Me vaka na kama kei na dausiga devastate Ositerelia, scores of protesters call on government to take action on “catastrophic” veisau ni draki.
Na daunipolitiki drokadroka kei na nodra backers e dau tovolea me vakayagataki na vakadidike me vakadonui kina na nodra gagadre cagi sa qai. Anyone who disagrees with these views is immediately ridiculed and labelled a “climate-denier” with the social standing and intellect of a troglodyte.
Yet they refuse to apply the same scientific principles to biotechnology-and in South Australia, they’re already threatening to reimpose a moratorium ena tubu ni GM ni kakana.
This political catastrophe is counterintuitive to the credible body of scientific proof on plant biotechnology-including evidence of environmental benefits-which actually outweighs the global scientific consensus on climate change.
E veisaqasaqa talega 25 veiyabaki agronomic, vakailavo, ka environmental mai na ilavo soli taumada mai na kena sa tubu cake tiko na GM varieties e vuravura taucoko kei na veiyasai Ositerelia.
Era sa kania na tamata na trillions ni kakana me tekivu mai na kakana biotechnology na me vaka na sila, soybeans, alfalfa, pateta, squash, ka sa weleti taumada na imatai ni gauna me tekivu mai Amerika.
“How many deaths or illnesses have been linked to genetically modified crops?” taroga Cameron J. Vakavalagi ni cakacaka ni vuli ituvaki. “Not one. Not so much as a sniffle.”
He continues “That’s not a surprise to scientists, as almost every food-related expert and every major oversight or regulatory body in the world has concluded that biotech crops are as safe for human and animal consumption as food grown conventionally or organically.”
Eso tale na veiba era vakayagataki me ra vakadonuya na GM ile ena ceva kei Ositerelia, me vaka e dua na iloloma soliwale ni e vakatokai me tubu sega ni GM canola, sa tabakisobu mai na vakadidike ni veika vakailavo. Ia, na ivakadinadina kei na veika dina era sa dau vakawalena tu ga na ilavelave oqo.
Na lecaika rawarawa oqo sa cakitaka na Ositerelia ni Ceva kei dauteitei ena kena rawati na tekinolaji taqomaki oqo, ni saravi tiko na producers ena dua tale na gauna sa tubu cake GM canola rawa, me vakataka na Victoria ena gauna sa oti 12 yabaki.
This has occurred without even the slightest hint of any doomsday forecasts coming true, that were touted by politicians and activists in scare and misinformation campaigns which delayed the crop’s uptake long after the science was confirmed.
E ka ni rarawa, this irresponsible behaviour dents confidence in the local market, scaring off investment-not just in South Australia-into plant biotechnology research and development of new crops that actually enhance farmers’ long-term ability to manage climate adaptation.
For non-farming Australians, who have witnessed the debate raging over the GM decision in South Australia and may have been wondering what all the fuss was about, the explanation is quite simple.
It’s no different to a single Australian jurisdiction banning laptops and other modern communication technologies that help deliver improved improve educational outcomes, while teachers and children in other schools throughout the country can access such tools, to deliver genuine benefits.
GM canola won’t solve every problem our farmers are experiencing right now due to this savage drought and other challenges. But it’s an invaluable tool with great potential to help build sustainability and grow crops that produce better results in a world we’re continually told, especially by those who preach science when demanding radical climate action, carries increased production volatility.
A story of environmental progress these scientific vandals won’t share with the public-like a skeleton in the closet-is the one about GM cotton that was first planted in Australia in 1996.
Before its introduction, growers spent about $50 million annually on insecticides-but in the 20-years of using GM varieties, improved pest control has led to a 92 percent reduction in insecticide use.
Ena 2016, GM cotton accounted for 98 percent of total cotton plantings, in Australia.
This proves exactly what can happen when growers have the choice to move beyond the scare tactics of vocal minorities and experience the real and practical scientific, environmental, and economic benefits, on-farm.