers

20 Nov, 2009 11:27 AM
AUSTRALIANS are deeply divided over genetically modified crops, with almost a third believing they are risky and another quarter unsure of their safety.

The latest ANU Poll, issued to The Canberra Times, also finds Australians believe the nation's farmers produce safe food sustainably and ethically, and there is strong support for giving them extra financial help.

The poll discovers Australians are still closely linked to the bush and fond of people who live in rural and regional areas, describing them as self-sufficient, resilient, and being committed to the community.

Respondents overwhelmingly believed farming was crucial for the country's future, with 85 per cent saying that was the case. Another 13per cent thought it was fairly important, and only 1per cent believed it was not very important.

The poll identifies drought as the biggest issue in the bush and the economy and jobs for the country as a whole, though the economy's dominance in the national psyche continues to slide as Australia recovers from the financial crisis.

The poll also finds concern remains about genetically modified food. Half of Australians support it, though most of them only backed it moderately.

Almost 40 per cent oppose biotechnology in agriculture, and 11 per cent are unsure.

''It is perhaps significant that those in support were predominantly moderate supporters, suggesting the strong feelings were likely to be generated in opposition to the new technology,'' the study said.

''There is also a significant minority view that foods produced through biotechnology pose serious health risks.

''When asked if they believed that foods produced in this way posed a risk, 31 per cent said that they did pose a risk, and 46 per cent said that they did not pose a risk. However, almost one in four of the sample said that they did not know.''

In all, however, only about half of the people surveyed followed the issue at least somewhat closely.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I believe once consumers get the full picture on GM, instead of the old line "there will be less chemicals used and we need the technology to feed the world". And once farmers make a balanced decision instead of one totally on how much more money they can make at the detriment of human health and the environment. The source of surveys needs to be looked at, many years ago my children went to Canberra for an excursion to the CSIRO, they were given a pro GM talk and at the end were asked to vote on whether we should have GM. I believe that is highly unethical, children from the city would have no idea of all the issues to do with GM.
Posted by Mike, 21/11/2009 7:31:05 AM
There is, it appears a confusion in many people's minds that GM derived varieties have an automatic yield benefit. RR canola is just a hybrid canola that has been modified to not be affected by Roundup. These crop's would be exactly the same regarding yield whether it was RR or the parent hybrid. In saying this there may be mechanisms that will advance yield that can only be arrived at through GM means. It is not the GM technique that we should worry about but rather the concentration in ownership of genes that will, if left unchecked, expose growers to one or two players owning agriculture. In Canada the concentration is starting to occur year by year smaller seed companies are being bought out by the larger ones. The gap over a ten-year period while no other companies are developing other varieties will mean that there is no option over time. Some may say that growers have a choice and that is true at the start. In theory we have choice where we purchase our groceries, although anyone with a pulse would realise that there’s a reason that Australian groceries have gone up 40% in recent years.
Posted by graingrower, 21/11/2009 5:21:45 PM
In reply to Mike, as a science communicator, I can tell you that giving people the facts does not make them more inclined to take a particular side. There is plenty of academic literature to support this. Cultural, social and past experiences have as much, if not a stronger influence than facts. Ethics-based workshops I run on GM foods also bear this out. And, I have yet to meet a scientist researching GM crops that says or believes GM technology will feed the world. It is one tool in a large toolbox of plant breeding techniques. And Graingrower highlights what I have found to be the public's greatest concern: the monopolisation of the food industry by big ag-industry. Jason, Gene and NanoTechnology Information Service www.gntis.edu.au
Posted by Jason Major, 23/11/2009 8:07:27 AM
It is all about education and getting the correct peer reviewed information out to the consumer. Sadly the ill-informed are further railroaded by media who love spreading fear. They prefer the easy and ignorant journalism rather than fact and balanced by constantly drawing on the luddites of Gene Ethics and their GreenPeace sponsored spokesman. This is another tool to feed the population and reduce the herbicides and pesticides we as farmers utilise. Let's get the correct facts out so the consumer is not scared by mis-truths.
Posted by Education, 23/11/2009 8:17:58 AM
A farmer should be able to keep a percentage of his seed crop for re sowing next season or have the option to sell it to others for seed. Don’t you agree? Why would we support companies/individuals who are pushing 'sterile' seed which cannot be harvested and resown, forcing growers to buy seed each year? How is this helping secure global food production? Many struggling farmers in poorer countries will not be able to afford this seed, therefore contrary to what is claimed by GM people more people will actually starve.
Posted by concerned, 23/11/2009 2:34:10 PM
What I find most interesting in this poll is not the stuff on GM, but the point about popular respect and support for farmers. This runs completely counter to the dogma in the bush that the urban majority have it in for people on the land. Time to to ditch the victim mentality.
Posted by Michael, 24/11/2009 10:06:31 AM
Personally I think GM is a very dangerous path to take. If you can only plant sterile GM seed controlled by corporations and their chemicals you will be held to ransom. Do you think a corporation is going to release seed in this country that will give this country a leading edge in the world markets. GM seed is not the solution to feed a hungry world. More work needs to be done on soil and water conservation. You can't keep ripping up prime farm land and keep building houses on it. We need to improve the nutrient density of food. More work needs to be done to reduce input costs that work. You can't continue to plant the same crop year after year and mine your land pumping in more chemical inputs. We will hit a wall and everything will collapse. One wrong mistake by the GM people and it will be too late - who are you going to blame when your land has become chemically poisoned sterile and unviable? Soil is a living breathing medium full of bacteria fungus and animals that support plant life. Chemicals that kill plants kill the soils biology. No soil biology no micro nutrients. No micro nutrients less dense rich food. Less dense food vitamin deficiency. More money for the drug companies.
Posted by Beef Serf, 25/11/2009 10:15:57 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
16 November, 2009
18 November, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe your farm business can profit from an emissions trading scheme?

Yes
(20.3%)

No
(70.1%)

Undecided
(9.6%)

Total Votes: 606
Poll Date: 15 November, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...