The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case for GM food > Comments

The case for GM food : Comments

By David Tribe, published 22/11/2005

David Tribe argues that GM foods deserve a fair hearing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 73
  7. 74
  8. 75
  9. All
Greenpeace is a very strange organisation. It has a profoundly anti-capitalist hidden agenda, which includes opposition to corporations and any sort of mining. I am sure that most of their opposition to GM food stems mainly from the corporatised nature of GM seeds. The application of their anti-mining policy is more interesting. In Australia, it is mainly confined to uranium mining, but with some spill-over from the anti coal mining campaign in Europe. Their success in having their anti-mining policy incorporated into the Kyoto Protocol was remarkable (In the protocol, blame for emitting global warming gases does not lie with the country that burns the coal, but with the country that mines it, if they are in Annex One). They closely follow the precept laid down by the notorious Nazi leader in the Sudetenland, who said "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied". The amount of spin and propaganda today seems to becoming overwhelming, or is it just that I am becoming old and cynical?
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 10:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philosophically I have a preference for traditional plant breeding; but admit to admiration for GM's capability to speed up processes and to introduce other aspects (beneficial or otherwise).
I have serious concerns on two fronts.
First is perhaps GM's potential to place a perilous dependence upon GM-developed plants at the expense of the biological diversity inherent in displaced traditional varieties. Second is the possibility that success in early stages could build complacency in humanity so that we continue further, down our blind alley of unsustainable numbers, to an even more parlous position.
As for Golden Rice, it sounds great. But rice grows in a multitude of environments;from lowlands to frost-prone highlands, from swamps to slopes. It has about a thousand varieties. To what extent can Vitamin A enhancement be introduced to all of these, and if so with what deleterious effects for production? For that matter, to what extent do rice-consuming societies eat polished white rice rather than the traditional unpolished "brown" of the times of their grandparents' childhoods? Is Golden Rice a saviour for the rice-growing family, or only for urban dwellers buying processed grain? I do not wish to knock Golden Rice, but wonder is it but masking a bundle of social problems for communities overburdened by the sheer weight of their own numbers.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 2:52:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is common to see the pro-GM industry stretch the benefits of GM out of all proportion. David is obviously not aware, or refusing to acknowledge, that some countries (eg. Indonesia) fortify their non-GM grain with vitamins and minerals (including iron) at a cost of less than a cigarette/per person/per day. Consumers now can purchase Omega 3 off the shelf or even find products like bread that have Omega 3 added.
You certainly do not need GM techniques to gain this benefit... but of course these more basic and cheaper methods do not carry the "benefits" to investors that are associated with the intellectual property, patent rights and corporate control associated with GM crops. These investor benefits spin off to scientist such as Mr Tribe who are currently faced with the dilemma of reduction in government funding and a requirement to be cost-recovery based. Investors aren't interested in common good and less profitable non-GM plant breeding covered by the plant breeder rights rather than patents despite the huge advances in biotechnology which has the potential to shortcut conventional plant breeding by 5-7 years.
Endless problems are associated with GM. One problem relates to mistrust for scientists tinkering with the DNA of our food when scientists still consider the majority of the DNA to be "junk" simply because they don't know what it does. Scientists can't say GM methods are precise when they are introducing a gene (or lots of single genes because the number is not controlled) plus viral promoters and/or bacteria. Scientists don't control where the foreign gene lands and the success rate is very low.
CSIRO recently found new allergens in their GM peas that has the potential to cause health problems. These tests should be compulsory, not voluntary.
I think it is time the GM debate matured beyond the optimistic fantasy of "gotta have it cause its gunna be good".
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 4:10:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've got a problem with the Corporate copyright of grains which does not give poor growers viable seed for resowing. Whilst Monsanto can monopolise the production of such GM modified grains I want nothing to do with them.
I am in favour of maintaining the widest possible choice of variety. I already experience disappointment with current varieties such as rock Melon and pumpkin.
Rockmelons have been modified to produce a certain size,that are tasteless in comparison to older varieties and harvested when they are still green.
I havent been able to buy a decent pumpkin that wont shrivel to nothing when baked.
I feel for younger generations who havent experienced produce that hasn't been modified.
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 5:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"First is perhaps GM's potential to place a perilous dependence upon GM-developed plants at the expense of the biological diversity inherent in displaced traditional varieties."
#GMO Pundit: GM methods actually can help increase crop diversity, and with the advent of GM soybeans in the USA, crop variety numbers have increased. With Golden Rice, breeders in several different Asian countries are now cross breeding the first Golden Rice with diverse local varieties. This all underlines the fact that GM doesn’t necessarily mean less biodiversity or displacement of existing varieties. And also, GM methods (transgenes) actually allow biodiversity to be increased for the traits – stress resistance, disease resistance, pest resistance - that most matter. Conventional and GM are complementary- GM traits need good conventional breeds to be successful. For instance in Australian cotton industry, partnership between traditional breeders and GM breeders were crucial for success.

"David is obviously not aware, or refusing to acknowledge, that some countries (eg. Indonesia) fortify their non-GM grain with vitamins and minerals (including iron) at a cost of less than a cigarette/per person/per day."
#GMO Pundit : Yes vitamin and mineral fortification to harsted grain is a good idea, but Vitamin A is not currently delivered in this way, and I suspect that it is not the best way to do address this issue, because seeds that enable vitamin A to be made in the crop are very economically self-sustaining. Once the farmers have the seed, there are no extra costs, season after season, unlike the situation with adding vitamins to harvested grain. The seed for the poor is essentially being given away, and in the case of Golden Rice, this does not mean corporate control.

GMO Pundit gmopundit.blogspot.com
Posted by d, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 5:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If GM is so good, you would think that after decades of research farmers would be offered more than crops that are chemical resistant (just like our existing non-GM chemical resistant crops) or are Bt (produce their own insecticide).
Why not do the health testing that consumers want? It appears that anybody that does do intergenerational feeding trials followed by careful analysis of immunology, organs etc finds a rather serious problem occurring with GM foods.
Considering GM crops are not able to be recalled, we have the potential to have a major problem. Why be in such a rush to permanently contaminated the worlds food supply with a product that has building evidence of serious immunology problems?
If the company that owned the license over this product was liable for any health or economic damage caused by it, I am sure they would be far more reluctant to pressure for commercial release.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 8:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with genetically altered crops but the way some seed companies restrict the earnings of farmers by forcing them to buy new seeds for each new crop. One method is to implant seeds with "terminator" genes that destroy the seed after one crop.The farmers,even in the poorest countries,have to buy new seeds instead of using the seeds from the previous crop. I don't mind a company profitting from innovation but why should they have the right to profit from a single invention for eternity ? A limited patent would stimulate competition like our pharmacueticals in the free trade agreement we have with the U S A.
Posted by aspro, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 10:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument of the article lacks logic within normal human understanding. For those who believe in God and the 7-day theory, then GM proponents say God made a mistake. ( Quite true, in one sense, (s)he did make a mistake creating such a stupid creature. And if it is Darwins evolution, or other sceitific theories, then GM is a dengerous interference, too vague and too far-fetched to spend our money and risk ourselves on.

Sorry, this is still an unacceptable way to push your profits.
Posted by Sridhar, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 10:58:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe NonGMFarmer.... the general public and therefore the market is also on his/her side. We are a market driven economy and the market has and is speaking loudly.

People don't want GM food ... It may be sad for the pro GM lobby but it is true - people have stated it loudly. Now in a democracy that should be that but of course it won't be.

Science just doesn't seem to be science anymore. What happened to the precautionary principle and it's appropriate application in science? The market (the people or the consumers) are applying the precautionary principle on behalf of scientists loudly and clearly on GM produce. We don't want people (scientists) fiddling with our foods.

Here is a novel idea ... If we are so concerned about the children why not feed them untampered foodstuffs like many Aussie farmers grow. Why not diversify their diets? Should we test GM foods on the children anyway?

OR if the children are the main issue if/when GM foods are proven safe after long, full, totally independent scientific analysis why not take the patents off the GM foods. Then if a farmer chooses to let some of his crop become seed for next year he isn't obliged to pay some international chemical company royalties. The ownership rights stay with the farmer.

Do we really want multi nationals owning the rights to all the seed our farmers use?
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:43:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer: “It appears that ...a rather serious problem occurring with GM foods.”
GMO Pundit: In my view, this statement is untrue. Gossip by people with an axe to grind is not scientific proof.

Aspro: "some seed companies.. One method is to implant seeds with "terminator" genes that destroy the seed after one crop...why should they have the right to profit from a single invention for eternity? “
GMO Pundit: The so-called "terminator" crop has never entered the marketplace. Patents on GM traits last a limited time. Farmers in Africa and India already by seeds from seed companies, and don’t have to buy GM seeds in the first place unless they see advantages.

Sridhar: “And if it is Darwins evolution, or other sceitific theories, then GM is a dengerous interference, too vague and too far-fetched to spend our money and risk ourselves on.”
GMO Pundit: Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory has no statement in it about natural organisms obeying any Precautionary Principle, and many species, including plants, kill or poison others as part of their nature. On the other hand, vitamin A, drought resistance, minimised birth defects and cancer from fungal toxins, and reduced spraying of pesticides are not vague benefits. For details see gmopundit.blogspot.com.

Opinionated2: “What happened to the precautionary principle.”
GMO Pundit: Blocking investment in rural research has unintended bad outcomes too, and it takes a while before we realize how damaging such a penalty is. In my view, one should be precautionary about BOTH breeding of new crops AND with blocking the use of tools that are valuable for better farming, better nutrition, rural prosperity, and a cleaner environment. The precautionary approach would say – let’s NOT cause harm by blocking vitamin A enriched rice, by blocking new crops that resist drought, and by penalizing Aussie farmer’s future earnings with cost penalties our trade competitors don’t bear. It especially says, we should worry about the impact of trade bans on food security of developing countries

GMO Pundit gmopundit.blogspot.com
Posted by d, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 6:53:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGM farmer is right Omega 3 can be bought off the shelf and also can be found in bread and other covenient foods.

However, she doen't seem to be aware that the omega 3 oil comes from what the Tuna canneries reject. The omega 3 in sausage, bread and other foods you buy in supermarkets comes from fish. The source of omega 3 is often contaminated with heavy metals and other chemicals that find their way into fish. And our fish stocks are running out.

To produce omega 3 in plants is a great GM invention that is good for the environment and good for us and one that is already here. We can expect to see Canola or cotton producing omega 3 within 3-5 years in Australia. That is if the moratorium on genetically modified canola is lifted and there is a clear path way forward for the ag biotech industry.I agree with David that the precautionary prinicple should be applicable in reverse. Omega 3 oil can't continue to be unsustainably harvested from fish . We need an alternative technology for omega 3 production.

GM can provide it.
Posted by sten, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 8:53:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GMO Pundit "Blocking investment in rural research has unintended bad outcomes too, and it takes a while before we realize how damaging such a penalty is"

I agree - just one such bad outcome is that myself and others like me have become so disillusioned with agricultural research in this country that we have changed careers or gone overseas. After completing many years of postgraduate study and research we find that only poorly paid casual six to twelve month contracts are available and project funding is continually being withdrawn or moved elsewhere.

This is a tremendous loss for Australia and we will become more reliant on crops that are more appropriate to other countries. There is a great opportunity with GM technology to produce varieties that are suited to local conditions eg. drought tolerance. However private companies are reluctant to invest when there is so much uncertainty and will continue to concentrate research on major markets.
Posted by sajo, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GMO Pundit says : The precautionary approach would say – let’s NOT cause harm by blocking vitamin A enriched rice, by blocking new crops that resist drought, and by penalizing Aussie farmer’s future earnings with cost penalties our trade competitors don’t bear. It especially says, we should worry about the impact of trade bans on food security of developing countries.

NO it wouldn't! That's the economists principle ... not the precautionary principle scientists should follow. And the farmers and consumers don't seem to agree with the economists here either.

The scientific precautionary principle is always far more important. If you don't know the outcome don't take the risk and especially don't hide any health risks or dangers behind some economic advantages spin. So if a drought tolerant seed has the possibility of causing harm we don't use it until it is thoroughly and independently tested. There is no financial benefits to farmers when their lives are ruled by Chemical companies and their product is seen as unsafe by the public. The public won't swallow it...literally

If GM is such a great idea why is the majority of the world against it? They don't trust money driven greed based science. It's unscientific!

If the precautionary principle as laid out in science were used with Agent Orange in the Vietnam war it would never have been used and many of our Viet vets would not be having the problems they are having now.

But the precautionary principle was put to the side through a false justification and the veterans suffered
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2 says "If GM is such a great idea why is the majority of the world against it? They don't trust money driven greed based science. It's unscientific!"

You will find that the same money driven companies researching GM crops also carry out more traditional plant breeding and supply most of the non-GM seeds currently used. If there is no profit in the end product then there would be very little useful science done at all. This would include medical and pharmaceutical research as well as agricultural.

Having seen some of the methods used to create diversity in plant breeding programs (eg. applying mutagenic chemicals to plant embryos to create hopefully useful traits)it is surprising that so much attention is aimed at the far more precise methods of GM technology. That said there is still room for improvement.

There is an issue here though as to why so much mistrust? Companies and governments have brought this on themselves with poor education programs and too little regulation too late. There has been plenty of publicity for GM crops grown for profit and not nearly enough on programs aimed at improving lives in developing countries even though these programs are often run side-by-side in the same laboratories.
Posted by sajo, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two items on the ABC's Radio National programme, pasted below indicate a responsible degree of care in research and eventual abandonment of a GM trial that showed potential danger to humans by our own CSIRO which in my view has been starved for adequate research funding.

The second one concerns me that Corporate muscle is working to remove State's rights to impose Moratoria on commercial GM crops.

I am particularly concerned that the USA believes it has the rights under our so called Free Trade Agreement to pursue States for damages by such actions

Bush Telegraph
Friday 18/11/2005

GM pea trial discontinued -
A research project for genetically modified peas, set up in the early 1990's, has been abandoned by the CSIRO after testing on mice caused lung damage. The trial was originally set up to try and breed a pea resistant to insects, specifically the pea weevil which can cause significant damage to crops. It's only the second time in the world such a trial has been discontinued, and researchers say they're disappointed in the results.

Project leader Dr T J Higgins told Edwina Farley the peas will be destroyed and there are no risks of contamination.

The Gene Technology Regulator Dr Sue Meeks says the study will be wrapped up under contained conditions, all the remaining peas will be destroyed, and that nothing has entered the human food chain.

Bush Telegraph
Thursday 17/11/2005

GM review -
Bayer Cropscience, wants the removal of State powers to impose moratoria on commercial gm crops. Bayer made its bid at a forum of a Federal Government appointed panel which is reviewing the Gene Technology Act. About 60 farmers attended the forum, where anti-gm groups called for increased legal safeguards against gm contamination
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 1:34:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's time GM food is given a fair hearing and I applaud David for his article. GM food will not only benefit third world countries but will have significant benefits for all communities.

Anti-GM campaigners need to take off their anti-globalisation and anti-multinationals blinkers off and step into the real world of food production and food safety.

I would rather eat GM food over an above conventionally bred food any day of the week - it has been tested more thoroughly, is better for the environment and is more likely to leave the farmer with better returns which means more sustainable production.

As David points out in his article while rich Western Countries like ours have the luxury of worrying about hypothetical fears people in third world countries are dying from very real, preventable food hazards. Where has anti-GM groups conscious gone when they bury their head in the sand and campaign so vigorously against GM food? By stopping GM food research, development and production they are denying the third world a real answer to severe nutrition and food production problems.

There is a growing majority voice of Australian farmers who want to be able to grow GM crops which will benefit them, the Australian consumers and our international customers. They are being prohibited from doing so by short sighted state politicians who have no scientific evidence to back up their ban and confuse fear with fact. It’s time we stop this nonsense and allowed GM food production within the suitable regulatory system which we have developed to proceed.
Posted by EJ, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 3:56:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is obvious there is two sides of the debate but those pushing GM crops have not bothered to sit down to try to resolve the problems identified by State governments to lift the moratoriums that are blocking their choice.
If GM is introduced, it is planned that that non-GM farmers are expected to try to keep GM crops out of our crops and pay for any costs in trying to do so and any losses if we can not meet market demands. The commonsense logic is that the GM industry should contain their product and pay for any damages if they can't. The existing reverse onus of responsibility where the polluted pays will deny both consumer and farmer choice.
Don't expect farmers to compensate the multinational companies and don't expect consumers to be forced to eat GM products when they don't want to. If you want GM in, you must take the responsibility for the consequences.
Why so much mistrust? It is precisely because companies and governments are trying to force consumers and farmers in to having this product and refusing to do the testing required (intergenerational feeding studies and autopsy analysis) to ensure it is safe and refusing to accept the liability if it is not.
It is common for those pushing GM's to just bury their head in the sand and say there are no problems when the problems are becoming more and more obvious. Far easier to attack and slander those stating the bleeding obvious!
If there are problems, the liability falls on the farmers and consumers that do not want GM products. If those pushing GM crops truly believe there are no problems (health or economic) then why don't the GM companies accept a strict liability regime? Too frightened to put your money where your mouth is?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 5:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:31:06 PM
Opinionated’s post claims, in effect, that bans or delays to GM crops only involve economic damage. Opinionated is confused about moral consequences of GM bans. Crops don’t just have economic benefits, and even increased incomes for poor people does more than just satisfy greed. For the extremely poor, more income can save lives.

These potential deaths show that the non-precautionary approach advocated by Opinionated is morally wrong.

Delaying vitamin A kills people and promotes disease. This is not just an economics issue, as implied by Opinionated. Opinionated decries spin doctors, but has proceeded to muddle over the serious moral issue of the thousands of children who die each day from vitamin deficiency, and the welfare benefits the poor get from agricultural research.

Second, in the developing world, economic improvement and farm productivity are more that just the self-gratification that rich Western societies (and Opinionated) are so familiar with. For the poor in Africa, in India, and elsewhere, better farm income saves lives: eradicating poverty saves lives. The poor die more quicky and get sick more often.

Third, in the third world, rural agricultural improvement is one of the best drivers for poverty elimination for the poor, who are mostly rural poor. Crop breeding is not just using technology and economic efficiencies to satisfy greed and make money, but is truly being deeply humanitarian.

The hugely important humanitarian role of agricultural biotechnology is spelt out explicitly by Pedro Sanchez and MS Swaminathan in a Science magazine article, January 2005, Vol 307 p357, called Cutting World Hunger in Half, by several major reports at the IFPRI website http://www.ifpri.org/ , and by R. Evenson and FAO, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity, CABI, 2003.

Mismatch between the preoccupations of wealthy Westerners and the interests of the poor is exactly why I wrote my Opinion piece, and I thank Opinionated for enabling me to highlight this issue again.

I’ll post summaries of these citations at GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Golden Rice fairy story again! Children would have to eat several pounds of rice a day to get the Vitamin A from Golden Rice. The cure for Vitamin A deficiency is daily green vegetables. The reason why these children do not now have access to these once common foods is that their lands and agriculture were taken over in the 1970's, in the Green Revolution. That Green Revolution earned lots of money for manufacturers of farm machinery and chemical sprays and monocultural seeds. The people in the poor countries lost their food diversity and access to once common foods which grew on small farms.
I am tired of hearing people like David Tribe rant on about lost opportunities, when there are many reputable scientists who have exposed the problems with GE foods. One of the most scary problems is that in inserting foreign genes or even man made ones, the resulting GE foods become unstable, and have been proven in some cases to have completely different characteristics from when they were licensed! Not only this, it is common knowledge that both Monsanto and Bayer have had many occasions when they have broken laws made to protect people's health and safety, and they have been fined and convicted. As a food grower I am concerned that these companies are able to sue people whose crops have been contaminated by GE pollen. This can be compared to a man who rapes women and then goes to court and sues them for the privelege of carrying his genes. The law is an Ass if it continues to allow this state of affairs, with the offenders being put in the posiiton of being above the law.
Posted by Food Producer, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strict liability exists when a defendant brings or does something on his land that is abnormally dangerous or not natural and the “abnormally dangerous” or “not natural” something causes harm to the person or property of plaintiff.

Let’s be totally clear about this. The herbicide resistant Bayer canola, Topas 19, has received regulatory clearance and has been judged to be as safe to the environment and public health as conventional canola by the Federally appointed Gene Technology Regulator. Consequently there is no case for strict liability.

Where is the harm done to the public health and environment by the findings of trace levels of Topas 19? It is only because the testing methodology has reached another level of sensibility that we can detect the 0.1 to 0.01 % trace levels. Zero tolerance is unrealistic, unsustainable and most of all unscientific.

