Thanks Jeremy, a great article that makes sense and uses a rational argument unlike the popcorn that Marohasy continues to churn out. At the rate Marohasy is going she won't get a job working anywhere but in the PR department of someone like Monsanto or Walmart.

You mean Jennifer is NOT in the PR department of someone like Monsanto or Walmart? Are you sure? And how could we tell?

For someone who proclaims an interest in the environment, it does seem passing strange that there doesn't appear to one part of the natural ecosytem that Ms Marohasy thinks wouldn't be improved by some chemicals, genetically modification or slashing, burning, chopping, cropping and generally destroying any old how you can. Guess there's not much point having dominion of a planet if that doesn't allow you to bugger it up.

>>Jeremy Tager argues there is a body of scientific work which raises concerns about health and environmental impacts of GE.<<

This is a good, attractive byline. As someone who is entirely uncommitted on the topic, I was looking forward to an insight into this side of the argument. What did I find?

"There is now a substantial body of scientific work - peer reviewed - that raises serious concerns about both health and environmental impacts of GE."

And that was pretty much it.

It was followed by a single, unenlightening reference to an incident in Germany, but what did that case show? Is the Monsanto product they talk about actually being used in the world? In Australia? How many people have died? Is the report now public? What did it contain? How significant are its findings?

Why only one example?

Why is it that even in an article that is supposed to fire me up about the evils of GE I can get so little real information?

Pericles
At the end of his article, Jeremy invites anyone who wants sources or data on claims to contact him. So it is not really fair to blame for the fact that it is not all contained in the published article. Go ahead and contact him if you want more details

Sorry Rossco, that's a cop-out.

The article makes too many assumptions for it to have credibility. I Googled the sole example that Mr Tager included and found that there is some lively scientific debate around the Greenpeace contentions. Which is just as one would expect. To be invited to contact the writer for further information only ensures I hear more of one side of the discussions, when I am more interested in the extent of the problem.

If you look again at the article, and try to see past the indignant language - "genetic contamination", "rubber stamp regulator", "driven by corporate motives", "Topas scandal" etc. there are very few useful facts.

On the face of it, there should be much to write about - we are after all extremely concerned about what we eat and its effect on our health. But articles like this, with its air of breathless hysteria and its sneering references to those it opposes, advances the cause not one jot, whit or tittle.

Greenpeace is anti progress driven by idology not facts.