GM: debate the science not the values

Short of cutting down all the world’s forests for more arable land - an environmental disaster of huge proportions - the only way we will produce enough food for an increase in population of this size is through technological innovation such as biotech crops.

These are simple facts. Most people in the developed world have already shown they are not willing to allow further widespread clearing of forests for agriculture. So we must be able to produce at least 42 per cent more food in 40 years time than we do now, from about the same amount of arable land.

Those opposed to the use of biotech crops could do society a favour and outline how this will be achieved. If they are so confident of the claims they make against GM technology - that our markets and our consumers do not want the benefits of GM crops - let them choose.

Australian farmers and consumers have shown themselves to be very discerning when it comes to making choices that affect their livelihoods and their quality of life. Farmers will not invest their time, effort and money in technology they do not have faith in or a market for.

Earlier this month at a forum on GM, Victorian parliamentarians heard from Professor Rick Roush, the dean of Land and Food Resources at Melbourne University about the science of GM crops. They also heard from Dr Jennifer Marohasy, who heads the Environment Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs and is a board member of the Australian Environment Foundation, that GM technology is good for the environment.

And Chris Kelly, convenor of the Producers Forum in Victoria and a grain grower, told them about the choices farmers want to make to be able to remain competitive in world markets - a choice currently denied them. This was a forum based on facts and science.

The Victorian Government will now start the review process that will decide whether the current moratorium should expire or be extended. If this decision is to be based on science, on what is good for the environment, about farmers being able to make informed choices about what crops they will grow on their land - this will favour biotechnology.

This should be a decision on how the benefits science delivers can best be utilised - not how values based on ideology can deny choice.