The setting of standards and tolerances for accidental presence of GM canola in conventional canola (or in the case in Western Victoria one herbicide resistant canola in another) must be based on practical limits of good agricultural practices and not the technical ability to detect.
Posted by sten, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:20:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
State governments have authority over economics and markets and hence they have called a ban. Topas 19/2 contamination occurred pre OGTR approval (late 1990's) by what was obviously mismanagement of Tasmanian trials in the same area that the non-GM seed variety Grace was bulked up.
Any market loss and any testing regime is now paid for by farmers that did not want to accept the risk.
Strict liability is only a problem to the industry if the product causes economic loss or is dangerous and needs recall. If the pro-GM industry believed their own propaganda about "no risk" they would not be refusing liability.
I apologise for a previous error regarding the costing of the GM minerals/vitamins. The cost of non-GM coating seed with vitamins and minerals cost less than a cigarette/per person/per year (not per day) which is extremely cheap.
GMO Pundit response re GM "Once the farmers have the seed, there are no extra costs..." Sorry but one of the "benefits" for investors and the seed industry is that farmers lose the right to replant our own seed, we must buy seed every year rather than plant our own and farmers are to pay a "user fee" when delivering the harvested crop. Even non-GM farmers are expected to have a huge hike in costs if GM is introduced.
I spoke to the scientist who developed Golden Rice last year and it is nowhere near trial stage because it will never make it through the regulatory process - the particular backcross constructs involved do not fit in with the prerequisites of the regulatory process. It is worth keeping in mind that it was Monsanto that applied to the US FDA to first get the regulatory process established and they suggested the regulatory requirements that have been adopted globally (not the USFDA setting the rules for Monsanto). Perhaps if the regulatory rules were more in tune with truly assessing for risks to human health and not in providing a pathway to market that deflects liability, this public ralations nightmare could have been prevented.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer: "If GM is so good, you would think that after decades of research farmers would be offered more than crops that are chemical resistant ..."

Are you (NonGMFarmer) advocating canola farmers continue using the TT varieties? Could I suggest you cannot be a canola grower if you think that. Atrazine, the chemical these canola varieties are resistant to is highly toxic and is known to leach into ground water. By contrast the GM variety is resistant to Roundup which is inert on contact with the ground and is much more environmentally friendly.

maracas: "Whilst Monsanto can monopolise the production of such GM modified grains I want nothing to do with them."

The problem I see here, and with all the other multinational bashing that goes on, is that bans in Australia on GM foods act as a huge disensentive to Australian researchers. So we end up with Monsanto and Bayer dominating the GM research because nobody else can afford to take the risks on the science AND the political environment.

More generally, as a canola, wheat and barley farmer, I resent the attitude of many opposed to GM that farmers somehow aren't competent to make choices about what sort of seed they buy. We currently buy all our canola and wheat seed fresh each year because we want to use the most up to date and profitable varieties.

If GM varieties were available we would make decisions whether to use them based on OUR estimate of the profitability of doing so. I really resent the attitude that somehow I would be forced to use GM if it wasn't banned or that I must be dumb in thinking it can help me lower my costs of herbicides so I make more money. I look at Canada where 90% of canola grown is GM and wonder why we have to compete against them with one hand tied behind our backs.
Posted by GreenFarmer, Thursday, 24 November 2005 9:16:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An incredibly narrow perspective on this issue. The debate over GM food is much more than "safety concerns from focusing on unintended damage to human health from eating the new food and avoids discussion of the unintended harm from preventing its use."

No mention of the fact the world has easily enough food already, but lacks the poliltical will to distribute it;

No consideration given to the possible effects of contaminating naturally-occurring strains with GM;

It deliberatety overlooks the fact vitamin-enriched rice has no more benefit to health than a vitamin A pill. The micronutrients that accompany foods high in vitamin A are still missing;

Re: the argument GM compliments rather than competes with naturally occurring strains - what, evolution not enough? There are no parallels between GM and natural crops. I've yet to see a fish mate with a corncob. Or rice with a pill.

Humankind has evolved in tandem with the many varieties of rice/wheat/maize/soybean available. Where starvation exists it is not simply due to poor agriculture, but masks a much wider problem. Will boosted rice do anything about what causes famine in the first place?

If GM was introduced for altruistic reasons alone I'd have a little more faith in the claims put forward by agribusiness. Remove the profit motive and you're on a winner
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 24 November 2005 3:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie

There is no such thing as a natural crop and if we were waiting for one to evolve we would all have died out thousands of years ago.
Posted by sajo, Thursday, 24 November 2005 4:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Claiming Atrazine is toxic is merely a lame excuse to slander the popular non-GM chemical resistant alternative. Atrazine has just undertaken a stringent 8 year APVMA regulatory review and it is not toxic. While Atrazine is not suitable for some countries or areas due to waterlogging or snow, it does not cause problems in Australian broadacre cropping areas and is a critical chemical for canola and for legumes. Legumes introduce natural nitrogen to the soil and if Atrazine was banned, farmers would need to increase the use of ozone destructive nitrogenous fertilisers.
It is extremely rare for farmers with viable acreage to buy all our seed every year as it would be price prohibitive (~$300,000 for us) and could result in unwanted weeds (eg. radish), grain mixing and diseases due to rushed commercial bulk up facilities.
It is proposed (GTGC coexistence plans) that if GM crops are approved, even non-GM farmers lose our right to plant our own seed every year.
I fail to understand how a farmer can make an informed decision to support Roundup Ready GM canola when Monsanto has not yet revealed the cost of the user fee, the cost of the seed, the contract farmers are to sign, the crop management plans or provided independent yield comparisons.
What benefit? Statistics (not select surveys) prove that yields have not risen, Canadians have lost their consistent premium (US$32.68/tonne), have the highest carryover stock ever and the Canadian Farmers Union revealed that technology providers (not users) take 144% of the gains derived from new technology. The Canadian government has just approved $1.2 billion to prop up ailing Canadian farmers to "take advantage of innovations arising from our agricultural science investments".
Do you really think Australian taxpayers are going to be keen to pay farmers to use the high cost GM option to prop up government and corporate investments?
We don't mind any farmer having the choice but we do mind when we have to pay for the losses caused by your choice.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 24 November 2005 5:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“No mention... the world has easily enough food already, but lacks the poliltical will to distribute it”, “Where starvation exists it is not simply due to poor agriculture, but masks a much wider problem.”

#GMO Pundit: There are several issues these comments gloss over. Even though many people have plentiful food, many parts of the world have food insecurity and extreme poverty caused by inefficient agriculture. It not always possible to move the food from where its plentiful to where its needed, sometimes there are even no roads for trucks as in Zambia. Better if the locals grow more of their own food. Better food production also helps these poor farmers by giving them more income.
See http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/improved-farmer-income-is-much-more.html

Also the worlds demand for food in continually growing, and threatened by drought, urbanization, erosion and salinity. For that reason for the future we need to grow more food on less land.

Re nonGMfarmer legal worries - The following link shows that with goodwill a lot of the liability issues mentioned by GM farmer can be solved:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1458&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

As far as being sued by GM companies for having accidental GM drift - that’s a furphy, in my view. That is unless you do deliberately do something wrong like Percy Schmiesser did, and spray the crop to get pure GM seed for commercial advantage. But that’s not relevant to sensible regular farming.

“farmers lose the right to replant our own seed, we must buy seed every year rather than plant our own and farmers are to pay a "user fee" when delivering the harvested crop.”
GMO Pundit: The solution is simple, buy your seed from other companies who don’t impose these limitations

“I spoke to the scientist who developed Golden Rice last year... nowhere near trial stage"
#GMO Pundit: before writing the article I went earlier this year to Europe and talked directly with the main Golden Rice players in Germany, and with those from Switzerland. I’ve checked all my facts with them, and I suspect nonGMfarmer may be a little out of date on this.

GMO Pundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Thursday, 24 November 2005 8:16:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of rubbish to claim that "goodwill" will solve all. Read Reports are merely stating that the non-GM farmer accept contamination which prevents us selling as GM-free, that we pay for any adverse consequences and that we adopt the extremely expensive practises necessary to prove that our contamination has been segregated and does not require a GM label in the products we sell or we sell as GM. While liability rests with the non-GM farmer, it is not resolved because we are not prepared to exhibit such extraordinarily demanding and expensive "goodwill" gestures toward our neighbours. Goodwill means the GM farmer contains their product and does not impose costs on their neighbours, not that the non-GM farmer has to accept vandalism of our consumer preferred product.
There is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, it is a single gene technology. In the case of GM canola, the GM trait is chemical resistance, similar to our non-GM chemical resistant varieties, that is all. There is more chance that non-GM biotechnology will increase yields, provide drought resistance, frost tolerance etc.
Australian farmers do not need to be sued by Monsanto, Monsanto has an end point royalty where a positive test (? as low as 0.5%)can trigger a 100% deduction of "user fees" from a farmers income and we are forced to accept 0.5% contamination in our seed we plant. Farmers will need to sue Monsanto to get our money back and we are told we must "trust Monsanto" when we want risk management to prevent this.
We may not have a choice to buy non-GM seed as Monsanto negotiates lucrative deals with seed companies to prevent the better varieties being released without the Monsanto GM trait.
Provide a link to an approved Golden Rice trial and I am happy to be proven wrong.
Those wanting GM crops can't expect us to share their enthusiasm. If the GM industry will not accept liability why should we be forced to?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 24 November 2005 11:17:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel honoured that DR GM Dave spent time redefining the precautionary principle as a result of my posting.

People won't swallow Genetically Modified foods...

Like in most things it seems the precautionary principle goes out the window when the bucks are involved. Sad but true science seems to have sold it's soul.

You're right Dave it's morally wrong to have kids in this world with vitamin A deficiency. It's morally wrong to have kids starving and poor in the world. It's morally wrong to allow science to misrepresent safety when it isn't proved. GM is not the only way to get the vitamin A to the kids - anyone would think there were no other options.

BUT It's also morally wrong to test GM foods on these people just because they aren't in a position to say no ...

It's morally wrong for Corporations to own our seeds, our foods, our produce... but hey morals went out the window years ago Dave. It's morally wrong to force farmers to use GM seeds. And it's also morally wrong to introduce their use by stealth.

Search Google for Agent Orange and see which Corporations names come up .... Find out how many people have been effected and how much compensation the corps had to pay. Zip all ($180 mill)compared to the effect they have had on people's lives. They probably made more than the $180 mill in profits selling the stuff.

The precautionary principle wouldn't have allowed the use of Agent Orange & Silicon Breast Implants & it shouldn't allow the use of GM foods on the populations of the world until the real science comes in.
We now use depleted Uranium in shells with no regard to the aftermath. The precautionary principle should have stopped that too.

What's that old saying "Just because you can doesn't mean you should!"
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 25 November 2005 12:48:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer and Opinionated 2 make some good points although I find it difficult to believe those companies who want to sell GM seeds here are not falling over backwards to accommodate those who don't. However if this is the case then obviously we should stay out of it for now.

Eventually realisation will dawn and the world won't be quite so reluctant to embrace new technologies. There is nothing wrong with the science but when governments and large companies start doing deals then things start to go wrong (like the cross-city tunnel in Sydney). This will only happen through education and transparency by companies and governments. In the meantime research will have to focus on something else. This seems a shame and will enforce unnecessary suffering on many but hey we live in a democracy so must abide by majority opinion. Glad I decided to change career though.
Posted by sajo, Friday, 25 November 2005 8:06:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The increase in oil prices is defeating the argument that we produce enough food already and it’s only a matter of distributing it evenly.

The only way forward is to give farmers in the developing world the means i.e. the biofortified GM seed that he or she can grow themselves. The shortage of food has to be solved locally.

GM is the solution since it provides all the nutrients and can be sown year after year..

Queensland University of Technology researchers together with Ugandan researchers are receiving US $ 1.1 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to biofortify the banana boosting its content of vitamin A, iron and iodine.

We need more projects like these to help feed the world.
Posted by sten, Friday, 25 November 2005 9:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Australian farmers do not need to be sued by Monsanto, Monsanto has an end point royalty where a positive test (? as low as 0.5%)can trigger a 100% deduction of "user fees" from a farmers income and we are forced to accept 0.5% contamination in our seed we plant. Farmers will need to sue Monsanto to get our money back and we are told we must "trust Monsanto" when we want risk management to prevent this. We may not have a choice to buy non-GM seed as Monsanto negotiates lucrative deals with seed companies to prevent the better varieties being released without the Monsanto GM trait.
#GM Pundit: In my view, the agreed "unintended presence tolerance" now in place should provide a starting point for workable agreements, given willingness of all parties to try and provide all growers with acceptable choices.

"Provide a link to an approved Golden Rice trial and I am happy to be proven wrong."

http://www.goldenrice.org/index.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/progress-on-field-trials-on-golden.html

"I feel honoured that DR GM Dave spent time redefining the precautionary principle as a result of my posting."
#GMO Pundit: I am merely following a sound framework spelt out already by many others, including Calum Turvey:

http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/papers/Turvey_paper.pdf

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/unintended-adverse-consequences-of-19.html
Posted by d, Friday, 25 November 2005 10:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks GM Dave and the precautionary principle obviously can effect economic development but so can ignoring the precautionary principle by stealth or any other means especially if some of the predicted side effects become apparant. I hope the corporations are using the precautionary principle of economics and stockpiling non GM foods just in case. A disaster could effect their bottom lines if they don't.

By plunging the world into the great unknown - that being the long term effects on humans and plants and animals of GM foods - science obviscates it's responsibilities.

I recommend people should all read this article to avail themselves with an update to at least 2003 on GM foods in Australia. It seems we may be eating up to 200 times more residual Round Up with our Soy Beans and Soy Bean associated products in the not too distant future. Can the GM lobby come up with Chocolate flavoured Roundup soon just in case there are problems with the taste.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=100255&catId=100288&tid=100008&p=3

If people can't see what is wrong here then people just can't see.
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 25 November 2005 2:30:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "agreed" tolerance level does not provide all growers with acceptable choices and was not agreed to by non-GM farmers as it is merely an arrangement by those wanting GM crops to remove our GM-free status and make farmers liable for costs and market loss. The tolerance level does not comply with law or market demand. The ACCC confirms non-GM or GM-free = no GM. The 0.9% level was misinterpreted, the EU legislation confirms that contamination will only be accepted if the contamination is not detected at stages throughout the system. If zero can not be guaranteed, an identity preservation system is needed for both EU and Japan (our biggest customer) to prove we have made every effort to avoid GM. This is estimated to cost farmers $35/tonne or 10-15% of the gross value of our product.
Despite being a condition of Bayer Cropscience's license, there is no workable testing regime to make the tolerance level workable. How can farmers state we only have 0.5% (seed) or 0.9% in our crop if there is no field test? Testing for that level of accuracy cost over $1000/test and will take weeks as there is only one accredited lab in Australia.
Of course, we are all meant to act very surprised when marketers finally make the statement that we are either to pay these exhorbitant fees or market as GM. And of course, if we are already marketing as GM it will be declared "too late" to protect our GM-free status and we are expected to be very complacent if the moratoriums are lifted to allow GM companies to contaminate our produce further.
This seed contamination was caused by Bayer Cropscience's Tasmanian trial breaches. Bayer Cropscience is continually breaching trial conditions but never held accountable (see OGTR reports) . Why should farmers be forced to pay for Bayer Cropscience contaminating our seed? We need a strict liability regime because non-GM farmers refuse to accept the liability for a product we do not want and do not need. It is logical that the GM company pay for the losses their uncontrollable product causes.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 25 November 2005 5:31:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for the link confirming that Golden Rice had only completed development last year (4-5yrs to go) and the confirmation of the regulatory hurdle stumbling block "the inserted DNA fragment should not have undergone multiple integrations or rearrangements." As Golden Rice does involve multiple intergeneration rearrangements, it is obviously not going to meet this regulatory hurdle.
The "feed the world" statement has long since been proven wrong as there is no reason why GM crops would feed the world any more than non-GM crops. Starvation is caused when there is total drought where nothing lives and nor will a GM crop.There are numerous examples (and scientific explanations why) of GM crops performing worse in drought and even Australian farmers use an additional irrigation of water on GM cotton. India has had massive failures with GM Bt cotton and the parliament is so concerned they are calling for an enquiry. Australia has recently released a non-GM "drought tolerant" wheat variety but of course every living organism needs water and it is not drought-proof. Third world countries are banning GM crops because of economic risk and concern for health.
GM=less food, the next wave of GM products is replacing food crops with pharmaceutical and industrial crops. This will be a major problem as we can not segregate GM from non-GM totally and I doubt very much if consumers are going to be too happy about consuming drugs (eg. anticoagulants, anti-abortion pig vaccines) or industrials (eg plastics,fuel) in food. Farmers could actually lose our ability to market a food crop because we can not afford the liability involved to try to supply a contamination free product where failure can lead to total market rejection or serious health implications. Even if we don't grow food crops, it is doubtful if a pharmaceutical company will accept our crop if it is contaminated with another pharmaceutical or industrial product.
Unless we get the rules right, GM crops could be the biggest threat to food and agriculture we have ever faced!
Why then are we allowing the GM industry to make the rules?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 25 November 2005 11:30:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RE Opinionated's 2003 Consumer Association comments
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=100255&catId=100288&tid=100008&p=
"Maximiser corn... resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin."

This statement is scientific nonsense, plants are not affected by ampicillin to start with
The target of ampicillin is peptidoglcan,
http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/prostruct/cw.html
and plants dont have it.
The Consumer association remarks about Cotton are misleading and out of date. For example, insect resistance to"Bt" hasnt emerged after at least 8 years of use
see
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=11534&start=1&control=217&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/43/15389
Delayed resistance to transgenic cotton in pink bollworm
Bruce E. Tabashnik *, Timothy J. Dennehy and Yves Carrièr
PNAS October 25, 2005 vol. 102 no. 43 15389-15393
"We monitored pink bollworm resistance to Bt toxin for 8 years with laboratory bioassays of strains derived annually from 10-17 cotton fields statewide. Bioassay results show no net increase from 1997 to 2004 in the mean frequency of pink bollworm resistance to Bt toxin. A synthesis of experimental and modeling results suggests that this delay in resistance can be explained by refuges of cotton without Bt toxin, recessive inheritance of resistance, incomplete resistance, and fitness costs associated with resistance."

A much better and more authoritative briefing document is
CAST Commentary QTA 2005-2 October 2005 Crop Biotechnology and the Future of Food A Scientific Assessment
http://www.cast-science.org/cast/src/cast_top.htm

nonGMfarmer "As Golden Rice does involve multiple intergeneration rearrangements"

You appear to have misread Professor Potrykus' slides and talks, and there is no evidence for your comments about supposed genetic instability of Golden Rice. In fact Potrykus (famously) reviews the numerous genetic rearangements in conventional rice breeds.YES, massive genetic rearrangements occur in natural breeds.

As far as several other misleading, contentious or innacurate comments you have made (about yield, drought, India), it's going to take several posts to sort them out. Post links to support your assertions please.
Lets start with GM canola and water efficiency. GM actually helps with more efficient water use.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/sow-and-grow-early-to-waste-less-water.html

As for the supposed Indian cotton disaster, India is having dramatic INCREASES in average crop yields these last two seasons and GM seed sales have jumped 131%
see
http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad/highlights/2005/10/india_18oct2005/index.htm
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Business&loid=8.0.206000816&par=0
Posted by d, Saturday, 26 November 2005 7:11:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets look at who is making "misleading, contentious or innacurate comments":

There are numerous scientific documents regarding losing the effect of antibiotics by using antibiotic resistant marker genes in food crops. The OGTR responded claiming these antibiotics are not used much anyway. The issue is that when antibiotics are used, they are expected to work.

Professor Potrykus happily discussed Golden Rice's numerous GM backcrosses. I asked a question publicly to clarify this in association to the regulatory restrictions and also discussed it at some length with Professor Potrykus (a factual honest man). Golden Rice is not ready to adopt because it is unlikely to pass the regulatory hurdles.

Your reference is incorrect, GM canola does not allow farmers to sow earlier than existing varieties. Why would it?

Yields and drought? http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253

India: "GM cotton performed so badly it has now been banned from the whole of South India, and the only other two varieties grown in the past 3 years have been banned from Andhra Pradesh".

3yr scientific study "Though costing nearly 400% more to buy, the average yield from the GM cotton was about 150kg per acre, 30% than from other non-GM varieties. The GM seeds also cost 12% more to cultivate in their need for manure and irrigation, and the reduction in pesticide use was negligible." "Non-GM farmers earned 60% more"

Brazil: "The president of the Rio Grande do Sul seed association sites 25% higher crop losses in GE soy crops as compared with conventional ones."

Indonesia: "the results were so disastrous, Monsanto had to pull its GM seed out of the country..."

US: 2004 Midwest Soybean Conference "Is Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene responsible for a flattening of U.S. soybean yields that has cost farmers an estimated $1.28 billion?"

Argentina: "RR soya crops also yield 5% to 10% less compared with the non-GM varieties grown under similar soil conditions, confirming findings in the United States." "the effects are exacerbated under strong drought conditions or in relatively infertile fields."

The reality of GM certainly does not live up to the hype.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 26 November 2005 7:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GM canola does not allow farmers to sow earlier than existing varieties. Why would it?
#GMO Pundit:Page 9 of Robert Norton’s Conservation farming 2003 report-during pre-seed weed control, waiting for weed emergence.

"Yields and drought?"

#GMO Pundit: Chris Preston discusses this NCF argument fully at
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2441

“Brazil: "The president of the Rio Grande do Sul seed association sites 25% higher crop losses in GE soy crops as compared with conventional ones."

