«  
  »

GM Grass Too Risky and Not Necessary

 

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
 
 
Dear Friends and colleagues,
 
RE: GM Grass Too Risky and Not Necessary
 
Millions of public science dollars have been directed to the development of GM pasture species in New Zealand over the last two decades. Three major programmes (two New Zealand-based and one in Australia) are seeking to develop a range of GM pasture grasses engineered to tolerate drought, increase biomass, increase water and nitrogen efficiency, and improve the nutritional content of forage species such as ryegrass and clover.
 
Common to all three programmes is an interest in a new approach called cisgenics which uses standard GM techniques to engineer plants but without mixing genetic material from unrelated species. This, it is hoped, will improve the chances of market acceptance for GMOs.
 
But the study “Betting the Farm” by the Sustainability Council of New Zealand found that the economic benefits generated by the use of GM grasses could be gained with using a less controversial non-GM technique.
 
For instance, Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) could deliver equal economic benefits without the risk of triggering the type of consumer resistance that GM food has provoked or the danger of contamination in the environment.
 
Given the very high opportunity costs involved, the study expects limited and even negative economic benefits from commercially growing GM grasses and calls for a review of future funding to GM grass programmes.
 
The economic analysis and other related documents in a series examining GM grasses are available at: http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/
 
 
With best wishes,
 
 
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg To subscribe to other TWN information lists: www.twnnews.net
 
——————————————————————————
 
Press Release
 
No Economic Penalty if GM Grass Bypassed Sustainability Council of New Zealand Embargoed Until 2am Tuesday 21 June 2011
 
If New Zealand chose not to approve the use of GM grasses developed by Pastoral Genomics, no economic penalty is expected as a non-GM technique could provide the same projected gains.
 
Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) could deliver equal economic benefits without the risk of triggering the type of consumer resistance that GM food has provoked.
 
Documents released to the Sustainability Council under the Official Information Act provide the first detailed analysis of the economics of genetically modified grasses to become public. They reveal how surprisingly thin the projected benefits are even when just considering it as an investment. The Council’s analysis is set out in a report entitled Betting the Farm.
 
Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars have so far been staked on three groups researching GM grasses, with around $20 million going to the Pastoral Genomics consortium. While the message from GM proponents has been that New Zealand must pursue GM or be left behind, the documents show Pastoral Genomics’ GM grasses have no greater ability to raise pasture productivity than non-GM means of accessing new gene science.
 
The GM grass estimated to have the highest value is expected to provide a 20% gain in biomass – exactly the same as Pastoral Genomics expects it can obtain using MAS to achieve the same outcome. However grasses produced using MAS carry none of the marketing risks that arise if GM-sensitive markets discriminate against produce from farms that use GM grass or have been contaminated by it.
 
Government officials describe grass pollen as “notoriously difficult to contain” and warn of GM grasses becoming “irreversibly established in the environment”. Ultimately it is labelling standards set by supermarket chains that would determine whether products from GM contaminated pasture were no longer GM Free.
 
If labelling were required for any level of GM content, this could result in lost earnings worth hundreds of millions a year or more. For example, 35% of New Zealand’s meat exports are destined for Europe. If all this product was supplied from farms either growing GM grass, or deemed to be contaminated by it, then if prices for GM Free and other stock separated by as little as 10% this would result in an opportunity cost of $180 million a year. That alone is greater than the total benefits that Pastoral Genomics’ consultant expects to be generated by the best of its GM grasses in any year ($155 million).
 
Even ignoring the marketing risks, there is little or nothing in it for the nation once rosy assumptions are stripped out of the consultant’s valuation of Pastoral Genomics’ GM grasses. The estimated present value range of $25 million to $379 million comes down to minus 22 million to $107 million once three assumptions are altered to those used by another consultant that reviewed Pastoral Genomics’ work. Lower the rate of uptake of the GM grass to also align with their thinking and factor in the technical risks of new grasses that “in some cases have not even been developed”, and the peak value falls to a range of small to negative.
 
In addition to the roughly $20 million of government funding that have gone to Pastoral Genomics for GM research, two other GM grass projects are also receiving substantial government funding:
 
• AgResearch has received more than $44 million for work on both GM and non-GM grass varieties and although the split between the two is unclear, that devoted to GM is a large amount under any reasonable allocation.
 
• PGG Wrightson is in partnership with an Australian research centre and their Gramina venture has received at least $5 million in grants from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
 
MAS offers a non-GM technology that is expected to deliver the same level of benefits without the market risks and should be the preferred investment to the extent it stacks up against other means of raising agricultural productivity. The government’s investment in three separate GM grass programmes suggests very high opportunity costs are involved.
 
This and the absence of a clear “path to market” for GM grasses mean the agriculture sector and the nation stand to benefit from a review of future funding to GM grass programmes.
 
