Bayer had seven lines of Invigor varieties of GM canola approved by the Federal regulator (no authority to assess risk to economics). Commercial release was denied due to State moratoriums in all key canola growing states as States have the authority to assess economic risks and market implications.
Bayer Cropscience is currently growing GM trials in Victoria and South Australia under exemptions from the moratorium. These trials are grown chiefly for bulking up seed to export to Canada. Bayer Cropscience are refusing independent testing trials.
GM Trait:
Bayer Cropscience's GM varieties are bred for resistance to glufosinate ammonium by the introduction of a gene derived from soil bacteria. Bayer Cropscience's GM Invigor canola varieties have a GM hybrid breeding technique where GM plants are bred to cross pollinate rather than self pollinate (using male sterile hybrids and fertility restorer lines). Not all of Bayers approved lines are hybrids, T45 and Topas are open pollinators.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator Executive Summary: http://www.ogtr.gov.au/rtf/ir/dir021finalrarmpsum2.rtf :
"Hybrid seed from the lines RF3 and MS8 would be marketed as InVigor® in Australia. Although Bayer does not intend to commercialise the other five lines in Australia at this time, the applicant sought approval for all seven GM canola lines to achieve consistency with existing overseas regulatory approvals."
"Four of the GM canola lines contain a gene that provides a ‘marker’ for antibiotic resistance in plants. This gene is used to identify and select modified plants during the development stage. Bayer does not intend to commercialise any of these lines."
Table 1: Genetic modifications in the seven GM canola lines
|
Line |
Glufosinate ammonium tolerance |
Hybrid breeding system (InVigor®) |
Antibiotic resistance |
|
|
Pat |
– |
– |
|
Topas 19/2 |
Pat |
– |
nptII |
|
MS1 |
Bar |
barnase |
nptII |
|
RF1 and RF2 |
Bar |
barstar |
nptII |
|
MS8 |
Bar |
barnase |
– |
|
RF3 |
Bar |
barstar |
– |
The Glufosinate ammonium tolerance allows the crop to be sprayed with Glufosinate Ammonium (Liberty) with the intention of killing weeds without killing the canola crop. The GM hybrid breeding system ensures the offspring are fertile and carry the chemical resistant trait. There is no intention to commercially release varieties Topas 19/2, MS1, RF1 and RF2.
Yields are not due to GM process but to hybrid breeding:
The only "benefit" for being GM is chemical resistance to a chemical called glufosinate ammonium which is more expensive and less effective than the chemical used on our existing non-GM varieties.The yield improvement touted is only due to the crop being a hybrid, not because it is GM and there appears to be a yield penalty associated with post emergent spraying of glufosinate ammonium which negates some of the hybrid yield benefit.
Bayer confirms this in the explanation to the OGTR "It is important to note that the hybrid vigour displayed in F1 RF x MS hybrids is not a function of the genetic modification but is a result of the breeding of the two genetically distinct parents."
GM Hybrid vigour is less than non-GM hybrids
The following explanation reveals that the GM hybrid vigour is less than non-GM varieties.
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Pg 53. Dir 010/2001 Reference (here)
"287: Australian data indicates that the vigour exhibited by Invigor hybrids falls within the range of vigour exhibited by conventional hybrid and open pollinated (inbred) varieties of canola currently grown commercially. Invigor hybrid canola displayed approximately 15% greater vigour than a conventional open pollinated variety, but 20% less vigour than a conventional hybrid variety (data supplied by Aventis).
Because hybrid vigour declines in subsequent generations, the hybrid vigour displayed by the progeny of the Invigor hybrids (F2 generation), will be less than that of the initial hybrids (the F1 generation). It is therefore likely that there will only be a small difference between the vigour displayed by Invigor F2 progeny and the parental varieties.
The vigour displayed by F2 progeny would still be at least 25-30% less than that in some non-GM canola varieties." (Normally a farmer would not replant these next generation seeds but this is an issue for those that have been told that there will be no restriction on farmers replanting their own seeds - why would a farmer want to?)
This was again repeated in the more recent OGTR risk assessment, risk management plan:
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan
Pg 99. Dir 021/2002 July, 2003 Reference (here)
"435: ...However, Australian data indicate that the enhanced agronomic performance exhibited by Invigor hybrids falls within the range of vigour exhibited by conventional hybrid and open pollinated (inbred) varieties of canola currently grown commercially. Invigor hybrid canola displayed approximately 15% greater vigour than a conventional open pollinated variety, but 20% less vigour than a conventional hybrid variety (data supplied by Bayer)."
In response to publicly quoting this statement, Susie O'Neill from Bayer Cropscience claimed that "vigour is not equivalent to yield" (Letters to the editor, Farm Weekly October 13).
However, the OGTR further explains that the Invigor lines are directly related to performance "The progeny are expected to have enhanced agronomic performance, otherwise known as ‘hybrid vigour’ (www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/dir021finalrarmpsum.pdf). An email from Ms O'Neill (25th Jan, 2005) also stated quite clearly that the scientific reason for high yields was due to hybrid vigour. While quotes of yield improvement appear to be related to hybrid vigour, there is sensitivity when it is mentioned that hybrid vigour is related to lower yields than non-GM hybrids.