#GMO Pundit: This statement is actually about yield losses "because transgenic seeds are smuggled into Brazil from Argentina and are not intended for the local climate, so have proved less resistant to the water shortage. The conventional varieties, developed by national Brazilian agencies, certified and adapted to the region, had better results. The differences in crop loss varied according to the conditions of each field, reaching "a maximum of 25 percent" for non-GM soy, he said." Therefore, rather than a 25% yield reduction on account of the soybeans being GM we have a problem with less well adapted varieties being smuggled into Brazil and the yield loss is mostly less than 25%. As all farmers would realise, less well-adapted varieties are likely to have lower yields. The farmers growing these varieties would have decided to grow GM soy for the other advantages they provide.

"US: 2004 Midwest Soybean Conference "Is Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene responsible for a flattening of U.S. soybean yields that has cost farmers an estimated $1.28 billion?"

#GMO Pundit: Preston (see above link)argument starts with Charles Benbrook citing Eliason and Jones at the Midwest Soybean Conference in 2004, but Bedbrook simply ignores another paper at the same conference that contadicts Bedbrook claims.
(J.E. Sprecht. Is
soybean yield improvement stagnating? Perception and perspectives.
http://wwwiasoybeans.com/whatnew/msc04/proceed.html and click on the
link) examined the same problem. Sprecht showed that yield improvements, with no significant reduction in rate of improvement, had occurred in irrigated soybeans. It is clear from Sprecht's analysis and other data presented at the same conference that weather conditions rather than Roundup Ready are responsible for the apparent lack of yiel
Posted by d, Saturday, 26 November 2005 9:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GM Dave you didn't comment on the main point I made from the Choice article. Perhaps it slipped your notice.

It was the bit about the application to increase residual levels of roundup by up to 200 times in Soy Beans. It hit me fair and square in the eye.

Seeing you are a scientist of some note ... was that bit true or even partially true?

And just so we get to the crux of the problem with the science behind Genetically Modified foods perhaps we should discuss who funds each of our research.

Let me start... I am just a Joe off the street. I am not a member of any political parties, any environmental groups nothing. I am boringly independent. I am a true swinging voter, I look at the issue and decide whether I believe what I am being fed.

I hope you are too.

Not to be rude but after you have answered the Roundup residual in the soybean question can you answer these questions.

1. Have you ever received any funding or benefits whatsoever from GM food industry corporations or GM food organisations of any type?

2. Do you have any further applications for funding or benefits from GM food industry corporations or GM food organisations of any type?

3. Have you ever received any funding or benefits whatsoever from Anti GM organisations?

4. Do you have any further applications for funding or benefits from Anti GM organisations?

I hope you aren't offended by these questions because absolutely no offence is meant in any way whatsoever but for the benefits of all the answers would be nice to know. It may help us gain perspective.
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 27 November 2005 12:12:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nonGMfarmer:
"no evidence that GM crops increase yields ...single gene technology"

#####The link shows that GM exploits hybrid vigour, and that this is a multi-gene phenomenon. Thus nonGMfarmer is wrong about two things in the one statement, crop-yield and single-genes.http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-hybrids-and-hybrid-vigour-came.html

"Monsanto negotiates lucrative deals with seed companies to prevent the better varieties being released without the Monsanto GM trait."

####Oh yes? Surely ACCC and the competitive trade practices act gives us sufficient protection from this.

Opinionated2
"residual levels of roundup by up to 200 times in Soy Beans. "

#####I think on balance the move to Glyphosate crop tolerance is a good health and environment outcome. Its much less toxic than other herbicides and I am aware of no health issues with glyphosate itself.
see
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2004/august/9487.htm
http://www.agric.usyd.edu.au/research/p/RR%20cotton%20snapshot.pdf

"crux of the problem...who funds each of our research."

####I don't accept that you've described the crux of a problem accurately. There is also the issue of improper ad hominem attacks on individual scientists and imputations of impropriety as a means of silencing reasoned comment. I have seen this in action for long enough to make sure that I cannot be silenced by this tactic, so I suggest that you are wasting time and space here. However, I think it is proper that those who attempt silence others using this argument should be transparent themselves.

Which leads me to ask you to lift the view of anonymity from you post so that at least we can gain "perspective" on your statements using your own criteria. Graeme O'Neil and I have had financial questions about Genetics-ACF funding unanswered for years -fundamental questions about European sources of funds, connections to funding by Berri fruits and Mr Doug Shears in Australia, and for example Greenpeace funding of the visits to Australia by overseas "experts" such as Charles Bedbrook should all be answered by an organisation that discounts other comments on the basis of funding sources.
I don't do such discounting. I dont "research" food crops, and my infectious disease work has been government funded. The opinions I express are totally independant.
Posted by d, Sunday, 27 November 2005 9:18:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My drive is that I have always hated farmers being lied to. I know it upsets the pro-GM activists that farmers are funding ourselves (not Greenpeace funded) but you just have to get over it, you will never find a secret funding link because there is none. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1139
The latest cost I paid was $660 for a CSIRO gene technology workshop because I was the only farmer that was refused funding assistance by Agrifood Awareness (chiefly funded by Avcare, the lobby organisation for major chemical companies such as Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto). It was mentioned that CSIRO negotiates "deals" with Monsanto to allow them to use their GM intellectual property in the lab but I could not find out what deals.
Farmers are lobbied heavily by the GM industry with little or no avenue to correct the statements. eg. Grains Week question time - I was attending in the role of WAFarmers Federation Grains vice-president, and was the only person who responded. I was told "Not you Julie, anybody but Julie Newman can ask a question." What are they scared of, accountability for false and misleading statements?
Charles Benbrook's Australian tour is not funded by Greenpeace. It must be difficult for the pro-GM activists to try to counter the credibility of someone that has such credible history (eg. chief advisor to the White House.)
The references you use are opinions, not factual data. The "I've been there and GM is wonderful" statement does not counter the 3 year scientific studies by the Ag Depts mentioned that came up with the findings and scientific reasons why GM crops are performing worse in drought.
GM does not make a hybrid, the GM process just makes it easier to prevent self fertilisation in a hybrid. It is a breeding tool, not a process to increase yields. 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."
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 27 November 2005 11:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am very stunned at the claim from NonGMFarmer (so that is you Julie Newman) that “atrazine has just undertaken a stringent 8 year APVMA regulatory review and it is not toxic.” All pesticides, by definition are toxic, and Julie’s one-eyed claims on this obviously testable fact should raise questions about all of her other claims. Even the US EPA has concluded that atrazine is a health risk (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/atrazine.html ). EPA has found atrazine to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above 3 parts per billion for relatively short periods of time: congestion of heart, lungs and kidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands. Long-term, atrazine has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above 3 ppb: weight loss, cardiovascular damage, retinal and some muscle degeneration; and cancer.

All that an APVMA regulatory review means is that the risks were considered manageable. Seven EU countries in the European Union ("EU") have banned atrazine: France, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Austria and Italy (http://www.thecre.com/atrazine/intactions.htm). You could grow crops without atrazine if GM canola and legumes were allowed in Australia, and even with other herbicides.

By the way, Benbrook has been funded by Greenpeace in the recent past for a study on Argentina (it's in the acknowledgements of his report) that he will surely cite while visiting Australia. Thus, while it may be technically true that Greenpeace is not funding Benbrook’s visit (and I would still like to see the books on that), Greenpeace has surely funded him.

I would like to add that Julie Newman claimed as recently as April 2004 that Greenpeace had nothing to do with her organization, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF). However, The Weekly Times revealed in April 2004 an apparent contradiction, that NCF had been having regular teleconferences with Greenpeace and Greenpeace had developed (and funded) the NCF website. I so hate it when farmers and the public are misled
Posted by Rebel, Sunday, 27 November 2005 3:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In defense of Tribe, there have been so many false and misleading claims made in this exchange that it is hard to know where to start.

Potential hazards associated with transgenic crop technology have been studied by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS repeatedly has concluded that biotechnology is no more likely to produce unintended effects than conventional technology—indeed the greater precision and more defined nature of the changes introduced may actually be safer (NAS 2004). Mutagenesis methods that have a long history of safe use in conventional breeding are likely to produce a greater number of unintended changes than any other method of plant breeding. European Union scientists concluded that transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their regular counterparts, and likely more so, given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/index.html). GM crops help to protect farm worker health and the environment. After 10 years of safe use, it is fair to conclude that the inherent safety of the technology and the pre-market case-by-case safety assessments conducted by regulatory agencies around the world have ensured that foods from transgenic crops are as safe to eat as any food.

GM crops are heavily assessed for food safety. In fact, if peanuts or kiwi fruits had to go through the same assessment as is applied to GM crops, such as for the recent GM peas, they would not be approved, because both peanuts or kiwis cause allergic reactions. In fact, the multi-million dollar costs of safety assessment, and opposition from anti-GM activists, are key reasons as to why other kinds of GM crops have not yet been developed.

Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries (http://www.isaaa.org/), representing more than half of the world’s population. More than 7 million of these farmers are small-holders in developing countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries.
Posted by Rebel, Sunday, 27 November 2005 3:03:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whenever the competition gets too tough, the "funded by Greenpeace" bulldust comes out along with some outrageous rubbish such as "half the worlds farmers". Yes, the first GM campaigner contacted me on his first day of work after hearing me on Radio National and farmers joined a few phone conferences answering questions like "what are our concerns", "what is the price of lupins/soybeans" etc. Big deal! Get over it, its not an issue, just something pro-GM activists love throwing about in some corny attempt to avoid real debate.
George Kailis originally funded the NCF website skeleton but I developed everything on the site and have paid the associated costs since.
Our key objection is that we will not accept liability for a risk we do not want to take. Bullying and slander tactics by the pro-GM industry that doesn't want to accept liability either will not make us accept that risk.
Nortons report presumes we use last generations practises, farmers already use minimum till and most farmers use non-GM chemical-resistant canola so it is innaccurate.
Glufosinate has more health concerns than Atrazine http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1504 but we don't drink these chemicals.
The single gene technology involves transferring single genes to around 30,000 GM canola genes. ie. contrary to claims, you can't use this single gene technology to create a wheat with the nitrogen fixation properties of a legume as this involves transferring around a third of the genes that are all interacting.
The GM canola "benefit" is chemical resistance for post-emergent control. Canadian farmers do not have the pre-emergent weed burden we have because they plant directly after the snow thaws. Even Monsanto/Bayer do not recommend sowing GM canola dry for exactly the same reasons you don't sow non-GM chemical resistant canola dry. The most critical weed control phase in canola is knockdown/pre-emergent, not post-emergent, as the highest yield penalty associated with weeds is when the seedling emerges.
All farmers will be exposed to a market risk and higher costs for more problems and limited benefit. Why exactly should we be forced to accept risks we do not want to take?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 27 November 2005 7:49:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GMO Pundit Dave, I haven't attacked you personally and to represent that I have is wrong. I just asked you a few questions on matters of great concern to me, many others in Australia and the world.

The title of this piece is "The case for GM food deserves a fair hearing". Now "for" is a very strong word in this title as are the words "fair hearing". You must have realised when posting the topic that it was going to get some robust debate.

So trying to be fair I questioned you using "the precautionary principle" ... you argued the economic downsides of the precautionary principle... and yes they exist to some degree. Did you argue the true value of caution when we genetically modify foods?

Have you addressed the "GM foods by stealth" questions? Did you address the morality of corporations in the GM debate or the ownership rights of our food supply?

You stated "These potential deaths show that the non-precautionary approach advocated by Opinionated is morally wrong". With this point you brought morality into the debate. Did you answer any of my morality questions? Would potential deaths or long term illness from GM foods be wrong also? I suffer heaps of allergies ... trust me I don't want any more.

When presented with the "Choice article" you commented on Corn and Cotton and failed to mention the Roundup residues in Soy until the posting I am replying to here. We are being asked to accept up to 200 times the residue that our Govt limits now. This is no small increase. The long term effects of this haven't been studied in humans.

Are the decision makers in our country and throughout the world ever swayed by money? Could this or does this happen in science?

They are all just questions that allow people to gain perspective. I accept and respect your stated independence but disagree with your arguments on genetically modified foods.
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 28 November 2005 12:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It must be difficult for the pro-GM activists to try to counter the credibility of someone that has such credible history (eg. chief advisor to the White House.)"

Actually the gushing claims Benbrook' credibility, and "Advisor to the White House Line" make me a suspicious. Maybe someone's trying to sell Buckingham Palace.
What do you think of Bedbrook's advice to Zambia? http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/advice-to-zambia-from-charles-bedbrook.html

"GM performing worse in drought."
Already many of your statements on this are misleading or wrong; which reports?

"GM does not make a hybrid... but is a result of the breeding of the two genetically distinct parents."

Its hard to see where you are trying to go on this. GM provides the only workable hybrid system in canola now. Single traits can offer something - eg Bt, Herbicide tolerance, drought resistance, stress resistance, Aluminium tolerance.
"Nortons report presumes ... most farmers use non-GM chemical-resistant canola"
But Norton also makes the point that existing chemical resistant canola vaieties have several limitations. The most prominent is a 20% yield penalty with TT triazine-atrazine. Both the new GM varieties offer better performance there. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/existing-herbicide-tolerant-canola.html
On top of that Australian farmers are giving the hybrid canola users in Canada a 20-30% cost advantage which you consistently never mention, despite saying that lies to farmers are what you hate.http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-hybrids-and-hybrid-vigour-came.html ; do you realise this lies statement puts an onus on you to report all the contradictions to your earlier clains emerging from this thread?

Opinionated2
First, thanks for the conversational tone of your remarks - inviting dialogue. Robust debate is fine.
"You argue the economic downsides of the precautionary principle"
You are missing my point, I argue that a precautionary approach requires consideration of human welfare implications of stopping new crops, and death, disease, cancer and birth defects with fungal toxins are well established welfare outcomes demanding moral evaluation.

"We are being asked to accept up to 200 times the residue that our Govt limits now."
Wel no I dont accept that statement says enough about this issue; for a considered judgement there is much more to say about it.
Posted by d, Monday, 28 November 2005 8:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are many non-GM hybrid canola's and if GM canola was making an improvement in Canadian farmers incomes, they would not have marched for such a huge subsidy increase.

Farmers need factual data, not promises.

If the GM companies were confident of yield improvements, they would not be refusing to do independent trials. At $16/kg for Bayer's GM seed and $72/ha for glufosinate which doesn’t control radish (triazines $28/ha) , plus the additional costs for crop management plans, segregation and IP you would need more benefit than is being promised. More http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1992

Health:
I commend the WA government for just announcing they would fund independent feeding studies on GM foods. CSIRO recently confirmed concerns when their voluntary feeding studies found GM peas produced new proteins and created immune/allergic responses.

A compelling study was done in UK to prove that GM food was safe, a prearranged test was approved by all sides and the UK government employed the best scientist in that field, Arpad Pusztai. 6 months into the 3 year project, Mr Pusztai went public about his serious concerns. Developing animals fed GM potatoes (with snowdrop lectin for insect resistance) had smaller brain, heart, kidneys, testes, enlarged livers, beginnings of tumerous growths, blood disorders and immunology problems. The test animals fed non-GM potatoes (some with the snowdrop lectin added externally) were not adversely affected. Mr Pusztai was sacked the same week Monsanto paid 140,000 pounds to Rowett University. His notes were taken and Pusztai and staff were not interviewed but within a few hours the "experts" who were not even professionals in that field, pronounced the test invalid. This stinks of corruption, fuels mistrust and added to the public relations nightmare.

Similar immune reactions have been found in independent testing even in some of Monsanto's own limited tests. Russia's preliminary tests with the offspring of pregnant rodents fed GM foods was even worse.
We can't ignore these problems and feeding studies should not be voluntary. Because we can't segregate or recall the product, governments are being very reckless in pushing GM food on a reluctant population
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 28 November 2005 11:55:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie,

you claim that EU consumers won't accept GM crops and that the EU legislation confirms that contamination will only be accepted if the contamination is not detected at stages throughout the system.

Would you like to comment on the coexistence laws in Denmark that clearly are there to provide Danish GM and Non-GM farmers guidance on how to keep the crops segregated? For three crops , maize ,sugarbeet and potato they found that the supply chain could manage 0.1 % thresholds without Government regulation. For these three crops simple on farm segregation is required to achieve levels of accidental presence of 0.9% or lower.

The Danes accept some spillover of GM in non-GM and the EU bases its whole GM policy on the fundamental principle that in agricultural porduction nothing is 100% pure from impurities. We can measure down to 0.01% levels of GM but because we can do it (and yes it is expensive) doesn't necessarily mean that we must do it. To resist unjustifiable cost on the supply chain for grain production thresholds must be set at levels that reflect seed , grain , and food industry standards.
Posted by sten, Monday, 28 November 2005 12:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some people argue that hunger is a food distribution problem. However, any strategy that allows small-holder farmers to more consistently produce larger amounts of food in a more sustainable way will help decrease hunger, promote rural economic development and self-esteem, and decrease dependence on distribution systems.

GM crops like Bt corn do that now. They also directly benefit health. The high incidence of throat cancer, liver problems, and neural tube defects in fetuses among people in southern Africa and Latin America results from fungal toxins (fumonisins) produced on insect-damaged corn. Fumonisins also can be fatal to horses and pigs. Insect-resistant (Bt) corn has much lower amounts of fumonisins than conventional corn because there is less insect damage to corn kernels on which the fungi can grow. Therefore, a switch to Bt corn varieties would lower exposure to fumonisin and decrease the incidence of these birth defects (Wu, F. A., J. D. Miller, and E. A. Cassman. 2004.. J Toxicol, Toxin Rev 23: 397–424. )

Bt cotton continues to be a success in India , as reported by Reuters:
India seen heading for record cotton crop, August 11, 2005, Atul Prakash
BOMBAY - …… the share of transgenic cotton has been estimated at about 90 percent of total plantings in Gujarat, India's largest cotton producer, nearly 75 percent in the neighbouring western state of Maharashtra and some 60 percent in northern India. Overall coverage under the genetically modified cotton has more than doubled this year from the previous year…...”

With respect to the residual levels of Roundup in soy, the ANZFA allowed an increase of glyphosate residues from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg in soybeans to match the international standards as set by the Codex Committee of the UN. Since long before GM, glyphosate had been used in the late season to defoliate beans before harvest and kill weeds, giving average residues of about 7-10 mg/kg, and GM beans are no higher. Until Monsanto started to apply for permission to import GM beans, no one had noticed that Australia technically had an old “detection limit” of 0.1
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 28 November 2005 5:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM:
There you go again misquoting people. I didn’t say half the world’s farmers.

It’s fine for Greenpeace to have an opinion. My concern is why you and Greenpeace concealed the relationship. You even threatened to sue Paula Fitzgerald because she suggested that you and Greenpeace were working together (and bragged about it on your website). Then it turned out you were meeting with Greenpeace all along. I would not have mentioned this until you gave us your holier-than-thou bulldust that you always hated farmers being lied to. Isn’t it true that you told the farmer newspaper The Weekly Times that Greenpeace had nothing to do with your network, only to admit a week later, after you were outed by Nic Kentish, that Greenpeace had built your network’s website? Isn’t it true that Nic told us all on radio and in the Times that Greenpeace chaired teleconferences with you for months earlier? Would we know today if Nic hadn’t told us? Are you saying that Jeremy Tager lied to the Times that Greenpeace had provided an administrative service in funding the website? The issue raised is honesty in the claims you make. I’ve saved the documentation in case you threaten to sue me like you have threatened Bill Crabtree and Paula.

The issue is not whether glufosinate is worse than atrazine since no one is going to use glufosinate; the key comparison is with glyphosate (e.g., Roundup). The 350 word space limit for this list doesn’t allow me to debunk here today the spurious health claims reprinted on your website. I’ll see if they let me on later to do so.

Glyphosate is at least three times less toxic (according to active ingredient chronic risk indicators based on US Environmental Protection Agency data) and half as persistent as the herbicides used before the advent of transgenic soy (www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/).

You wrote: “Farmers need factual data, not promises.” If you really believe this, why don’t you come out right here and encourage trials of Roundup Ready canola to get the data? What are you afraid of
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 28 November 2005 5:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As explained numerous times: Nic Kentish joined a Greenpeace conference which is why they chaired it. Paula publicly stated I was Greenpeace funded when I am not (my husband would love it if I was). Cheque (comparatively trivial amount) went from George/Greenpeace/Webdesigner for obvious accounting reasons. I do all the website.

I do want independent comparative trials, not commercial release in the guise of "coexistence trials", but the GM companies refuse.

Stan,
Prior to OGTR approval, it is possible to guarantee there is no GM present in our GM-free crops at no cost. Now farmers sign contractual agreements guaranteeing we have no GM and indemnify the supply chain. Markets prefer no liability and confidence to label products as "GM-free"/"non-GM". ACCC confirms the legal definition of these labels = zeroGM. FSANZ successfully prosecuted a company for misleading labels with a "non-GM" label on a 0.0088% contaminated product.

If GM crops were introduced, those wishing to market as GM-free must adopt a rigorous identity preservation system (GM buffer zones, cleanouts, segregation, rigorous testing etc). This IP cost = $35/tonne or 10-15% of the gross value of the product to maintain a 1% contamination level. These costs, plus manufacturing segregation costs, will ultimately be passed to the consumer which will make non-GM products price prohibitive and effectively deny choice. In EU, a tolerance of 0.1% is considered "adventitious" but if tests show levels higher, the product will need to be labelled as GM. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2477 Some contamination will be accepted under Japanese legislation providing the IP documention is available.