___________________
 
Contacts:
 
Sustainability Council, 04 9133 655
 
Garth Cooper, Chairman and Professor of Discovery and Experimental Medicine and Director of the Centre for Advanced Discovery and Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Manchester – 021 303 255 Simon Terry, Executive Director, – 021 945 678 Stephanie Howard, Projects Director, – 021 1652 669
 
Notes
 
1. Pastoral Genomics is a research consortium comprised of Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Fonterra, DairyNZ, Deer Industry NZ and AgResearch. The consortium is funded by pastoral farmers, with matching funding from Government. (For further detail, see Sustainability Council, New Zealand GM pasture grass R+D: Three programmes and a new technology, June 2011.)
 
 
August 2nd, 2011 | Category: Horticulture/trees
«  
  »

GM Grass Too Risky and Not Necessary

Press Release
 
No Economic Penalty if GM Grass Bypassed Sustainability Council of New Zealand Embargoed Until 2am Tuesday 21 June 2011
 
If New Zealand chose not to approve the use of GM grasses developed by Pastoral Genomics, no economic penalty is expected as a non-GM technique could provide the same projected gains.
 
Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) could deliver equal economic benefits without the risk of triggering the type of consumer resistance that GM food has provoked.
 
Documents released to the Sustainability Council under the Official Information Act provide the first detailed analysis of the economics of genetically modified grasses to become public. They reveal how surprisingly thin the projected benefits are even when just considering it as an investment. The Council’s analysis is set out in a report entitled Betting the Farm.
 
Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars have so far been staked on three groups researching GM grasses, with around $20 million going to the Pastoral Genomics consortium. While the message from GM proponents has been that New Zealand must pursue GM or be left behind, the documents show Pastoral Genomics’ GM grasses have no greater ability to raise pasture productivity than non-GM means of accessing new gene science.
 
The GM grass estimated to have the highest value is expected to provide a 20% gain in biomass – exactly the same as Pastoral Genomics expects it can obtain using MAS to achieve the same outcome. However grasses produced using MAS carry none of the marketing risks that arise if GM-sensitive markets discriminate against produce from farms that use GM grass or have been contaminated by it.
 
Government officials describe grass pollen as “notoriously difficult to contain” and warn of GM grasses becoming “irreversibly established in the environment”. Ultimately it is labelling standards set by supermarket chains that would determine whether products from GM contaminated pasture were no longer GM Free.
 
If labelling were required for any level of GM content, this could result in lost earnings worth hundreds of millions a year or more. For example, 35% of New Zealand’s meat exports are destined for Europe. If all this product was supplied from farms either growing GM grass, or deemed to be contaminated by it, then if prices for GM Free and other stock separated by as little as 10% this would result in an opportunity cost of $180 million a year. That alone is greater than the total benefits that Pastoral Genomics’ consultant expects to be generated by the best of its GM grasses in any year ($155 million).
 
Even ignoring the marketing risks, there is little or nothing in it for the nation once rosy assumptions are stripped out of the consultant’s valuation of Pastoral Genomics’ GM grasses. The estimated present value range of $25 million to $379 million comes down to minus 22 million to $107 million once three assumptions are altered to those used by another consultant that reviewed Pastoral Genomics’ work. Lower the rate of uptake of the GM grass to also align with their thinking and factor in the technical risks of new grasses that “in some cases have not even been developed”, and the peak value falls to a range of small to negative.
 
In addition to the roughly $20 million of government funding that have gone to Pastoral Genomics for GM research, two other GM grass projects are also receiving substantial government funding:
 
• AgResearch has received more than $44 million for work on both GM and non-GM grass varieties and although the split between the two is unclear, that devoted to GM is a large amount under any reasonable allocation.
 
• PGG Wrightson is in partnership with an Australian research centre and their Gramina venture has received at least $5 million in grants from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
 
MAS offers a non-GM technology that is expected to deliver the same level of benefits without the market risks and should be the preferred investment to the extent it stacks up against other means of raising agricultural productivity. The government’s investment in three separate GM grass programmes suggests very high opportunity costs are involved.
 
This and the absence of a clear “path to market” for GM grasses mean the agriculture sector and the nation stand to benefit from a review of future funding to GM grass programmes.
 
___________________
 
Contacts:
 
Sustainability Council, 04 9133 655
 
Garth Cooper, Chairman and Professor of Discovery and Experimental Medicine and Director of the Centre for Advanced Discovery and Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Manchester – 021 303 255 Simon Terry, Executive Director, – 021 945 678 Stephanie Howard, Projects Director, – 021 1652 669
 
Notes
 
1. Pastoral Genomics is a research consortium comprised of Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Fonterra, DairyNZ, Deer Industry NZ and AgResearch. The consortium is funded by pastoral farmers, with matching funding from Government. (For further detail, see Sustainability Council, New Zealand GM pasture grass R+D: Three programmes and a new technology, June 2011.)
August 2nd, 2011 | Category: Agriculture / Organisms
articles post