Trial yields are usually compared to a standard comparison 1993 non-hybrid variety. The improvement of 15% quoted is compared to older comparison varieties and most new non-GM varieties have similar comparitive advantages stated and it is expected that all hybrids have far higher yields than the older comparison variety used. Farmers also have several non-GM hybrids available as an alternative for hybrid vigour yield improvements.
The WA Agricultural Department grew one of the very few independent (ie. not paid by the GM companies) trials of GM canola.
In the WA Agricultural Department latest crop update, oilseeds section (page 6) shows trials undertaken in Calingari WA in 2003: using the older variety Rainbow as a base with a figure of 100, Surpass 501TT yielded 110 and GM Invigor 40 yielded 110.
This clearly reveals yields for Invigor 40 were the same as the most popular triazine tolerant canola that is claimed to have depressed yields. Some GM experimental lines performed better than Invigor 40 but these are not the varieties that have been approved by the OGTR for commercial release.
These crop updates also referenced trials in NSW/Victoria/SA in 2001-02 with Rainbow at 100, non-GM hybrid Hyola at 120 and GM Invigor 40 at 109.
Trials in 2002 showed a better yield for Invigor 40 and in 2003 identical results. (http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s05/potter.htm).
Farmers have far better options in non-GM chemical resistant canola varieties.
Australian Non-GM biotechnology is progressing fast and we now have a non-GM chemical resistant hybrid. Trial results from Wongan Hills (WA) (here) showed a yield improvement of up to 39% for this non-GM chemical resistant hybrid.
It is obvious that Australian yields are not living up to the hype promoting this GM variety.
I and many other farmers welcome independent small scale contained trials to assess actual performance with other non-GM hybrids and non-GM chemical resistant varieties in areas with similar weed burdens but Bayer Cropscience refuse to participate. These independent trials must not allow sowing non-GM seed twice as thick, swathing non-GM at unsuitable stages or any other advantage that has been claimed of trials to date.
GM trait is chemical resistance but Chemicals used is less effective than non-GM alternative chemical resistant traits:
Bayer Cropscience Invigor canola is resistant to the chemical Liberty (glufosinate ammonium 200grams/litre). What does Liberty control?
Extracts from the Liberty registered label obtained from APVMA:
Liberty - No residual, two applications needed, does not control radish, only effective if weeds are not mature
Weeds controlled @ 2L/ha: Annual ryegrass 2-4 leaf
Weeds controlled @ 1.5L/ha+: barley grass 2-4 leaf, capeweed 2-8 leaf, chickpea, corn gromwell, doublegee, three cornered jack, field pea, fumitory, lentil, loosestrife, lupin, medic, prickly lettuce, scotch thistle, silver grass @ 2-4leaf stage. stone crop 2-8 leaf stage, subterranean clover 2-4 leaf stage, volunteer barley, wheat and oats at 2 leaf to 3 tillers, wild oats at 2 leaf to 2 tillers, wireweed at 2-4 leaf stage, yellow burrweed at 2-6 leaf stage.
*Note: application to weeds under stress (eg. due to continuous severe frosts, dry or waterlogged conditions, wind-blasted, insect damaged, nutrient deficient or diseased conditions) should be avoided.
---
Radish is Australia's worse weed in canola and radish will not be controlled by Glufosinate Ammonium.
The recently released 2004 WA Ag Dept Oilseeds Crop Updates (here) revealed that "Liberty does not control wild radish".
It is clear by analysing the labels and trials that the chemical used is not as effective as the triazines used on conventional non-GM chemical resistant varieties. Non-GM canola growers also have the non-GM Clearfield option as an alternative to triazines.
Costs are higher than non-GM alternatives:
The WA parliamentary enquiry revealed the cost for the chemical Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) is $18/ litre and for Invigor seed $16/kg which is far higher than alternatives.
Bayer Cropscience is recommending that farmers do not need to use the expensive chemical on their GM chemical resistant varieties. However, if the crop is not used for it's chemical resistance, it can be considered as just another hybrid in its performance. Trials would assess if the yield penalty is relevent if glufosinate ammonium was not used.
Add the additional costs for volunteer control, quality assurance, crop management plan compliance, add the liability insurance (if available) for adverse impacts on neighbours, add the additional costs for segregation and identity preservation and it is obvious that the costs far outweigh the benefits.
It appears that farmers are being offered a far more expensive and less effective option in GM Invigor canola. Farmers need to support varieties that improve our profit margin rather than promote GM crops with higher input costs and associated market problems.
While non-GM farmers do not mind others trying a new variety, we do mind if it impacts negatively on our income. We need trials and actual cash flows to verify if there is any advantage because giving GM a try commercially will be an expensive exercise for the agricultural industry as farmers will lose the chance of returning to a GM-free status.
Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers
Updated: 28th October, 2005