With no IP and a chance of contamination, EU requires a GM label and Japanese legislation requires the product to be labelled as "unsegregated from GM crops" or similar and markets avoid that.

If GM is introduced, due to the huge costs and liabilities involved, all farmers are expected to mix our produce with GM and sell as GM.

Why should non-GM farmers be expected to accept GM contamination and the associated market risk or higher costs? The GM industry should keep GM contained, it shouldn't be up the non-GM industry to keep GM out.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 28 November 2005 7:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/bad-diets-worry-guts-even-with-rats.html
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2005/11/rasts-fed-bad-diets-have-lots-of.html

Julie has made claims about potato experiments. I've put two versions of the data Julie is using. All at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

Julie can now explain to us how she reaches her conclusions and the Lancet doesn't.

Harry A Kuiper, Hub P J M Noteborn, and A C M Peijnenburg, Wageningen University and Research Centre,Netherlands:

Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai report that, when fed to rats, GM potatoes containing the GNA lectin haveproliferative and antiproliferative effects on the gut.They suggest that several of these effects are due to alterationsin the composition of the transgenic potatoes, rather than to the newly expressed gene product. However data on the composition of the different diets are not reported in the letter. Pusztai has released some of these details on the internet. These details indicate that the content of starch, glucose polymers, lectin[GNA], and trypsin and chymotrypsin
inhibitors in GM potatoes differed from that of the parental line. Unfortunately, these differences have not been examined further by analysis of an extended range of lines, for evidence on whether these differences are attributable to the genetic modification or to natural variations. Another shortcoming of the study is that the diets were protein deficient; they contained only 6% protein by weight. There is convincing evidence thatshort-term protein stress and starvation impair the growth rate, development, hepatic metabolism, and immune function of rats.

Ewen and Pusztai say that the significant differences between diet groups invariables such as mucosal thickness or crypt length are evidence of the biological effects of the GM foods.

Such a claim is easy to make but difficult to prove, because no consistent patterns of changes were observed in the study.

Ingestion of potatoes may be associated with several adaptive changes in the gut because of the low digestibility of raw or partly refined potato starch. In rats caecal hypertrophy is a common response to short-term feeding of various poorly digestible carbohydrates, such as raw potatostarch. A physiological response of this nature is probably of little toxicological significance. Dose-response studies would have helped in the assessment of consistency of response.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Monday, 28 November 2005 8:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" if GM canola was making an improvement in Canadian farmers incomes, they would not have marched for such a huge subsidy increase."

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever read. They'd march for more subsidies no matter how much they were making. That's the nature of pork barrelling, it only ever keeps increasing.

"I believe NonGMFarmer.... the general public and therefore the market is also on his/her side. We are a market driven economy and the market has and is speaking loudly.

People don't want GM food ... It may be sad for the pro GM lobby but it is true - people have stated it loudly. Now in a democracy that should be that but of course it won't be."

So what are you worried about then? If nobody wants to buy it, then nobody will grow it. For the same reason that nobody farms dog faeces.

Of course, you are talking out of your arse. People will indeed buy GM food and already do. Where does all Canada's go, Do we export it to Mars? You're a moron and should disqualify yourself from any future debates.

"The title of this piece is "The case for GM food deserves a fair hearing". Now "for" is a very strong word in this title as are the words "fair hearing""

Well yes, I can see how giving the "for" side a fair hearing would be considered very strong if you're a Gaea-worshipping luddite who lives in the woods eating berries dressed in loincloths, but really most people don't consider the possibility that GM might be a good thing all that astounding.

As usual, this debate is full of liars, inveterate morons and hidden Greenpeace activists who hate GM primarily because it involves capitalism, just like every other debate on GM that's ever been had in Australia. The sad thing is that our politicians still think they have the right to decide for all of us what we want.

The same sort of people argued against the electric light.
Posted by Yobbo, Monday, 28 November 2005 10:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer. If you hate being lied to why do you publish incorrect rubbish on your website and support people like Charles Benbrook?

I offer a single example at the moment. In an article titled "A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to Genetic Engineering" (left hand side bar) the claim is made that a GM diet supplement caused a deadly epidemic in the US. In fact this has been debunked by the US FDA, who note that " cases of EMS and a related disease, eosinophilic fascitis, have occurred prior to and after the 1989 epidemic" and "other brands of L-tryptophan, or L-tryptophan itself, regardless of the levels or presence of impurities, could not be eliminated as causal or contributing to the development of EMS" (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html).

As to Charles Benbrook, I read somewhere that he has been shown to misquote data in order to demonstrate negative effects of GM foods. (see http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2409).
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 5:02:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So it appears the pro-GM reasons for introducing GM canola to Australia where we as non-GM farmers are to be forced to sell on the consumer rejected GM market and pay for the consequences are:
1. Everybody not chanting the GM mantra is really scary Greenpeace in disguise
2. There is nothing wrong with GM because people with a vested interest in GM said there is not
3. Everybody else is growing it and if we grow GM too, consumers will have to eat GM because it will be too expensive to buy GM-free
4. Australia is not offered a GM crop worth taking the risk for but false promises will have to do
5. GMers want non-GMers to pay

Pretty corny!

We don't have any problem with someone giving GM a whirl if there is a guarantee that the GM industry will pay for the consequences and recall the product if there is a problem. If the GM industry truly believed GM is problem-free, they would not be fighting strict liability legislation.

d- the non-GM potato-eating rats would have been just as sick - but they were not.

Rebel, your comment about "half-the-world" referred to farmers. ISAAA's map shaded all Australia GM despite only a small area of GM cotton being grown (around 20times the area of our farm). ISAAA statistics are derived from market share of seed sales when most non-GM farmers plant their own which may account for so many complaints of inaccuracy about data from this GM-industry-funded body.

Why won't Glufosinate ammonium be used?

Small scale independent performance trials are needed to establish just how much of a yield penalty is associated with GM canola but it is certainly not performing as well as promised. Roundup Ready canola http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2007

Monsanto's product encourages the overuse of glyphosate in an already overused rotation system and will result in using more toxic chemicals such as 2-4D and Paraquat for resistance management and unwanted volunteer control.

GM crops will not feed the world better than non-GM crops unless they are better than non-GM and there is no evidence of that.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/percy-schmeiser-and-seed-cleaners.html
Schmeisser GM case details:

"So, the "honest broker" Mr Freisen tested two batches of seed taken from the same original sample. The sample that came directly from the HFM treatment facility scored 95-98% Roundup resistant, and the sample that had passed through Mr Schmeiser's hands scored 63-65% Roundup resistant.

How can this be? The test is reasonably reliable and accurate. There is no way such a divergent result could occur without dishonesty. Obviously, Monsanto could not have adulterated the batch going directly from HFM to Mr Freisen."

..."Leaving aside that 63 to 65% Roundup Ready canola seed is too high a percentage for any of his "explanations" to be plausible, the fact that the independent sample was 95 to 98% Roundup Ready, just as Monsanto found in the subsample provided to it by HFM, means that Schemeiser must have tampered with the evidence"

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/allegations-of-corporate-legal-threats.html

Julie,
I'd like to return to the liability issue and raise some questions about the way GM liability has been represented to Australian farmers. Big liability fears were created by Percy Schmeisser during his Australian visit, a tour that you and the NCF were closely involved in.

Details of the Canadian cases are available (see links above). The big problem is that there are two Schmeissers, Percy the "victim" of accidental GM presence, as created by his theatrical appearances in Australia, and Percy of the court case. The facts in the court evidence show that Percy did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth while in Australia. Court statements existed PRIOR to his tour proving that Percy, by his own admission, deliberately selected pure GMseed.

Why wasn't this all told to Australian farmers during the tour by organisers wanting farmers to know the full, fair, and accurate story?

GMO Pundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Portraying Schmeiser as a liar isn't actually correct. The court did say that Schmeiser knew or should have known that the seed he was collecting (remembering that he had been a seed saver his whole farming life) was GE. It also acknowledged that he never actually used the technology in that he didn't spray his crops with roundup. The court said, that didn't matter in deciding that he had used the patent. The court also indicated that there was no evidence presented by Monsanto contradicting the claim that the GE had arrived on Schmeisers property without intent or participation on the part of Schmeiser. In other words, the court accepted that Schmeiser had been contaminated. He was still found to be using the patent. The implications of that decision should frighten everyone - a biologically replicating organism that can move vast distance by wind, water, machine, or animal - maintains its patent no matter what.

What a scam.
mahogany
Posted by mahogany, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 12:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Yobbo that is what I get for asking a few relevant questions... labelled, abused, told never to post again. Gee and I thought Australia was a democracy that loved free speech.

Yobbo you will have noticed that the GM lobby doesn't answer the questions I have asked because it hinders "the cause".

This is standard model for tough questions used by politicians - ignore the question because then you can't be held accountable for your answers. I'm not too sure whether science should be like that .. but hey perhaps scientists are evolving and becoming politicians.

I would absolutely love GM technology to be the answer to the worlds woes... but I'm afraid at present the science is still out. These things shouldn't be pushed through they should be debated openly.

Feel free to be used as a lab rat and eat as much GM food as you can find
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 1:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just read your comments yobbo - and despite your bluster and loud, abusive and aggressive comments, you're wrong. Take the issue of eating and buying GE foods. The vast majority isn't labeled. In Australia you will find fewer than 2 dozen GE labelled products on supermarket shelves. Products with GE soy, Ge corn, cotton seed oil, GE canola oil are all unlabelled.

It's interesting that when the first GE food came out - a GE tomato, it was advertised as genetically engineered, the next great thing in foods...That didn't last long. The tomato was a dismal commercial failure and no company in their right mind would (or does) advertise their foods as being genetically engineered.

As a note, I'm more than happy for you have your say - it's neither necessary nor convincing to do so in the abusive manner you've chosen.

mahogany
Posted by mahogany, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 2:55:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yobbo you will have noticed that the GM lobby doesn't answer the questions I have asked because it hinders "the cause"."

No, they don't answer your question because they don't care about your opinion. The same reason PETA doesn't answer my emails. You have no political power so why should they waste their time with you?

"So Yobbo that is what I get for asking a few relevant questions... labelled, abused, told never to post again. Gee and I thought Australia was a democracy that loved free speech."

We do. One of the great things about free speech is that it allows us to quickly work out who the morons are.

"The market has spoken" you said. Do you really think there is a "market" at work here when GM crops are banned in every state? If you do, you're a moron. If you don't, but said it anyway, then you are a liar. Take your pick.

"The tomato was a dismal commercial failure and no company in their right mind would (or does) advertise their foods as being genetically engineered."

You are probably right mahogany. Advertising foods with "genetically engineered" as the selling point is like advertising lollies as "Made with rendered cow hoooves". People don't necessarily like to be told directly where what they are eating comes from, but if you look at the pack of Milk Bottles, it quite clearly says that Gelatine is one of the ingredients.

People still buy them because they taste good, and that's the same reason they will buy GM foods. Do you really think there'd be much difference in taste between margarine made from GM or non-GM Canola?

No, the only difference will be that the GM version will be cheaper because it's cheaper to produce. If it isn't cheaper to produce then why would anyone bother switching to GM?
Posted by Yobbo, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 6:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not cheaper to produce GM crops.

While "Yobbo" might think he should have the right to decide for all of us, I'm relieved that decisions of this magnitude involving risk to consumers and livelihoods are taken seriously by state politicians.

You don't have to be too smart to want to market a non-GM-product that consumers/markets prefer.

GM Canada versus non-GM Australia:

ABARE1990-2000 pre-GM: Canada maintained a consistent premium of US$32.68/tonne over Australian canola.

Our largest export customers:

China: 24.11.05 Graincorp Marketing Report-"Recent sales to China from Canada have been at a $US30 discount to current prices being bid in NSW." Canada is quitting stock cheap that they couldn't sell last year. (US$32.68 higher to US$30 lower is a huge fall)

Japan:2004 Japans Ag Dept- average 5% premium for Australia's canola over Canada's canola.

EU:WADeptAg04 report: A premium of 10% for our GM-free produce to EU.

Liability for d:

Pre approval - Farmers are already paying "industry" to do expensive testing.

Non-GM farmers are required to sign contracts guaranteeing there is no GM or under 0.9% GM but there is no field test to check before signing.

GM-sensitive buyers would either refuse contaminated consignments or pay less and it will cost farmers.

Despite numerous trial breaches, Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto have not been fined or punished and not required to pay for testing or recall.

After approval - all farmers are expected to market as GM and suffer the same market rejection losses. If not, farmers pay a fortune to try to keep GM out and are liable for recall and contamination cleanup costs if these attempts fail.

Rather than the GM company being responsible for getting their trespassing patented genes off our land, we are supposed to be liable for not eliminating it properly.

Monsanto has an end-point-royalty and can deduct their user fee from our income and we need to sue them to recover our money.

The GM industry shouldn't dictate the rules. Farmers shouldn't be compensating these multinationals by removing GM-free opposition.

We need a strict liability regime to ensure the polluter pays, not the polluted.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 8:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yobbo you are a distraction that isn't worth the effort.

Thalidomide is a great example where unforseen consequences can spiral into absolute calamity with disastrous results.

A drug originally used as an anticonvulsant for epilepsy (proven ineffective) then implemented in a trial to develop new anti-histamines (proven ineffective) These trials proved it effective in assisting sleeping and it was finally given to pregnant women to combat nausea and morning sickness.

All that investment had finally paid off... they had a use for thalidomide! It too was marketed as a non-toxic medication that had little or no side effects. Well history certainly proved that wrong as it was found to have caused cleft palate, deafness, blindness, malformed internal organs and the severe deformity of the limbs.

Wow.... How could science and medicine get it so wrong? If you have ever met a Thalidomide victim you would realise that the precautionary approach is very important. It's got nothing to do with economics it has everything to do with safety first science.

GM is not proven to be without side effects... the scientific community are still debating.... Warning bells should be ringing in the heads of the Pro GM people... It may not be safe to unleash this stuff without better science behind it.
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 9:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“d- the non-GM potato-eating rats … but they were not’
Nothing about sickness in the paper Julie - just thickness. What about the data?

Julie Newman thinks silence about GM yield and cost advantages;
demonstrated at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/canadian-producer-experience-with.html
, existence of a 20% yield penalty in TT tolerant canola Norton-report,
and yield data discussed by Preston http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/lower-crop-vigour-can-mean-more.html
means they don’t exist!

Canadians keep on sowing more GM-canola too:
http://www.canola-council.org/ind_overview.html

"GM or transgenic canola burst on the scene in 1995 and the acreage rose rapidly. In 2004, transgenic Roundup Ready and Liberty Link varieties were grown on 75 per cent of the acres, while Clearfield varieties were on 18 per cent and conventional on seven per cent of the acres… Hybrids, which can provide growers with significant yield increases, is also increasing in acreage. New Roundup Ready, InVigor and Clearfield hybrids have been introduced and hybrids are expected to take half the acres in 2005."

News just in: GM Giant Canada now sells lots of canola to the EU
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/driven-by-demand-for-biodiesel-gm.html

"By plunging the world into the great unknown - that being the long term effects on humans and plants and animals of GM foods - science obviscates it's responsibilities."

I'm not ignoring your questions opinioned2, and I'm not a GM lobby.Julie has just kept me busy. The future challenges we face include many big real problems - demand for more food, feed, fibre, and fuel, greater prosperity, less land, erosion, eradication of poverty, commitment already of 80% of our fresh water to agriculture, urbanisation to name a few. We should deal with these tangible harms before vague unknowns -see Zambia comments at
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/unintended-adverse-consequences-of-19.html

Where do you want to start? Vitamin A and disease killing 6000 kids a day, or how capitalism in the West is so awful? The third world or the first? I prefer the third. There the worries of the Western rich are making many solutions harder, and excessive precaution is slowing down projects,and regulatory cost are creating barriers to development in the non-corporate sector. Lets discuss this:

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/public-sector-research-too-often-left.html
http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=534381DE-BCD6-81AC-1776B352FE9D7207

GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 9:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie NonGM

The credibility issue isn’t about Fitzgerald or Kentish but your own comments. However, I heard Paula Fitzgerald speak and she didn’t say you were Greenpeace funded. Nor did you make that claim at your website at the time.

This is what was on your website dated 23 March 2004, which I downloaded 7 April 2004: “Greenpeace connection?: Many rumours have been circulating regarding our supposed links with Greenpeace and it appeared to stem from Agrifood Awareness who have been known to state this at meetings with influential farm lobby groups in an attempt to supposedly discredit our debate with farmers. After a threat of legal action, this appeared to stop but not before many took Paula Fitzgerald's word as fact rather than fiction. “

But then in early April, you had to admit to the Weekly Times that you did have links with Greenpeace, which you haven’t denied here. Your links were real, not “supposed”. Kentish didn’t say that he alone joined “a Greenpeace conference”. The Times reported that Greenpeace “chaired several teleconferences with network members” (plural). “Sometimes they do (chair), sometimes they don’t”, Kentish said.

On ABC radio on April 1 2004, Kentish said “The other alternative is to talk about the Network of Concerned Farmers as a bunch of leaders, partially supported by Greenpeace, doesn’t gel too well with most farmers.” Nic was one of your members, right?

No one is saying that everyone opposed to GM is Greenpeace in disguise, but why did you obscure the fact that you had been working with them, and they helped you set up your website? Why couldn’t George pay the webdesigner directly instead of going through the Greenpeace middle man?

Answer the questions in this and my earlier messages, Julie, don’t dodge. Prove to us that you can despise lying by your example of complete transparency.

Julie, go back and read what I said: “… in 17 countries, representing more than half of the world’s population.” The countries represent half the people, not half of farmers. Misreading things and endlessly repeating your own misquotes doesn’t make you right
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mahogany,

You need to read the court decision on Percy instead of listening to anti-GM propaganda. He both used Roundup and was clearly deliberately selecting for Roundup Ready canola, with intent. Examples below.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html

BETWEEN: MONSANTO COMPANY and PERCY SCHMEISER

A few key paragraphs from the trial judge’s decision

[39] . Using his sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a strip along the road. He made two passes with his sprayer set to spray 40 feet, the first weaving between and around the power poles, and the second beyond but adjacent to the first pass in the field, and parallel to the power poles. This was said by him to be some three to four acres in all, or "a good three acres". After some days, approximately 60% of the plants earlier sprayed had persisted and continued to grow. Mr. Schmeiser testified that these plants grew in clumps which were thickest near the road and began to thin as one moved farther into the field.

[40] Despite this result Mr. Schmeiser continued to work field 2, and, at harvest, Carlysle Moritz, on instruction from Mr. Schmeiser, swathed and combined field 2. He included swaths from the surviving canola seed along the roadside in the first load of seed in the combine which he emptied into an old Ford truck located in the field. That truck was covered with a tarp and later it was towed to one of Mr. Schmeiser's outbuildings at Bruno. In the spring of 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was taken by Mr. Schmeiser in another truck to the Humboldt Flour Mill ("HFM") for treatment…. and then used for planting his 1998 canola crop.

That no one can prove how Percy got the seed only shows that he was trying to cover his tracks. An innocent would not have sprayed for resistance and then saved and used those seed.

The first GM food was a GM tomato paste that was labeled as such and sold out completely in the UK, before Greenpeace started its scare campaign
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:50:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Monsanto has an end point royalty where a positive test (? as low as 0.5%) can trigger a 100% deduction of "user fees" “. Yet another furphy propogated by NonGMFarmer? Monsanto could not claim an end point royalty for that level of positive test. To claim an end point royalty, they would have to demonstrate that you planted a crop of their seeds.

“Canadians have … the highest carryover stock ever”. Yet another furphy from NonGMFarmer? A quick visit to Canadian crop statistics shows that the forecast carryover stocks for 2004/2005 are lower than for 1999/2000 (http://www.canola-council.org/oilsupplydemand.html and skip down to seed stocks). The reason is an additional 1 million tons of production.

“It is proposed (GTGC coexistence plans) that if GM crops are approved, even non-GM farmers lose our right to plant our own seed every year.” I read the GTGC coexistence plans and I think this a fair stretch of their policy. The GTGC in their stewardship principles suggest the use of certified or quality assured seed for better results. They do acknowledge that farmer-saved seed will be used and suggest for best results that only one generation of farmer saved seed be used. They also provide a long list of actions a farmer can take to minimize any negative impact of using farmer-saved seed. (http://www.avcare.org.au/files/biotechnology/gtgc/Canola%20Industry%20Stewardship%20Principles.pdf). In any case, it is recommended in Australia that canola seed not be saved for too long as it loses viability and quality (see http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/3/152.htm).

Mahogany says that Percy Schmeiser was a seed saver all his life. This is merely another part of the Schmeiser myth. If you read the court transcript is says in Para 29 that he bought new seed in 1993 (http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html). Scmeiser also claims to have been breeding canola for 50 years. Impossible as canola was developed by Canadian Government Scientists in 1974.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 2:03:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer, I must be missing something here. If GM food is not cheaper to produce, and nobody wants to buy it anyway, then why on earth would anybody want to grow it? Either they know something you don't or you're lying about one thing or another.

"While "Yobbo" might think he should have the right to decide for all of us, I'm relieved that decisions of this magnitude involving risk to consumers and livelihoods are taken seriously by state politicians."

That's rich. The default state would be to allow people to grow whatever crops they wish. You are the one who wants to decide for everyone what crops they can and cannot grow.

Just because I support unbanning GM in Australia doesn't mean I think people should be forced to grow it. They are still free to grow non-GM crops if they want, and I am sure that majority still would. If it's more expensive and no better at anything as you say, then nobody will bother growing it and the law against it is only preventing something that nobody will ever do anyway.

Opinionated, I hate to burst your psychadelic bubble, but we're not talking about any new and unproven science here, we're talking about allowing GM produce that has already been tested, grown and eaten all around the world but is still banned in Australia primarily because of every state Labor government's dependence on the (anti-capitalist) Greens for preferences. It has absolutely nothing to do with danger to anyone, The Greens simply hate Monsanto (and all other corporations for that matter) and don't wish them to expand their operation in Australia
Posted by Yobbo, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 4:18:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is certainly enough reason to want independent health studies. Pusztai's rats developed potentially precancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver and smaller brains, livers and testicles. Preliminary Russian studies on pregnant mice where most offspring died. CSIRO confirmed that unexpected proteins were produced and caused allergenic reactions.

The entire yield data for Australia shouldn't rely on a limited survey of what some Canadian farmers think when real statistics don't support the 10%-higher-yield or increased plantings (highest 1994-14million acres-CWB). Graphs: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/Statisticscanola.doc

Independent Australian yield data from the WAAgDepartment confirmed that Invigor performed the same as TT varieties and less than non-GM hybrids. The best yield on Monsanto's website was 17% below the national average.

Why don't GM companies want to do independent yield performance trials? The reason given publicly by our well lobbied WAFarmersFederation president was:
"Nor are they likely to conduct trials until such time as they can be confident of a new seed variety that will clearly demonstrate benefits over existing conventionally bred varieties. In effect, if all barriers were cleared today, it would be 2-3 years before trials were recommenced."
Obviously they do not have a good enough variety to outperform non-GM yet.

Clearfield is a non-GM chemical-resistant canola variety.

EU has started importing small amounts of canola oil for fuel, not for food.

Rebel, I didn't hide that a cheque went via Greenpeace, George didn't mention it when he originally gave me my website gift. I see nothing wrong with talking to Greenpeace, why are you so frightened? Paula's email confirmed she did state publicly that I was Greenpeace-funded when I am not.

EPR relies on signed contracts like delivery dockets. Brazil has set a 2% tolerance level = 100% royalty deduction. Blank cheque to Monsanto? Why no risk management?

Numerous market reports confirm the real (not forecast) carryover problem in Canada.

Why should non-GM farmers have our seed saving restricted?

Yobbo, you've missed the point, Non-GM farmers lose our options too as we are expected to sell as GM.

Pro-GM activists rely more on slander tactics rather than factual data.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 12:13:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel
The selections you cite do not contradict my claim. The use of roundup was admitted in relation to weed control outside the paddock. This was the reason the court found that Schmeiser knew or should have know that the seeds he was collecting were GE. However, “The principal defence raised by the defendants is that they did not use the patent because they did not spray their 1998 canola crop with Roundup after it had commenced growing. Thus they say they did not make use of the invention as the inventor intended and so, did not use the patented gene or cell” (121)

The court disagreed with that argument.

No evidence was supplied to contradict Schmeiser’s claim that he hadn’t used roundup on the canola crop, but the court found that “ whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs' invention, using it, without permission.” (123)

Additionally, the court held the “the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997 crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement” (para 119). In acknowledging that he had been saving canola seeds since 1993 (you were correct on the amount of time he had been saving canola seeds), the court effectively acknowledged that the GE seeds had arrived on his property through contamination. But it didn’t matter.

In my view both these findings should be deeply disturbing to farmers who save seed and who grow crops in areas where GE crops are also being grown – even at relatively small scales. The higher protection in law quite clearly goes to the corporate patent holder, not to the farmer. When you factor in the fact that common law remedies are likely to be seriously ineffective and prejudicial to the non-GE farmer (see DAFF paper on liability, 2003) those concerns are simply magnified.

mahogany
Posted by mahogany, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 12:29:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GM Dave,

The vitamin A discussion was covered way back in the threads. There are other methods of getting vitamin A into the food supply without the use of GM foods. The vitamin A argument you are putting seems to justify the introduction of GM foods by stealth when the other methods could and should have been used way before this to counteract the vitamin a deficiencies in children.

It is shamefully tragic that a solvable problem hasn't been addressed in all these years because Governments and the Corporations haven't had the morality, guts or will to do it.

Now to use this as an example to take a risk on the underpriviledged of the world because we continue to let them down is in my view bad science. Don't use proven safe methods to cure the problem... here take this it is the quick fix and hang the consequences PLUS I can make a few bucks out of it and it gets my foot in the door for the future. C'mon Dave you must see this is a problem that can be solved without GM foods already.

In many of my posts people have ignored the shocking outcomes where science has failed to protect people using the the precautionary principle.

Read about Thalidamide and how the USA was protected by good science.

http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/MATHSCI/reynolds/thalidomide/history/history.html

Good science assists us by including things like the precautionary principle in it's thinking. It will protect us from risky science or science for the buck solutions.

Ethisists are only now trying to develop structures to counteract the marketing push by corporations. Science seems to be more interested in marketing the concept than limiting itself to it's core duty... hypothesising, testing and reporting results honestly and openly.

Scientists have to ask themselves - Am I a salesman or a scientist?
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 3:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Farmers are not being told the truth. If farmers analyse GM canola what have we got?

BENEFIT:
Trait benefit? Chemical resistant canola: Bayer Cropscience Invigor varieties are hybrids resistant to Glufosinate Ammonium, Monsanto Roundup Ready varieties are resistant to Glyphosate.
Effectiveness? Australia's most critical weed control phase is pre-emergent and the "advantage" is only applicable to post-emergent control. Radish is our worst weed in canola, Glufosinate Ammonium does not control radish and Glyphosate is not very effective either.
Yield? GM canola doesn't yield more than non-GM.
Cost? Bayer Cropscience - costs are far higher than non-GM. Monsanto - costs still secret.

ALTERNATIVES:
We have non-GM chemical resistant canola, Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield and non-GM hybrids and soon non-GM chemical resistant hybrids.
Non-GM biotechnology will fastrack breeding desired traits.

RISKS:
It is too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM products.
Unfair costs and liabilities will be imposed on Non-GM farmers.
Consumers will be denied GM-free products.
Market loss and penalties.
RR will exacerbate resistance to glyphosate.
Increased use of herbicides for resistance management and volunteer control.
GM is not recallable.

RISK MANAGEMENT NEEDED:
Strict liability regime where the GM industry is legally responsible for containing their product.

The private sector is stearing the GM debate and it is clearly not in the best interests of the community. The reason for GM is explained by ISAAA:

"In 1995 the private sector viewed crop biotechnology, prior to the commercialization of the first GM crops in 1996, as an important new opportunity for markets that would contribute to lowering crop production costs, increasing productivity, provide a safer environment and a more sustainable system for ensuring global food, feed and fiber security. Later in the 1990's the private sector judged the life science concept to be an inappropriate strategy for the future. There followed a series of spin-offs and mergers culminating in consolidation that resulted in six transnational North American and European based crop protection/biotechnology entities."

Anybody thinking GM crops are for the benefit of farmers must be extremely gullible. We need to ignore the hype and get the rules right.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 8:17:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Pusztai's rats "http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/furphies-are-flying-thick-and-fast-at.html

"Russian studies"
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2005/11/russian-super-myth-resprouts.html

Re Newman's misinterpretation of yield data
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2005/11/commentary-on-claims-of-20-loss-of.html
Key remarks:
JULIE:"Invigor hybrid canola displayed approximately 15% better vigour than a conventional open pollinated variety, but 20% less vigour than a conventional hybrid variety".

From this it appears Julie Newman can confidently assert that "actual trials of GM canola have produced yields of up to 20% less than non-GM varieties" (as cited on the ABC 20th September 2005). It seems somewhat of a stretch to turn data about vigour differences when you are not sure of the basis of measurement between varieties into actual yield trials.

Newman fails to quote the first part of the passage from the risk assessment. This part refers to actual yields:

"InVigor canola varieties have displayed yield increases of 10-20% over conventional open pollinated varieties in Australia and greater than 20% in Canada ". As well as ignoring that statement, Julie Newman further supports her stance on yields being less for InVigor canola by citing trial work from Western Australia where InVigor 40 had the same yield as a conventional TT variety (InVigor Hybrid, Canola, WA Crop Updates available from
http://agspsrv38.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/folder/ikmp/fcp/co/oilseeds_update_2004.pdf

Julie Newman is not telling is that InVigor 40 is a mid-late season variety, the trial quoted was sown late and therefore, the early-mid season varieties had a distinct advantage. Where growing seasons are short, later flowering varieties are often at a disadvantage because of the higher temperatures and lack of moisture in late spring and early summer. Even worse, Julie Newman fails to mention two experimental InVigor varieties grown in the same trial, both of which are early-mid maturity and both significantly out-yield InVigor 40 and all conventional varieties.

Likewise, a comparison of trials from eastern Australia shows InVigor 40 yields generally similar to those of Hyola 60 (a conventional hybrid) and far above those of a conventional and a TT variety. Yields of InVigor (109%) were below those of Hyola 60 (120%) in 2001, but greater in 2002 (122% compared with 112%). Further trial work in 2003 produced identical yield results for these two varieties
(http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s05/potter.htm).
Posted by d, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 10:05:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's been interesting reading the debate .
In the final analysis it comes down to consumer acceptance or rejection of GE food.
I am not swayed by the Pro GE argument, I've not changed my original view other than to confirm I will not purchase product that has been Genetically engineered.
I have learned not to trust the assertions of chemical manufacturers.
I recall Shell Company saying Dieldrin was perfectly safe to use on fruit trees for termite control. I'm a casualty of prescribed drugs Indocid and Celebrex.
I think I will join the Greens and Greenpeace.
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 10:18:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Davids article is a balanced view of a real problem that would best be solved by biofortification of the food.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has supported it and is bringing on vitamin A biofortification in sorghum , millet and banana. The GM Banana is being developed by Queenland University of Technology together with researchers in Uganda.

Omega 3 can be bought as a supplement today in the form of omega 3 bread etcb but the omega 3 oil comes from fish and fish stocks as we know are in the decline. Half of the fisherman in this country are getting out of the business because it is not sustainable.

The two examples given in Davids article are relevant and represents two projects with products that are beneficial to the human health. In both cases they are being developed with assistance from public sector scientists in Australia.

I share Davids belief that the real test of GM will be when these two products hit the market.

We are then standing in front of a ethical dilemma will the huge benefit outweigh the very small risk that these products pose?

I think that any right minded person will give these two GM projects a fair go.
Posted by sten, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 11:20:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie Newman:

You still haven’t answered my questions. The issue is not that the Network of Concerned Farmers had meetings (at least over the phone) with Greenpeace or that Greenpeace set up your website. The issue is that you denied on that same website and to The Weekly Times that you or the Network were involved with Greenpeace until after Nic Kentish told us. (Why has Nic been so quiet since?)

What were YOU so afraid of that you didn’t tell us to start with? What, your website suddenly appeared without your knowing (or asking) anything about how it was created? Weren’t you a little curious? You told The Weekly Times one week that Greenpeace had nothing to do with your network. The Times continued “But on Monday, Ms. Newman said she had found out that Greenpeace had built the Network’s website”.

Even if your story about the virgin birth of your website is to be believed, how do you explain your claims of no links to Greenpeace when at least some of your members were in on their teleconferences? Were you also involved in Greenpeace teleconferences prior to April 1 2004? Are you still?

It’s been speculated that you, are planning to run for political office, perhaps the WA parliament. Will you deny here that you have any plans to run? Will you state here that you will never run?

Opinionated2 points out that politicians ignore tough questions because then they can't be held accountable for the answers. The other trick politicians use is “plausible deniability”. John Howard used the layer of his retiring Defense Minister to “plausibly deny” that he knew that the children were not thrown overboard but that their ship sank. You are trying plausible deniability here, but it isn’t working. Either you failed to exercise even minimal due diligence in your dealings, or you have misled us, either of which should give your supporters pause.

Don’t give us the political bulldust. Answer the questions, Julie. In late March and in April 2004, what did you know and when and how did you know it?
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 1 December 2005 12:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer, you really need to learn to use official statistics – the most reliable source. With respect to canola carryover stocks in Canada, I quoted the forecast for 2004/2005 because the final data for this year is not yet available. If we look at 2003/2004, the last firm data available from the Canadian Government, carryover stocks were 7.7% of supply. This is lower than they have been at any time since 1997/1998 and the second lowest on record. Sorry Canadian farmers can and do sell their canola.

Yields. In Canada, InVigor canola varieties win yield competitions every year. If it were not for the fact that Roundup Ready hybrids are catching up in yield performance, there would be a lot more InVigor grown.

NonGMFarmer, I am intrigued by your funding from Greenpeace. In an early version of the current article on your website (I think I have a copy somewhere and could e-mail it to GMOPundit), you say that you only just discovered in 2004 that your farmer friend had given you money via Greenpeace. Before that all you knew you had was a website created by Greenpeace. How is this not support from Greenpeace? Now you tell a different story. Which are we to believe? Why does the story change all the time? Are you, or were you, trying to conceal something?

Mahogany. Percy Schmeiser did apply Roudup to his fields. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the court judgment make clear Schmeiser sprayed a good three acres of his field and then instructed his hired hand to harvest that area and store the seed separately. This seed was subsequently used to plant 1000 acres in 1998. The court found that it did not matter how the material came on to his farm as Schmeiser gave two conflicting versions in court about this. Schmeiser was guilty because of what he did after he discovered he had Roundup Ready canola: deliberately saving seed he knew, or should have known, was Roundup Ready and planting 1000 acres with it.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 1 December 2005 2:51:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are other methods of getting vitaminA... without GM. The vitamin A argument...stealth when the other methods could..."

I thank the other posters for giving me space to reply to very reasonable and important questions from Opinionated2. I have touched on the relevant issues briefly in my original essay but I am pleased to come back to them because much more could be said, and its the main theme on the essay.

I agree that other approaches to Golden rice should be fully encouraged. Indeed poverty and unproductive farming is the root of the problem. This will take time to remedy.
As for these root causes - including poverty, GM can help there to, but that's for another posting. Meanwhile I'm reading The End of Poverty by Jeff Sachs. Its uplifting and relevant.

Other technical high tech methods are to vitA are being tried. They involve giving vitamin pills made by Roche in Switzerland to malnourished people. This program is huge, and a good idea, even though it is not "natural" or sustainable, and helps a big company make money. (For myself the last is irrelevant, but some rich idealists don't like it.) Should we ban this because it not ideal nutrition? I don't think so. That would be morally repugnant.

In any case these programs are not fully effective.(Numbers in essay).They depend on ongoing funding from aid agencies.

Compared to that, Golden Rice is much more financially sustainable. It is not being done by stealth, and is not being rushed (years of trials). Its virtue is that it could reach some kids the other efforts miss, and once started is self funding- the seed is free, and can be passed from farmer to farmers, and multiplies. Pills don't do that.

Most importantly, Golden rice could help people being missed by the other strategies, and provide substantial improvement until the end of poverty arrives which will sadly be sometime yet.Its immoral to carelessly delay. Worst of all some powerful NGOs actively oppose many of the initiatives like Golden Rice that can accelerate the end of poverty.
Posted by d, Thursday, 1 December 2005 7:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm certainly not dodging any questions, I’m just not giving the untrue answers Rebel wants. Why can't you just accept the truth? I immediately told the Times the only Greenpeace link I found out , they (and you) played it out of all proportion.
Bayer Cropscience paid for a trip to Canberra for a meeting, why not say I am "involved" with Bayer Cropscience? Or considering I am having regular dialogue with you, that I am involved with you?
I’ve refused political offers.
In your pro-GM-reference re ABC I was misquoted (not unusual). ABC Transcripts:"Invigor has 20% less vigour than a conventional hybrid" ex OGTR, "Invigor yields less than non-GM hybrids" ex WADeptAg.
The OGTR stated that GM does not improve yield and Invigor has less vigour than non-GM hybrids. Experimental varieties are not being offered to farmers.
The data given to the WAparliament showed non-GM trial comparisons were sown twice as thick which drops yields as does incorrect swathing times (swather stated this request).
We need transparent independent trials in different conditions. Assessment of yield penalties for spraying/no spraying is important as is radish control (trials pre-OGTR-approval could not include radish). Trials should compare popular existing varieties, not the low-yielding-1993-superseded variety used.
If Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto were confident, they wouldn't be refusing independent trials. Prove me wrong, support trials.
Fish-farming (tanks) will increase due to commercial demand/supply. Why GM Omega3 into wheat when none of our market wants GM wheat and it ‘s too expensive/difficult to segregate?
Farmers are restricted from planting seeds or if they do, they must pay a user fee, it is not free.
Canadian farmers have markets closed to them and are now faced with a far lower price. If they did not have trouble selling their canola, they would not be accepting a lower price for it. You need updated statistics, try March 05.
Why not work to introduce GM so it will not impact negatively on others? Support a strict liability legislation. Trying to convince us to accept risk by bulldusting and bullying is not going to work.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 1 December 2005 12:15:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps it would be interesting for readers of this thread to see what products Monsanto is planning to bring online in 2006 in the US.

This was reported on the agbioview web site on 30 November 2005:

In the fall of 2005, contract farmers harvested the first commercial crop - 100,000 acres of non-GM Vistive soybeans, bred by Monsanto to contain a reduced level of linolenic acid. This change makes the soybean oil more stable, so it doesn't need to be partially hydrogenated for longer shelf life. Partial hydrogenation creates unhealthy trans fats.

The oil will be in some consumer products by Jan. 1, when a new government regulation requires trans fat content to be included on
food labels, Monsanto said. "It will be out in crackers and cookies in a couple of months," said Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief technical
officer.

Coming close on the heels of Vistive are other consumer-benefit products:

* Soybeans bred with higher levels of beta-conglycinin, which will improve taste and texture in products such as soy milk, meat
alternatives and energy bars.

* Vegetables bred for a variety of consumer characteristics, such as
melons that last longer after cutting, or sweeter corn.

* Soybeans genetically modified to contain Omega-3 fatty acids, which improve heart health and may have other benefits such as reducing swelling in arthritis.

Later versions of Vistive soybeans, genetically modified for further
oil profile improvements - making the oil stable for baking uses; and adding oleic acid, a healthy monounsaturated fat that boosts good HDL cholesterol. CSIRO has got trials with GM high oleic oil cottonseed under way in Narrabri in NSW produced using the GM-lite technology.

Monsanto will begin marketing these food offerings at the same time it introduces a next generation of beneficial agronomic traits in soybean, corn, cotton and canola, Fraley said.

It's interesting times we got ahead of us with foods with proven health benefits hitting the markets in the next 12 -18 months. This will be the real test if a direct benefit to the consumer will overcome any lingering doubt about the technology.
Posted by sten, Thursday, 1 December 2005 7:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yobbo, you've missed the point, Non-GM farmers lose our options too as we are expected to sell as GM."

Then your problem isn't really GM, is it? It's single-desk marketing, the same problem that's plagued farmers since it was invented.
Posted by Yobbo, Friday, 2 December 2005 7:23:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non GM Farmer “Anybody thinking GM crops are for the benefit of farmers must be extremely gullible.”

Are you telling me that there are over 8.5 million gullible farmers in the world? In fact some of these same farmers are so gullible they have grown GM crops every year since 1996? Some of these very same gullible farmers are large cotton growers in Australia who grow GM cotton so they don’t have to spray their fields so often with insecticide. Some of these same gullible farmers in China, Brazil, India and Paraguay were so gullible that they broke the law to grow GM crops. Some of these same gullible farmers in Brazil and Paraguay then pressured their governments to change the law because they didn’t want to have to do without GM crops.

Has it ever occurred to you or others that these farmers might see a use for GM crops? How many cotton farmers in Australia have you been able to persuade to not grow GM crops? Your fellow travelers like Ho, Benbrook, Shiva and Greenpeace that you quote so often spend their time trying to dupe third world governments into banning these crops to support their own ideological views. If GM crops are as useless as you say, how come the number of farmers growing them continues to increase every year?

GM crops can offer solutions to otherwise intractable problems. In the third world, a significant amount of potential yield is lost to pathogens and insects. Seed with a built in insecticide or fungicide would allow these farmers to harvest higher yields, make more money and a better quality of life for both them and their families. It is OK to say that normal plant breeding will contribute to this and it may, but you can’t achieve the result if the trait is not present in the available gene pool (such as insecticide resistance that is non-toxic to humans).
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 2 December 2005 9:23:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GMO Pundit has just posted two items about The End of Poverty.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/end-of-poverty-part-i-positives.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/end-of-poverty-part-ii-reversal-of.html

Pundit has noted that the idea that there is plenty of food in the world is commonly cited as the reason why new agricultural technologies are not needed. In reading through these sections of Sachs, GMO Pundit was struck by the fact that this excess of food was of no help to this African family of Sachs' book as they were isolated from those supplies, and in any case, are dependent almost exclusively on their own farm productivity for income. Pundit is also struck by the positive role of technology in so many of the factors promoting greater prosperity in this family, and its potential to mitigate the threats to its prosperity. Pundit thinks that the arguments that better nutrition (such as Golden Rice) can improve farmer prosperity that have been made by Australian economist Kym Anderson are also very persuasive. In the Transkei, Republic of South Africa, for instance malnutrition in poor farmers is one of many contributors to poor farm productivity and poverty.

http://www.economics.adelaide.edu.au/staff/anderson.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=508463

At the above links provide a description of the basic situation faced by millions of small farmers today.

Opinionated2 has asked me several questions. Its time for me to pose some of her, after she considersa the posts above.

Is it wise to curtail efforts to improve farming productivity when so many farmers in the world are limited in income by poor productivity on their own farms, and that's their only source of income, and they are cut of from the plentiful supplies elsewhere?

Is it fair to say that poverty, malnutrition and rural farm efficiency in the developing world are intricately connected, and we cannot separate any one of the as a separate "root cause".

Would it be fair to say that nutrient enhanced crops could play an important role in improving poverty and productivity in Africa and Asia?

GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Friday, 2 December 2005 10:23:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yobbo (?LB), single desk marketing is nothing whatsoever to do with non-GM farmers being expected to market as GM.
If GM canola is introduced, GM contamination will occur. Because the costs and liabilities involved for the non-GM farmers will be price prohibitive, farmers will be forced to market as GM - just like Canada does. While being able to grow GM without any restrictions will benefit the GM growers, it will be detrimental to non-GM farmers as we are expected to accept market losses involved.
GM must be analysed on a case by case basis. Do your sums, with the information available, GM canola in Australia does not equate to a benefit but does equate to a risk (hence the moratoriums based on economic and market grounds).
The best legal defence we have available for economic loss experienced is to sue our GM farmer neighbour. GM farmers have a duty of care to prevent their product causing economic loss to their neighbours and the coexistence plans are inadequate in dealing with the problems. Non-GM farmers do not accept the crop management plans prepared by the GM industry and if these are adopted, the GM farmer may have a legal avenue out but legal responsibility should be on the GM company that prepared inadequate management plans.

Who do you think should be liable for economic loss caused by GM products?
- The Non-GM farmer (as proposed)
- The GM farmer
- The government (state or federal?)
- The GM company that owns the patent, the license, prepared inadequate management plans and gave inadequate information to GM farmers in order to make informed decisions?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 2 December 2005 4:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More for Julie NonGM Newman:

It’s not that I can’t accept the truth, it’s that what is on the record is pretty damning (essentially that you didn’t know how your site was set up), and you still haven’t answered the questions of when you knew what. Just give us a timeline. For all those who want to see what The Weekly Times reported about Julie’s contradictions, “”Farmer Lobby confirms Greenpeace link”, 7 April 2004 it’s now up at
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/greenpeace-and-network-of-concerned.html

“But the money was donated to Greenpeace by a farmer who supported us”. Ms Newman said.

I have the text of an earlier version of Julie’s webpage, Agronomist. It is dated 23 March 2004, which I downloaded on 7 April 2004. Here are a few snippets, some of which have been a bit sanitized in today’s version (http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1139).

“Website: I personally update the information on our website almost daily”. So Julie used this site a lot, but as we’ll see next, didn’t know who funded it.

“I have only recently been made aware that an original donation of $3,500 was given from a good friend of mine, a farmer/businessman from WA (who wishes to remain anonymous but for those investigative journalists insistent on details, can be given providing confidentiality is maintained). He made a decision to support us after seeing just how much information I had available. He decided it would be good idea to have a website but I was uncomfortable about my friend funding something for me (hence the delay in finding who funded this and I previously believed that farmers had set it up for us). As we had no bank account at this early stage, the donor arranged this funding via Greenpeace. The recommended programmer (Nick Haase) prepared the skeleton framework of the website.”

Just who were these “farmers” who you thought set this up? Considering how extraordinarily curious you seem about GM, it seems odd indeed that you would update a website daily but not know its origins. And why not just give the money directly to Nick Haase?
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 2 December 2005 6:13:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, Julie, here’s more I found in that earlier version of your webpage, dated 23 March 2004, which I downloaded on 7 April 2004.

“Greenpeace connection?: Many rumours have been circulating regarding our supposed links with Greenpeace and it appeared to stem from Agrifood Awareness who have been known to state this at meetings with influential farm lobby groups in an attempt to supposedly discredit our debate with farmers. After a threat of legal action, this appeared to stop but not before many took Paula Fitzgerald's word as fact rather than fiction.”

So it seems clear that you were then still keen to separate yourself from Greenpeace in March 2004. And maybe you had good reason. As your fellow Networker Nic Kentish told the ABC Rural Report on April 1 2004 (I have that transcript too) “The other alternative is to talk about the Network of Concerned Farmers as a bunch of leaders, partially supported by Greenpeace, doesn’t gel too well with most farmers. It's a paradigm shift they can't cope with. Farmers aren't supposed to get along with Greenpeace or their attitudes and beliefs.”

As David Claughton of the ABC said, “That's the view of the Network of Concerned Farmers spokesman, Nic Kentish.”

But there you are on 7 April, ”Farmer Lobby confirms Greenpeace link”.

You know, I am still wondering why we don’t hear from Nick anymore. I loved hearing him on the ABC. Can you bring him back as a spokesman? He had that refreshing honesty.

Julie, before we have to be worried about who will pay for losses, we ought to see real evidence, not your wrong stats, that there will be losses. How about if you answer Agronomist about using official statistics.

Dear Opinionated2: A excellent way to cure Vitamin A deficiency is daily green vegetables. Great idea, but where does a poor family grow or buy green vegetables (or buy Vitamin A) in places like the slums of Mumbai? Your “let them eat cake” argument doesn’t recognize the practical realities as to why this problem has not been solved by other means
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 2 December 2005 6:15:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the promotion Dave but like you I am but a mere male...Ha!

1. I have not been arguing for the curtailment of scientific endeavour on GM foods but that the science is still out and therefore the precautionary principle should be used as in other cases I posted. PLUS companies should not be allowed to own our food supply. They didn't invent food, the didn't invent genes... and so if we really are about feeding the starving then we (the rich nations) should feed the world.

In a free market we all should benefit from advances in technology where the companies that serviced their customers and have the best most reliable products would get the sales. Patenting GM advances in my view undermines this. Whilst I understand the need to protect intellectual property - food isn't intellectual property and processes that effect food shouldn't be either.

2. It may be fair to say it but I am not in a position to say that it is absolutely correct. With my limited knowledge on the subject and without evidence to the contrary I have no reason to object to that statement but I reserve the right to change my mind.

3. Yes it would be fair to say that nutrient enhanced crops could play an important role in improving production in third world countries as long as the Chemical Companies are not testing their product on the
underpriviledged based on this argument. All testing should be done by independent people.

Everyone here wants the best for the peoples of the world we just disagree with the way we achieve it. I disagree with companies owning the food supply and I don't believe that corporations are the best entities to feed the world. I look at companies past records have concerns as to the realiabilty of the information released.
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 2 December 2005 8:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2: I have posted two comments about how Zambia was influenced by European hype over GM good risks.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-european-attitude-to-gm-products.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/european-attitude-to-gm-products.html

The [Zambian] delegation charged with obtaining advice about GM food aid from experts in the field visited various organisations throughout Europe and the United States, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and several other groups that are fundamentally opposed to agricultural biotechnology (Wilson 2002). Amongst the organisations consulted was Farming and Livestock UK, which is reported to have told the delegation that the virus used in the creation of most GM crop varieties could form a retrovirus which in turn could cause symptoms similar to HIV (Wilson 2002). Given unsubstantiated and clearly misleading information such as this about health effects, it is unsurprising that the delegation’s report took a negative view of agricultural biotechnology.

Do you agree that this indicates that careless untrue speculation on on GM food raises serious moral questions?

Julie Newman

I have found more evidence that glyphosate tolerant canola (GM) performs better in Canada.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/scientific-evidence-that-gm-canola-can.html
Harker, K. N. Blackshaw, R. E. Kirkland, K. J. Derksen, D. A.Wall, D.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 80(3). July, 2000. 647-654.

Both Glufosinate (GM) and Glyphosate GM) resististant canola have steadily expanded their area.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/relative-area-of-herbicicide-tolerant.html

Do you still hold there is no evidence GM crops are better performers? And since the data on popularity of hybrid Glufosinate (Liberty) are so clearcut, do you still claim there is no evidence that GM hybrids have advantages?

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Friday, 2 December 2005 9:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an interesting post but I am a consumer and I don't want to eat GM foods. Having a regulator saying it is safe will not convince me to eat it any more than a vegetarian will be forced to eat meat if it was proven safe. I don't want scientists tampering with my food breeding plants with bacteria or plants with animals.

In a hypothetical situation, what would happen if Australia did bring in GM foods and then noticed that the medical admissions into hospitals increased dramatically? Would anyone notice or link this phenomena to GM foods or would we just say "She'll be right mate. It can't be GM as the Americans would not hurt us."

Could this be a cane toad disaster except this time we would be playing with OUR health. We are ignorant of the full test results of "non subsidized chemical Company" results of GM. From what I have heard, they are not heard because the chemical companies don't want us to know the truth.

Once we have it in Australia, we would not be able to get it out due to contamination. We would not have a choice at all. Isn't this making us the lab rats of something that has not been tested with humans over decades?

I heard that China has now developed a rice with human genes to give it multiple chemical resistance. Yuk. Keep GM out of my food please.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 3 December 2005 9:34:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMfarmer. “ABARE1990-2000 pre-GM: Canada maintained a consistent premium of US$32.68/tonne over Australian canola”.

Because you won’t say where this very precise figure comes from, I am going to assume you calculated it from one of several reports by Max Foster of ABARE (an example is at http://abareonlineshop.com/product.asp?prodid=12526)? I can’t find this specific value anywhere else at ABARE. Max Foster produces a graph showing relative prices for Canadian and Australian canola – you have reproduced the same on your website I notice. Is this the source of your “premium” quote? Here is what Max has to say about it: “There is some evidence that the gap between Canadian and Australian canola prices, expressed in US dollars, has narrowed in recent years. However, this narrowing could simply reflect the greater security of supply that has occurred with Australian canola over the same time, the continuing problems that Canada has had in disposing of the record increase in canola production that occurred in 1998 and 1999, and relative movements between the Australian and Canadian currencies over the time period.” Not a word about loss of premiums. Did you notice a period in 1995 when Australian non-Gm canola was more valuable than Canadian non-GM canola? By the way, Canada introduced GM canola in 1996 and by 1999 more than 50% of the crop was GM.

Opionated2. Apart from having a poor view of science, you seem to have a poor understanding of patents. Patents are designed to give the inventor a period of exclusivity in exploiting their invention in return for letting everybody else in on the secret. As soon as the patent period is over, anybody else can use the invention. Even better, during the patent period others can improve on your invention and if they do so in a novel enough way, get their own patent. The alternative is to follow the Coca-Cola approach and just keep it all secret. Did you know that many crop varieties grown in Australia have intellectual property protection as well as some garden plants?
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 3 December 2005 9:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Refusing to answer questions Rebel and d? Why should the non-GM farmer be liable for costs/losses? Who do you think should be liable?
The GM area that is increasing is GM soy, cotton and corn. Australia already grows cotton and is not very suitable for soy or corn. As we are not being offered these crops, we need to focus on the canola issue.
Yes, Max Foster (ABARE) sent the hard data, I can forward it if you like.
Why should GM yield more, the OGTR states quite clearly that GM is nothing to do with yields, it only give chemical resistance... just like non-GM.
The Australian Productivity Commission investigated GM canola in Canada and came to the conclusion that GM canola only improved productivity by 1% with "little evidence of cost reduction" and costs have gone up since.
However, performance will be quite different in Australia which is why we need independent performance trials? Are you against these?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, as far as the website is concerned, I saw nothing wrong with Georges explanation as website skeletons are even done by schoolkids. We are talking the basic skeleton here, not the whole site. All wording on www.non-gm-farmers.com has been done by me. I gave George a summary of a few issues and they were locked on the website under the top columns "about us" etc.
The Weekly Times did me a favour when they asked for more detail as I rang George (the story followed within days). Before I knew this I did not want to sound ungrateful asking for change. Once I found out who did the website I was able to pay to do the improvement changes I wanted (search engine etc).
Nic Kentish is not an active member of the network but was an original founder helping organise part of Percy’s tour. Why grind on about this, frightened about debating the real issues are you Rebel?
Re the green vegies, poverty stricken farmers add weeds to their diet which would give the necessary nutrients.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 4 December 2005 12:45:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. Back on the discussion of canola sales from Canada. You didn’t seem to like my last two pieces of official Government statistics from Canada. Well here are another couple. Official statistics from the Canadian Grain Commission (http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/pubs/grainstats/gsw_2-e.asp). Visible canola stocks at November 27, 2005 are currently 988 thousand tonnes. About half as high again as they were a year ago, but carrover stocks in 2003/2004 were less than 8% of supply. This is with the second largest canola harvest ever of 8.3 million tons rolling in. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (a Canadian Government body http://www.agr.gc.ca/mad-dam/e/sd1e/hsd1ez.htm) forecasts exports for 2005/2006 will be 3.9 million, the third highest ever.

Of course, I still don’t expect you to accept these statistics either, preferring to live in your own fantasy world where: because GM is bad and Canadians grow GM canola, they must not be able to sell it (regardless of any evidence to the contrary).

In fairness, I should point out that because of the very large harvest from 2005 and continuing price pressure from soybeans (ironically all of them GM), the Canadians expect to have a carryover of 2.5 million tons for 2005/2006. This will be about 25% of supply (10.2 MT). How is Australian canola going to do?

Is it safe. Good questions. You must remember that everybody at Monsanto (over 5000 in St Louis alone) and all the people at the regulatory bodies are also consumers. As I tucked into my burrito last night, I mused on the fact that it was likely to contain GM corn in the tortilla, and was possibly cooked with oil from GM soybeans, GM cotton or GM canola. I still ate it though. Why, because I trust that those at Monsanto and in the FDA are also likely eating the same food. Why would they knowingly put something dangerous into the food supply when they will eat it too? When I got up this morning, I had my cup of organically-grown coffee from Costa Rica and mused on the fact that it contained a moderately toxic poison called caffeine. Strange world isn’t it?
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 4 December 2005 3:45:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny you should mention Monsanto's cafeteria. It was reported in UK that the headquarters of Monsanto had a GM-free cafeteria.
Like I said Agronomist, your statistics need updating. Try March 2005 or any 2005 market report. Yes, Canada is selling canola but they have a large carryover stock. That would explain why they are quitting stocks cheaper because they would not be if they could sell it for the same price as Australian. And no, statistics show the tonnage is not suddenly up. Why are you avoiding this years statistics as it was this year that I was referring to. I am sure you know that but do you really believe yelling "liar" often enough will make people believe you? These tactics plus the "great for health and the environment" and "funded by Greenpeace" have been adopted and recommended to the pro-GM sector by a paid PR consultant that visited Australia to help you.
What I find more relevent is losing the US$32.68/tonne premium they always had. If it was only the GM grower that was to market as GM we wouldn't mind, but it is also expected of the non-GM grower. No thank you. You don't have to be too smart to want to retain a market advantage and GM-free is a market advantage.
Why should we allow someone to vandalise our product with something that consumers are rejecting?
Why not work on resolving the issue and stop dodging the question. We will not accept the economic risk, if you think there is no economic risk, why do you think the GM companies are refusing liability? Don't they believe their own pro-GM "no-risk" propaganda?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 4 December 2005 9:50:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s interesting that someone so opposed to GM-free is consuming organically-grown coffee from Costa Rica. How do you know that the label “organically grown” has actually been organically grown and is not just labeled that, is there a test like GM? How do you know that some Monsanto employees are not eating organically-grown because they know the results of what GM is doing or maybe they don’t know the results? Monsanto is not doing the health testing that CSIRO did to detect the potential health problem for consumers but they have found problems with their corn which was ignored. I understand they do not even test the canola oil which is the part I am expected to eat.

Only a small percentage of Monsanto people would know the results of these very limited tests. Most staff, like the average consumer wouldn’t know. So are we in reality looking at about 20 people that are sworn to secrecy (even to other staff members) about tests that went wrong? So in reality how do you know that these 20 people are not choosing organically grown, just like you, except they would be looking at everything organically grown? So why do you choose organically grown coffee? Does it taste better?

I want a choice to eat everything organically grown and GM-free and know that it is. Maybe the FDA have gone so far into the rabbit hole of Monsanto that they do not want to panic the populace.

Consumers are quite capable of making up our own minds. They don't need either Greenpeace or Monsanto to tell us what to eat. We know what we want to eat and we want to keep OUR GM free choice.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 4 December 2005 10:46:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No David I do not agree with this statement as strenuously as you do.

Now if you had worded it ... Do you agree that this indicates that careless untrue speculation from all sides of the GM food debate raises serious moral questions?

I may have said yes. But you always seem to slant your questions one way.

Read : http://www.pi.csiro.au/GMpeas/GMpeas.htm

Do you agree that the CSIRO was right to take the steps it had when side effects were found in mice?

Do you trust the CSIRO more than an American multinational? Do you accept that in third world countries there is less liklihood of good science taking place compared to trials conducted by the CSIRO?

Do you agree that bad science caused Thalidomide problems and Agent Orange problems? Can you attest to the fact that all science carried out by rich corporations is good science and safe science?

Do corporations in the food industry currently use false advertising to help sell their products ... low fat, light etc.? When money is involved is it more or less likely for business to not tell the full story on their products?
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 4 December 2005 1:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM farmer: If what you are really worried about is having profits reduced if GM grain is introduced then I don't really understand why you expect the average person to sympathise.

It's not the job of the government to subsidise or support by legislation obsolete technologies or occupations that no longer exist.

The discover of the automobile created millions of unemployed blacksmiths, but governments didn't ban the automobile so blacksmiths could keep their job. Likewise, whalers got little compensation for the discovery of petroleum and electricity killing the demand for whale oil.

If GM technology is held back for the sake of luddites you who are opposed to it on principle, then the government will simply be looking after special interest groups at great cost to the rest of the country.

Of course, this wouldn't be a first by any means - look at the Australia auto manufacturing industry - but it would be a sad regression to the protectionism of the early 20th century.
Posted by Yobbo, Sunday, 4 December 2005 3:36:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t think that Non-GM farmer is talking about GM making obsolete normal grain. I think he/she is talking about the non-choice of consumers and the ability of the non-GM farmers to do what they want because they will be contaminated by the GM farmers and will not have a choice and have to pay the price. What Non-GM farmer is saying is that farmers have a great opportunity to give people what they want and that is non-GM. GM will not improve Australia’s exports. You obviously don’t know what a Luddite is if you think that Non-GM is trying to destroy the machinery age. Don’t you remotely think that any new technology should be checked out if it can cause harm? The car was redesigned for more improvements in safety before it was fully manufactured. You can however recall a car.

Now you may say that I am a Luddite but when it has any small chance of affecting my health, I want to know about it or don’t you believe in seat belts? The thing with GM is you cannot change it once it is in, so no safety precautions. I think the government should be holding back the GM because of the health possibilities. Can you honestly say that GM is 100% safe? If you can, have a look at the sites that previous people have pointed to like CSIRO tests. Then YOU put up your hand and be the lab rat for GM. I certainly don’t want to be. I think that I am worth protecting and I am not part of any special interest group or don’t you listen to the silent majority?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 4 December 2005 6:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you someone that believes the GM hype and prepared to make your judgement without costings or performance trials just because the salesman said you were progressive? Do you buy all your products without knowing the price or how your product is expected to perform for you?
An aim to irreversibly contaminate the world food supply with a product known to have adverse affects is certainly of concern to the general public and a reason to discuss rules and risk management.
OK Yobbo, we will use the machinery assimilation to make it easier for you to understand.
Imagine how we would live today if the car was first introduced under self-management where the multinational company that introduced the car could manipulate government and industry decisions to introduce road rules where the pedestrian was at fault if a GM car hit them or a property owner would be deemed negligent for having insufficient protective buffer zones if a car smashed into their house. The public would be liable for any problem the car would cause rather than the manufacturer.
Naturally the car manufacturer would sell more cars as their cars damaged others and would have a front seat to invest in subsidiary companies to build the public protective measures necessary. They would design future GM cars to require more and more destructive features requiring more and more protective measures for their companies to prosper.
However, if the GM car manufacturer was liable for negligence for designing a product that is known-or-ought-to-be-known could not prevent damage if used carefully or if the the GM car driver were to be liable for damages they caused not due to faulty design, the GM car manufacturer would design safety features into their car (brakes, power steering) and the driver would drive carefully to prevent damage.
When the car was introduced, it was introduced with road rules and it is similar road rules that need to be introduced for GM crops.
It should be up to the GM industry to keep GM contained, it should not be up to the non-GM industry to keep GM out
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 5 December 2005 7:59:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GM car? GE Money? The abbreviations can sometimes be rather amusing.

Julie, the motor car came before the road rules. Technology usually drives regulation and not the other way around. This is because technology is always in front and the good and bad are mostly sorted out later.

Genetically modified crops are no different in this aspect. But for one thing. They are being introduced into Australia by Australian subsidiariy companies to American mother companies.

The real driver behind much of the opposition to these crops has nothing to do with care for the environment or the public health but all to do with who owns the technology.

Australian farmers are generally open minded to inventions that will make farming more efficient. The second generation biotech crops have a lot to offer. See report from Bureau of Rural science on what is in the pipeline. See http://www.daff.gov.au/content/publications.cfm?ObjectID=17D7E073-2B1C-4B6C-89276D6DD41DA84D.
Posted by sten, Monday, 5 December 2005 8:56:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

In posts dating back to 27 November, you tried to tell us that atrazine wasn’t toxic but glyphosate was, and referred to your website, which in turn quotes the NGIN website. NGIN includes some text circulated by Greenpeace since at least 1997, and has been repeatedly rebutted.

NGIN claims "Glyphosate reduces the growth of earthworms and increases their mortality, is toxic to many of the beneficial mycorrhizal fungi which help plants take up nutrients from soils, can inhibit anaerobic nitrogen fixation in soil and is the second most toxic out of nine herbicides tested for toxicity to a range of soil bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts. It has been linked to Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and has caused gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations in animal experiments.

The citations are either very selective or don’t say what is claimed for them. For example, although repeated applications (once every 14 days!) in New Zealand lab tests show effects on earthworms, field trials in Adelaide involving the same and related species showed no effect (Dalby et al. 1995, Soil Biol. Biochem. 27: 1661-1662). Although glyphosate caused a significant short term effect on soil microbial activity in one study, the effects disappeared in 6 months. Further, a paper immediately following the one cited by Greenpeace and NGIN and by the same authors in the same journal found no effect of glyphosate on ectomycorrhizal symbiosis of red pine. In fact, 46-48% of seedling pines failed to survive in non-glyphosate treated plots, apparently due to competition with weeds, whereas all survived in the glyphosate-treated plots (Chakravarty and Chatarpaul (1990) Pestic. Sci. 28:243-247). The Hardell and Eriksson paper that claims an association between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in fact shows no closer relationship than chance, and shows a stronger association with glass wool (watch out for your air conditioner filters!).

Now that you know about these miscitations of the real literature, will you pull these claims from your website? What evidence is required for you to withdraw factually inaccurate claims from your website? Agronomist, gmopundit and others have been providing you lots of such evidence
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 5 December 2005 2:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More for Julie:
You still haven’t directly answered any of my questions, such for any evidence for losses, and you seem to ignore answers from other people, but I’ll help you with liability. It is often claimed that there will be losses in the US too, but there seems to be little evidence of uncompensated losses there. The exception is Starlink corn, and Bayer paid out millions in compensation under current tort law.

Back on 23 November at 10:20 PM, Sten explained strict liability and its irrelevance to the herbicide resistant canola approved by the OGTR. We don’t make the manufacturers of even more risky products strictly liable. If 2,4-D is sprayed on or drifts onto a cotton crop, there will certainly be liability, but it will be with the person doing the spraying, not the manufacturers of 2,4-D. I realise you think GM is so important that you want to change all of case law, but you would have to show some significant losses and some legal theory to justify the change.

As in case of liability, who pays should depend on the source of the problem.

Let’s take the case of your Network member, Geoffrey Carracher. First, will he suffer any losses from having some 0.5% GM in his canola? What are the losses going to be? Assuming he does have some losses, his most likely defendant would be his seed supplier, especially if the supplier warranted that the seed would be GM free. Because it is well documented in Canadian and Australian data (such as Mary Rieger’s) that canola pollen flow is very low (less than 0.5%) in neighboring paddocks, seed purity is the biggest issue. In a whole harvest load, even grain left in a harvester is not likely to be enough to push admixture up to 0.5%. In short, seed companies have the greatest burden. Follow the US mode and next will be the marketers. Only organic growers have any obligations for testing costs in the US; it is a burden that they have placed on themselves as the purveyor of an upmarket product
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 5 December 2005 2:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would some of the Pro GM people pontificating on this site care to advise me :Who is going to accept responsibility for the increase of dioxin in Sydney Harbour to the degree that a total ban has been imposed on the harvesting of Shrimps. I understand about a score of fishermen have lost their livelihood as a result of the ban which is expected to be in place for decades.
Was this a foreseeable consequence to the use of pesticides , herbicides and PVC manufacture.
Is the forecast for GM food consumption guaranteed not to have potential health hazards for consumers.
If a hazard is discovered in the future,who will take responsibility?
Posted by maracas, Monday, 5 December 2005 3:21:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The rules I am proposing are exactly what US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop. They have learnt from their mistakes and contrary to what Rebel is suggesting, if GM wheat is introduced, US and Canada do not want to sell their wheat as GM if they do not grow GM wheat. That is the issue. If Australia introduces GM under existing rules, all Australian farmers are expected to market their produce as GM and there is clear market rejection to GM. Once introduced, the rules can not be turned around after contamination occurs. Once contaminated, the non-GM farmer, if he wants to develop a niche market of non-GM, is expected to pay to try to keep GM out and be liable if he can’t. This is ludicrous, why shouldn't Australia learn from the mistakes of other countries and get the rules right first?
The APVMA report on Atrazine: findings = "no major toxicology concerns" and the article is showing GM is no safer than non-GM.
There is evidence of losses when Canada's GM introduction changed their US$32.68/tonne premium to a US$30 penalty but farmers and now taxpayers through increased subsidies are paying for those losses.
Geoffrey Carracher has already experienced losses. His testing cost him $1200 and the seed companies refused to guarantee a GM-free status.
How will we assess for market loss caused by losing customers wanting guarantees that there is no GM canola present?
Spraydrift can be avoided and identified immediately but GM contamination can not. Yes, we plan to take legal action against GM farmers under that same law, but their legal defence is that they followed the crop management plans prepared by the GM company. We don’t support the GM farmer being liable either.
The liability for the next wave of pharmaceutical products will be far worse.
I have been in this debate long enough to know that the pro-GM PR giants make a concerted effort to try to discredit any negative report on GM and I have learnt by experience not to trust the GM industry.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 5 December 2005 4:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. Unfortunately, I got no real pleasure from having my prediction about you proved correct. However, your response has totally stunned me. Perhaps you could explain to me how the 27th November 2005 doesn’t qualify as “this years statistics”? According to my calendar, this was only last week. Are you living in some sort of time warp?

So, I had a paid PR consultant come to Australia to help me? This is news to me. Perhaps you can tell me who and when it was and I will check my diary. Actually, I don’t need a paid PR consultant to tell me that you are spouting a lot of misinformation to support your cause. I can look the data up for myself.

As far as I can tell, the $38 premium you talk about was due to better quality and availability of Canadian canola – nothing more. For an example, total Australian production in 1994 was 262,000 T, Canadian production was 7,232,000 T. In 1994, oil content of Australian canola (that is what it is sold for) was only 39% compared to 42.9% for Canadian canola. That is, in 1994 Australia was trying to market small amounts of poor quality canola. Any improvement in quality and volume would help price. The only market Canada lost on going GM was the EU market. This was an occasional market only and offered no premium over other markets. Indeed, Australia has since lost the Mexican market to Canada. You haven’t heard that there is a bumper canola crop in Canada this year? Perhaps you should check as it might influence your canola prices.

Oh, and by the way, I didn’t mention Monsanto’s Cafeteria at all. This morning I looked up the news reports and found that in fact the headquarters of Monsanto in St Louis doesn't seem to have a GE cafeteria. The report referred to a company called Granada Food Services, who supply the cafeteria in Monsanto’s UK offices, and they have decided not to carry GE foods. Never mind, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 3:29:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maracas on dioxins. It is indeed a pity if dioxin levels in Sydney Harbour are high enough to ban shrimp harvesting. As I understand it, there are several possible sources of dioxins including natural processes, municipal waste incineration and industrial processes, although PVC manufacture does not seen to be a culprit. The following websites will provide you with some useful information. http://www.eurochlor.org/index.asp?page=103, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/dioxinqa.html, http://c3.org/chlorine_issues/understanding_dioxin/dioxin_brochure/b-by-products-blue.html. As to who to blame, the biggest producers of dioxin emissions are municipal waste incinerators, perhaps you should take the problem to them?

Is it really safe? Are you trying to tell me that a conspiracy within Monsanto would see 20 employees in the know try and harm their 4980 co-workers? I love conspiracy theories because it is so much fun to see the ridiculous lengths some people will go to in order to keep their pet theory alive. But, I find this one a bit hard to swallow. You indeed have the choice to eat everything organically-grown and GE free and I wouldn’t want to take that away from you. Likewise, I am happy to consume food that is not organically grown, because it is cheaper and has fewer pathogens on it. I am not against organic food when it is the same price and quality, I just don’t get too hung up on the other issues. I would like to be able to keep that choice. By the way, I had Kenyan coffee this morning, not organically grown as far as I can tell, and sorry, but I can’t actually taste any difference.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:27:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated-Careless untrue speculation from all sides raises serious moral questions?
##Well yes I do.
You slant your questions?
##There little space and you come from one direction
CSIRO was right to take the steps RE mice?
##Absolutely. I posted the information on my website the day it issued. also http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-on-csiro-genetically-engineered.html

Trust CSIRO more than an American multinational? ##No. A mistake in this area is industry suicide. Also my own experience with corporations was that they had higher safety standards than the government bodies and Universities I had experienced. I have not worked in CSIRO.
3rd world-Less likelihood of good science taking place compared to trials conducted by the CSIRO?
##This is starting to get ethnically biased, which raises moral issues again.

bad science caused Thalidomide problems
##Not sure, probably a business decision, need details and Agent Orange problems?
##Even less sure, need to know about specifics.

Can you attest to the fact that all science carried out by rich corporations is good science and safe science?
##No, neither is conventional breeding or trying new untested foods like kiwifruit and nectarines such good precautionary science.

##But let me ask: Would penicillin be allowed today, and does expensive risk aversion penalise the poor?

Do corporations in the food industry currently use false advertising ? ##Marketing is marketing whether by Kellogg's or by Organic food producers using scare campaigns against competitors.

When money is involved is it more or less likely for business to not tell the full story on their products?

##Last time I checked, organic farmers still charged twice as much, so what does that mean?
Why are all corps tarred by one corporation in the past.
Why not all government bodies because Russia was bad, or all vegetarians because Hitler was bad?.
Why the denigration of all members of a group, rather like racism.
And how can we have a modern society without organisations like companies except in Utopia?
Money is involved in EU CAP/trade protection-driving the constant stream of paid anti-GM visitors to Australia; lets also mention NGOs who depend on scares for donations
Posted by d, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 7:45:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not reveal who you are Agronomist? Going by your times you post your comments, I am presuming you are American. Are you the pro-GM PR consultant that visited Australia? I asked that because you are following the prescribed recommendation of constantly claiming I am misleading while misreading or misrepresenting what I am saying.
Putting both sets of statistics together we get a further picture of what is happening. Markets were sluggish buying the 2004/05 harvest. Price was held up by not selling until late 05 and finally selling cheap with an aim to clear ending stocks in preparation for this years harvest. (Apologies for not reading your full earlier post - harvest is a rushed time.)
This reluctance could be due to China joining EU in their compulsory labelling of oils. Japanese consumers are now lobbying to introduce GM labelling of oils which could see even worse market rejection.
ABB confirmed at an Adelaide conference that the first detected GM contaminated consignment out of Australia caused problems with markets confirming that if Australia went GM, they would prefer to buy Canadian canola as the oil consistency is better. While Australia is GM-free they prefer Australian.
What do you see as a solution?
We have consumers not wanting GM and farmers wanting to supply the consumers with an uncontaminated product.
We have the GM company wanting returns on their GM investments and scientists believing they will attract corporate investment to plant breeding if they adopt GM.
Why not make the GM company liable for the economic risk that they are saying is not a problem. The obvious solution is a strict liability regime where the GM industry only pays if they can't control their product and it causes economic damage.
We do not want to market as GM for obvious reasons and we should not be forced to without adequate protection. If non-GM farmers can’t market as non-GM, consumers lose their choice too.
If the GM-industry believe their own “no-risk” propaganda, why don’t they accept liability?
Will you answer or ignore this question?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 9:45:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave,

#Little space and you come from one direction ....No I don't I would love GM to be the solution to the world's problems... I am just very wary of Corporations and the science
used by them to justify things.

#This is starting to get ethnically biased, which raises moral issues again.... no it isn't I meant can you trust Multi National Corps in third world countries? Remember Bhopal?

I am in no way ethnically biased. The third world may be the backdoor for GM products to be released onto markets under the guise of "doing the right thing".

#Organic farmers still charged twice as much, so what does that mean? I'm against this... but if GM and the Chemical companies are so good ... Why an organic market anyway? The people don't trust chemical companies.

#Thalidomide ... All decisions to market a product are business decisions... but science said it was side effects free and long term effects were disastrous.

# Why are all corps tarred by one corporation in the past. You really believe that all the things I have listed in my posts are only one corp? Wrong!

# The why not all Govts argument... not worth debating.

# Nothing like racism... not worth debating.

# You can have corporations marketing the food supply without them owning it. Pass a law!
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 10:49:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, you are being deliberately misleading: Max Foster's (ABARE) reference to the graphs was "There is some evidence that the gap between Canadian and Australian canola prices has narrowed in recent years which is consistent with improved demand for non–GM canola (figure B)." He does however further explain that the markets are in a discovery phase determining what premiums markets are prepared to pay.
The bulk of the Canadian canola is sold to the United States which is not GM sensitive.
Only 12% of the worlds canola is GM and it is almost all grown in Canada because Canadian conditions favour GM chemical resistant crops because they have snow and rely more on post emergent control. We, however live in Australia.
ABARE's report also states: "Commercial release of GM crops may require changes to existing laws and regulations to ensure the costs and liabilities are borne by those who impose them and so facilitate efficient allocation of resources."

d/GMO Pundit:Farmers are not being offered "crops that resist drought" or crops that will avoid "penalizing Aussie farmer’s future earnings with cost penalties our trade competitors don’t bear." We are only being offered GM chemical resistant canola similar to non-GM. Considering weeds are developing resistance to glyphosate without us wanting them to, you would think it would be relatively easy to breed non-GM glyphosate resistant canola.
You are claiming Canada has a 20-30% cost advantage but still only refer to a very limited survey and claim that me ignoring it is a "lies statement". Using the costs available to Australian farmers and the trials grown in Australian conditions, could you please draw up a cashflow that would explain this. I come up with a very dismal negative. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=389

d/agronomist: Do you support independent performance trials? Who do you think should be liable for economic loss?

In true Yobboish style Yobbo just claims anyone against GM is "talking out of your arse", "a moron", "a Gaea-worshipping luddite who lives in the woods eating berries dressed in loincloths" and "liars, inveterate morons and hidden Greenpeace activists".

This discussion is truly enjoyable!
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:16:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie NonGM Newman:

You really need to read something from sources other than anti-GM. Where do you get the idea that the rules you are proposing “are exactly what US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop”? Who represents this official US and Canada position? Canadian and US growers don’t see much advantage to Roundup Ready wheat, but ask Canadian growers about GM fusarium resistant wheat and you’d learn they want it. The next US crop IS being introduced; it is Roundup Ready alfalfa, without any new rules.

Just what rules are you proposing? No GM car or gene manufacturer could overturn basic tort law. There is a GM (General Motors) car. If accidents are due to manufacturer error, the manufacturer is liable, but not for driver error. Not only are you proving to be a poor biologist, you seem a poor lawyer. Just give us the case, not the weak analogies.

Not all US soy or corn growers market their crops as GM; why would Australians have to do so? You need to talk to some real US and Canadian farmers, or for that matter, Australian cotton growers, rather than the Percy Schmeisers (whose evidence forced 4 Canadian judges to conclude that he was deliberately growing GM, a contention Percy gave up contesting before the Canadian Supreme Court). Maybe you just need to talk more with a real agronomist, Bill Crabtree, who has seen Canada. Why can’t you learn from North American successes instead of saddling WA with more than $100 million per year in lost profits, as Crabtree has shown. You still have not answered how so many millions of farmers around the world are wrong but you are right.

You probably haven’t seen the latest: Paul Feng, Washington State University, and colleagues, showed that “Glyphosate inhibits rust diseases in glyphosate-resistant (GR) wheat and soybean.” See it in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I don’t know about Agronomist, but Julie’s posts are enough to give me insomnia; I’d be up in the middle of the night to reply!
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie:
Where is the clear market rejection of GM? Spain, Portugal and Germany grow GM corn. Over half the soy imported to the EU is GM. The difference is that the EU is a net exporter of GM and has little reason to allow in any other canola. If you wanted to get rid of GM, you could. Seed stocks turn over. The US has gotten rid of Starlink corn.

We have already gone over the APVMA report; they only rule on acceptable risk, not that atrazine is safer than glyphosate. Atrazine’s close relative, simazine, has already gotten into Adelaide’s water. Would you have atrazine in your water?

What is this “evidence of losses when Canada's GM introduction changed their …. premium to a ….. penalty but farmers and now taxpayers through increased subsidies are paying for those losses.” I hope you are not relying on organic lobbyist Chuck Benbrook for this. The facts are that the US is willing to reduce subsidies as soon as Europe reduces its even larger subsidies, despite being nearly GM free. I guess that means EU taxpayers are subsidising being GM free. Subsidies don’t exist in Argentina, Brazil, India, China or South Africa, but they have adopted GM anyway.

Who required any testing from Geoffrey Carracher? The fact that he tested his canola to make a political point is not a cost he had to bear, but did so by choice. Who are these customers wanting guarantees that there is no GM canola present? Does Carracher have some,. and who are they? What are they paying? You have to be able to show damages before you can sue successfully.

Why doesn’t the NCF put up or shut up and sue Bayer for Carracher’s test results? Set a precedent! You won’t because your lawyers know there were no damages.

Even if the cafeteria at Monsanto in the UK wanted to use GE ingredients, how would they get them?

Answer questions, Julie, or provide new evidence. Your endless repetition of claims doesn’t make them factual.

I’ve answered your questions. When are you going to answer mine
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You pro-GMers are a nasty little lot. I don't know much about the farming angle but I can see that you are bullying the farmers that don't want to grow GM. I can see why GM crops are banned in Australia, it doesn't seem to make sense.
Is that Bill Crabtree the same guy who was on the ABC saying that the Network of Concerned Farmers should be wiped off the face of the earth? When I heard that, I realised that something funny was going on. A farmer being threatened like that, just because they don't want to grow GM. Maybe they are uncovering things that you pro-GMers don't want to be uncovered or understood.
I asked a question at work and didn't find anyone that wanted to eat GM. All of them, like me are concerned that the health issues have not been fully looked at and the tests that have shown problems are overlooked or hidden. I don't think it is a good idea to rush into GM without being able to guarantee you can provide non-GM for those consumers. Australia relies on exports while Canada sells most of theirs to the United States. I think that is an important issue.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2004ExecSummary.pdf
http://www.ncfap.org/index.php

Environmental and Production Benefits Drive Greater Demand for Biotech (GM) Crops

Farmers experience year-on-year improvements from biotech crops
In 2004, U.S. farmers planted biotech crops on 118 million acres, an increase of 11 percent overthe previous year. Compared to conventional crops, biotech varieties increased food production by 6.6 billion pounds, a 24 percent improvement from 2003, and provided $2.3 billion in additional net returns for U.S. growers, a 21 percent increase from the previous year. Biotech crops alsoreduced pesticide use by an additional 34 percent, or 15.6 million pounds. Pesticide use dropped by 15.6 million from 2003 to 2004.

Pesticide use impacts
The 11 applications of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2004 reduced the use of pesticides in crop production by 62.0 million pounds. This represents a further 34% decrease in pesticide usage compared with 2003. Herbicide-resistant crops accounted for
the largest reduction of pesticide use compared to other applications. Increased acreage ofLiberty Link crops (canola, corn, and cotton) has contributed to further reductions in pesticide use in 2004. While herbicide-resistant soybean accounted for 36% of the reduction, herbicide-resistant corn and cotton contributed 30 and 23%, respectively.About 11% reduction in pesticide use was due to insect-resistant crops.

Crop impacts
The planting of biotechnology-derived varieties resulted in significant impacts in all the six crops evaluated in this study. While yield improvement and pesticide use reduction was greatest in biotechnology-derived field corn, planting of soybean led to largest
reduction in production costs and greatest net economic impact. Both crops were leaders in the same categories in 2003. Biotechnology-derived varieties improved corn production by 5.9 billion pounds in 2004.
Cotton ranked second in yield improvement, with an additional 587 million pounds produced due to biotechnology-derived varieties. Biotechnology-derived soybean reduced production costs by $1.37 billion, and therefore increased growers’ net returns by
the same amount. Overall reduction in pesticide use due to biotechnology-derived varieties was greatest in corn (23.3 million pounds), followed by soybean (22.4 million pounds), and cotton (15.9 million pounds).
Posted by d, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 5:02:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. Now you have made an accusation about me to the effect that “a paid PR consultant that visited Australia to help you”. When I ask for information from you to justify this allegation, you refuse to give it, now suggesting that I am the paid PR consultant. And Is it Really Safe? complains about the pro-GMers being a nasty lot.

I am being disingenuous about Max Foster am I? I took the quote from a document called “Australian Grains Industry 2003-GM Canola. What are its economics under Australian conditions?” available from ABARE at website. You can look it up, I quoted exactly and, I believe, in context.

As to the quotation that you used, you didn’t reference it so I had to search for it. It apparently comes from a report written for DAFF called “Trading Conditions for Genetically Modified Canola” and available at: http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=FF9D6753-3C34-4E15-836D5E9CEF42FD5F.

I quote in full:

“Price advantages for non-GM canola?
There is some evidence that the gap between Canadian and Australian canola prices has narrowed in recent years which is consistent with improved demand for non–GM canola (figure B). However, this narrowing could simply reflect the greater security of supply that has occurred with Australian canola over the same time and the continuing problems that Canada has had in disposing of a record canola production surge that occurred in 1998 and 1999.”

I take another quote from the same report:

“the premium for non–GM canola over GM canola would have to be at least 10 per cent to offset the agronomic benefits of GM canola. At this stage, a premium of this level does not appear to be available on a wide scale in world markets.”

Nothing in either report about Canada losing a premium of $38.

As to the quote “The bulk of the Canadian canola is sold to the United States which is not GM sensitive”. This statement is so obviously untrue; I don’t know why you bothered to say it. More than 4 times as much Canadian canola is exported to Japan as the USA (see for details: http://www.canola-council.org/seedexports.html).
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 7:05:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, try adding the statistics (from the same site) for seed+oil+meal and you will find USA is Canada's largest market by an average 3,759,000 tonne/year. Perhaps you should be following your own recommendation "you really need to learn to use official statistics."
Japan is the worlds largest importer of canola seed and becoming increasingly sensitive to GM imports and are even demanding stock and products from stock (eg.cheese) sent to Japan are not fed GM products.
The quote disproving your “nothing but quality and availability” claim was from Max Fosters "ABARE GM Grain-Market implications for Australian grain growers" which is the main ABARE report on GM and the reference given for the graph you quoted from my website. Contact ABARE for the hard data.
The same ABARE report stated the agronomic benefits would be negated if identity preservation requirements are included (estimated at 10%) and also modelled an increase in cost of production at 4%. This would equate to a requirement of at least a 14% gain in productivity to offset additional costs for the GM grower and the non-GM grower would be at least 10% down or be expected to market as GM. That does not equate to a benefit.
Based on Canadian statistics, the Australian Productivity Commission calculated a 1% productivity gain while ABARE based their assumptions on a 10% increase in productivity. Neither has been verified.
We need independent trials to come up with accurate data for Australian conditions, are you against these? Avoiding the question?

You don’t have to be too smart to want to avoid these costs and market risks.

Rebel -
So you consider Bill Crabtree who "has seen Canada" a better source of information than Charles Benbrook, top agronomic adviser in the US for many years… you must be joking!!
If you contact expert lawyers in this field you will have them confirm that existing legislation is not adequate (or see DAFF liability report).
The Canadian Wheat Board policy, the Canadian Farmers Union policy and the numerous press articles surrounding GM wheat reveal strict liability is seen as a solution.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 10:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have demanded for Non-GM’s name and yet you have not said who you are. That’s a bit rude isn’t it? And then you answer questions with questions which does not answer the original question. I don’t know what all these chemicals do or for what crops, but I do know that what I eat directly influences my health. I do want to know that this is safe and you continually fob me off as not important and attack rather than discuss what Non-GM farmer is saying. Obviously she is Julie and she has been out in the open all along including her sign off name and you have attacked her web-site as well. Do you have a web-site that she can attack?
Monsanto and Bayer I do not trust. And yet that’s what this forum is about. Their track record is very poor so why should I trust them now? They are playing with my health and they are totally irresponsible to do that. I don’t want to know years down the track “Oops, sorry. All your major organs are now reduced because you’ve been eating GM. And by the way, the rest of the world’s population has done the same because there has been no alternative, so the mortality rate is now reduced by 10 years”. But I suppose the world’s population has overgrown the world’s resources so this is one way of taking care of that. These type of companies don’t care about people’s health and they have proved that time and time again. They are only in it for the fast buck which has killed many people in murder before today. I don’t want to be murdered by a slow painful death. Do you
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 10:11:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction on above: the tonnage is 37,590tonne/year more, I missed the .00. Apologies for being so rushed.

Geoffrey Carracher tested his seed because farmers are expected to sign to guarantee they have no GM contamination and that we will accept liability if there is. How can we do that without testing? It was claimed by pro-GM lobbyists that Geoffreys contamination of Grace seed was a publicity stunt but his findings were later confirmed by industry testing announcing the Grace variety was contaminated and sown on an estimated total of 432,000ha. Some publicity stunt!

3 years after Starlink corn was recalled, it is still rejected and detected in 1% of samples which proves you can not get rid of GM contamination. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2023

Those farmers in US and Canada that want to market as non-GM must follow a stringent identity preservation system which includes importing uncontaminated seed for planting. Yes, they do get premiums but the costs involved negate most of those premiums. At the moment, Australian farmers get those premiums without the costs.

"d", Omega 3 is not just limited to fish. I read on my bread label today that Linseed was a good Omega 3 source.

I think "murder" is rather radical but taking risks with peoples health and livelihoods is very serious.

Rebel, you are continually playing the man rather than the ball... how about debating the issue.

Why do you think the non-GM farmers should be liable? Why are you against independent performance trials? If you are not against them, why haven't you all answered my repeated questions?

I'm heading to see Charles Benbrook in Perth now so will be able to give you a first hand opinion. Try not to get too carried away without me being on line.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 4:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is it really:

GM foods are at least as safe as anything grown conventionally. If kiwi fuits or peanuts had to go through the same review as GM crops, they would be rejected due to allergenicity. Many food items from GM crops aren’t even GM, such as sugars and oils (including from canola, which is why most of the world doesn’t care about GM canola, except the EU for whom it is a convenient trade barrier to protect their own net exporting farmers). Once processed, there is no DNA or protein left in oils or sugars, i.e,. you cannot tell them from conventionally grown oils or sugars. Did you know that 70% of British cheese is produced using GE enzymes, but isn’t labeled (nor is there any apparent campaign to do so)?

I don’t care if our farmers don’t grow GM canola. I object to denying them the choice to do so to curry favour with Green voters. It has been estimated that lack of access to GM canola is costing WA farmers more than $100 million per year, see http://www.no-till.com.au/

Julie, where is your evidence that Japan is becoming “increasingly” GM sensitive? They buy GM corn and soy from the US, GM canola from Canada, and have done so for 9 years now.

Bill Crabtree has seen GM crops in North America and South America. Where have you been to?

Benbrook is a top agronomic adviser in the US? You are the one who is joking or misinformed. Look at his own biography; he just “worked in Washington”; http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0204/benbrook.php3

Benbrook is an economist who worked a government bureaucrat for years and then was fired from his most senior government job (Science, vol. 250, 1202, Nov. 30, 1990)). He now works for the organic industry (http://www.organic-center.org/about2.htm)

Julie, I have already said that non-GM farmers should not be liable, assuming of course that they didn’t cause their own problems. I am in wildly in favor of independent trials. I have answered your questions. Answer mine. Is your Network of Confused Farmers going to sue Bayer over Carracher? Why not
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 7:01:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel: Are you Bill Crabtree? I am allergic to peanuts and peanut oil. You don't understand what it's like for people like me with allergies. I have been near death due to allegens and in hospitals numerous times because of it, from not knowing what I was allergic to in foods and environment. I am not interested in having any more allergins in my diet as it's hard enough now trying to avoid what I know I am allergic to. This is why you would murder people like me as we would not know. Someone insisting I have ANY product in my food that could increase my allergies should be classed as a murderer.
"Corporation" made it clear that corporate companies are only interested in exploiting global rescources for sharholder profits. I don't want to be murdered because of profits to a shareholder.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 8:59:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an idea .... Why don't the members of the pro GM foods lobby offer themselves personally for GM testing.

I and probably some of the other people wary of GM foods will no doubt be willing to be in the control group... I'll eat what I eat now. In fact I will guarantee that I do not eat any GM foods whatsoever.

The rest of you PRO's should approach the chemical companies and eat all these wonder foods for the next 12 months. Don't think of yourselves as human guinea pigs or lab rats... you are people who are following your dogmas and complete trust in these corporations to the full measure.

This is almost the perfect experiment... we are testing the GM foods on intelligent, rich westeners for the benefit of those in the 3rd world we normally test things on.

Now we need some truly independent health professionals who will monitor these people's health and do the tests required at the end of the 12 month testing period.

Being true to your Dogma I expect you to report all illnesses to your Drs. Don't fudge the figures now. Oh I know you wouldn't do that you are very honourable people.

Obviously we can add the chemical companies PR people, their marketing guru's and their directors and management to make up the numbers in the non-control group.

Is a year long enough? Probably not but it is a good start. Just remember when you are in the trial not to breath on any plants... your Roundup residuals might kill them...Ha!

In a years time I reckon we might just see some significant results...
Remember if you grow an extra head... two heads are better than one.
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:55:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. You need to be more specific about what you mean. Most in the canola industry would consider “canola” in a sales context to mean canola seed exports. Yes, if you include oil and meal exports, Canada has sent more canola product to the US in the past two years than it has to Japan. However, prior to that there was either little difference or more product was sent to Japan. Canola production in the US was down in 2004 due to a difficult season. If you add it all up, canola product exports from Canada for 2004/2005 were 25% higher than in 1995/1996 or 1996/1997. Hardly evidence of an inability to sell product.

Somehow, Japan’s increasing sensitivity to GM imports is not showing up in canola imports from Canada. Imports from Canada of all canola products by Japan were about the same in 2004/2005 to what they were in 1995/1996 before Canada was selling GM canola. Seed exports are now higher than 1995/1996. Japan’s increasing sensitivity to GM imports is also not showing up in soybean imports from the US.

I am quite happy to see canola trials. They happen every year in Canada and the US and usually the LibertyLink varieties come out on top.

Opionated2. As far as I am aware, I have been eating GM foods for the past 8 years. I intend to do so for the next twelve months as well. Count me in. In that time, I have had only 4 visits to the doctor. Two normal checkups, one travel vaccination and once for antibiotics for an ear infection. Of course a statistical sample of 1 is pretty useless. But there are more than 200 million people in North America who have been eating these products without mishap for 8 years or more. There are probably more everywhere else. Oh and when I grow that second head, you will be the first to know.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 8 December 2005 9:34:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great new Agronomist... of course you do it at your own risk...

But before you start I think you should consider the following...

You would need to pick as many GM foods as you possibly can - remember if GM foods are approved the world over we will end up eating almost entirely GM foods. This means that the genes in your conola might react with the genes in the soy, or your wheat products or your dairy products etc. etc.

I'm sure the companies can vouch that all these interalational problems have been well and truly tested. Most of the studies I have read they have only tested one GM product on each rodent. They haven't fed the lab rats a diet similar to what we humans would eat. Not many of us eat just soy all day.

This part of the test could work for or against GM produce. Feeding a rat just GM soy and not much else may have exaggerated the results. Likewise feeding the rats a mixed diet may have more serious consequences... Who knows?

See I am inbiased in my approach to the tests.
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 8 December 2005 2:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Omega 3 from Julie Newman – Omega3 is shorthand for two families of nutrients, so there are several different omega 3 fatty acids to talk about, not all found in linseed oil.

Question for Julie Newman NCF : You have made repeated demands for extra independent field trials of GM canola. What I cannot understand is why, given they are huge costs to other parties, how your demand for these is relevant to the liability issue you are concerned about. Why are you demanding extra costs for others: how is it relevant to your need to reduce your personal liability?

Also Julie Newman: More evidence for better GM yields arrived when I read my latest GRDC newsletter Ground cover.

http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/gc/gc59/index.htm

There is all sorts of stuff in it on 10-20% better yields in Australia with Liberty GM Hybrids.

Re Safety: Personally I've eaten GM cookies and they were yummy. I'd happily agree to take part in any human trial, but I'd probably be unsuitable as I have a chemical sensitivity to salicylate, which means many good foods currently on the market make me sick. Organic soup is really bad on this, the literature tells me, so I avoid it.
Posted by d, Friday, 9 December 2005 5:20:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGMFarmer:
You asked on Sunday 4 December “Why should GM yield more…. It only gives chemical resistance”. Julie, are you prepared to give up your triazine tolerant (TT) canola next season and plant only non-herbicide tolerant (HT) varieties? It’s only got chemical resistance too, and has lower yield and oil potential than non-HT varieties. So why do you grow it? Isn’t it because the use of atrazine gives you better weed control and therefore more yield?

Julie, you made yourself and your own credibility an issue when you declared that “I have always hated farmers being lied to” (27 November11:24AM). You have also accused Agronomist of being linked to “a paid PR consultant”, but refused to give any evidence. All through this page, you have made such claims as “atrazine is not toxic” (24 November 2005 5:23:44 PM) that are easily proved false. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/atrazine.html).

Can I ask “Opinionated2” and “Is it safe” if they believe you that “atrazine is not toxic”? “Opinionated2” and “Is it safe”, please read the EPA link I have given above and tell me if you want this applied to the canola you might eat or might be fed to animals you might eat.

Julie, I am disappointed that Nic Kentish is “not an active member of the network”. Back in April 2004, the Weekly Times and the ABC described Nic as a spokesman for the Network. Were they wrong? You still haven’t provided a timeline for events, or told us when and how many members of your Network were on teleconferences with Greenpeace. However, you are still apparently sticking to your story that your friend George did you a favour by not telling you that Greenpeace actually arranged to set up your website and handled money for it while you were telling the world that you had no links to Greenpeace. Surely it is a bit suspect that you came to your awakening only after Nic told us that you were having secret teleconferences with Greenpeace. And they were secret, not announced but occurring even before you threatened to sue Paula Fitzgerald
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 9 December 2005 5:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie NonGMFarmer Newman, you asked for real issues, and I’ll keep asking about them.

I’ll repeat my questions from 5 December; “Now that you know about these miscitations of the real literature, will you pull these claims from your website? What evidence is required for you to withdraw factually inaccurate claims from your website?” We know you place a high premium on hating “farmers being lied to”.

Liability is something you claim as a huge issue. Please answer the following directly and specifically: Will the NCF sue about the Carracher GM canola finds?

Both Sten and I have answered you on strict liability (search this page again), but you have ignored our replies.

If there is anyone posting on this web page, who is not an Australian citizen, please declare that.

“Is it really safe”: I am not Bill Crabtree. I prefer anonymity only because I don’t want to fend off threats of frivolous lawsuits from Julie Newman, who has tried to threaten and intimidate the free speech of both Crabtree and Fitzgerald. I don’t have Julie’s financial resources or wealthy and influential friends.

I also have allergies. Like me, you should be happy to learn that a peanut variety manipulated by GM to be without its allergens is being developed. GM foods are safer for allergies than conventional foods because allergies are carefully studied for GM foods, but not tested for conventional foods.

I volunteered to be a test subject for GM foods more than 10 years ago, and have eaten all GM crops and foods ever marketed, including Bt sweet corn and potatoes that you have never seen, and some experimental crops, such as raw Bt broccoli. I have not done this casually, but have studied the volumes of data submitted to regulators. I have full confidence in the safety of these foods. Prefer GM crops because I know they are grown with fewer and safer pesticides and that corn in particular has fewer fumonisins, which are powerful fungal toxins and carcinogens (see my post on 28 November 2005)
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 9 December 2005 5:30:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For 8 years I have been avoiding corn and soy as that's all that I know GM is in. Should I be avoiding others? Keep it out of my food as it's hard avoiding cottonseed, corn and soy products now. With this Atrizine chemical, isn't that sprayed on young plants. Yes, your EPA web site says that it's nasty but I'm not drinking it! And I have no intention of drinking it but I would be consuming the whole GM food that you are planning to contaminate. How much as a consumer would be on or in the end product of Atrizine treated food? Compare it to GM where it's the whole lot. Get real here! You are comparing 1 cell of a grain to the whole grain that you are wanting to contaminate. Stop trying to murder me. I've re-read the timeline in this journal that you are attacking Julie with and it's pretty obvious what Julie is saying and when. She's not hiding anything but you are. Read the Forum and see the timeline. It makes perfect sense to me. If you are happy to grow 2 head so you can get the same brains as us, then feel free, but I don't need 2 heads so leave my food alone!
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 9 December 2005 6:01:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that Atrazine is a very harmful substance but now read this

http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/natrazine.asp

AS can be seen it doesn't matter what the chemical the decision is made despite the science.

This is what I have been arguing... How will a consumer or a farmer or anyone else for that matter ever be able to trust a GM product or any other product for that matter when decisions are taken on the wrong basis.

Pressure groups run the USA and Australia and the science is thrown out the window because of money.

Who created the lack of trust? Governments, Corporations and the anything for a buck lobby. At the moment the GM lobby is saying trust us because a Chemical company scientist said it was safe OR Trust us because the US Govt approved it. There are no long term studies vouching for GM's safety, there are no long term studies on what effect these gene manipulations may have on other genes.

Personally I try to eat as litle Canola and vegetable oils as possible because it is now suspected of causing macular degeneration. OOps another side effect never tested for. See http://100777.com/node/1053

This is why the precautionary principle must be used... we cannot trust the people who are saying "Trust US"
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 10 December 2005 11:47:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A new evaluation of herbicide risks in cereal farming has just come out. More detailals at the link below:
December 9, 2005, Via Agnet/ISAA CropBiotech Net
Wheat varieties grown all over the world may be classified as conventional, produced by genetic engineering, or generated by mutagenic techniques. With three such methods in place, Robert K.D. Peterson and Leslie M. Shama of Montana State University carry out A comparative risk assessment of genetically engineered, mutagenic, and conventional wheat production systems using the risk assessment paradigm. Their paper appears in the current issue of Transgenic Research.
Among others, researchers found that the herbicides glyphosate and imazamox, which are used to protect wheat, actually present lower human health and ecological risks than many other herbicides associated with conventional wheat production systems.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/assessments-of-risks-with-herbicide.html

Re Problems with vegetable oils: The macular degeneration is interesting, suggesting that perhaps trans-fatty acids should be suspected. New varieties of oilseeds that minimise this are hitting the market. As far as vegetable oil risks -life is full of trade offs, and you won't see olive oil going out of fashion too quickly, I'd say.
Decreased heart risks are probably the compensation. In any case too much fat of any sort in the diet is generally bad.
Posted by d, Saturday, 10 December 2005 12:13:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many times have you been in hospital and how long because of your allergies? If you are the guinea pig for alergic people then did you have a group of doctors standing by in case you went into shock when you took GM foods? How many times has food made your eyes puff up so badly that you cannot see or you cannot breathe because someone has put a food that you are allergic to disguised on a plate as decoration that you did not recognise. Slightly allergic is very different than full allergies. I cannot even eat food that someone has used the same knife on as an allergic food. One drop of e.g. cucumber would mean hospitalization or death. How do you know that what GM says is an allergy in peanuts for example is what I am allergic to? Are the tests that have been performed quantitive or qualitive? I don't want to be a fibonacci number of GM possibilities of having side effects. This can affect the whole whole as you are playing with the world's population in health.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 10 December 2005 2:58:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGMNewman:
Regarding poverty stricken farmers adding weeds to their diets, you need to get out and travel the world a bit. The people who most need vitamin A live in city slums. There are no fields with edible weeds. As I said before, check out the poorer sections of Mumbai, for example, before you offer naïve solutions to a serious problem.

Dear “Is it really safe”:
I know from years of explaining the safety of GM crops to a range of audiences that there is no way I will persuade you that your fears about the safety of GM foods are unfounded. Never mind that every major scientific and medical society in the world has reviewed this issue and concluded that the regulatory system is strong and the foods that have been accepted by the regulatory system have been more intensively reviewed than anything else you have eaten. I know that people with fears as entrenched as yours will never be convinced otherwise, just as I know that I can never convince creationists and intelligent designers (to use another example from the National Forum) that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Your comparison of GM canola with atrazine is a prime example of how differently we perceive risk. In fact, in Adelaide we were drinking simazine, atrazine’s close relative, when it was used in agroforestry and washed into the Adelaide water supply. It would not surprise me if atrazine is found in local water supplies in eastern Australia in the years to come due to increased reliance on atrazine resistant canola. Atrazine and simazine are persistent pesticides that are dinosaurs, introduced in the days of DDT but still not swept out by the regulatory system in some countries, even though banned in Europe.

Why do we Australians pay so much attention to overseas so-called experts instead of listening to our own? Bill Crabtree has visited North and South America and reviewed what is actually happening there. He was Landcarer of the Year in WA in 1996. How many of us can claim the similar experience and recognition
Posted by Rebel, Sunday, 11 December 2005 12:56:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2 and Is it Really safe? You like I live in a rich Western country and have the choice to eat what we like when we like. However, people in poor third world countries do not have the same choice. A number of the more vocal groups in the anti-GM lobby are pinning their hopes on convincing third-world countries that they should ban GM foods, just look at what happen in Zambia. These same people are often vocally against the “industrialization of agriculture and the Green Revolution”. I find the latter arguments unforgivable and the former merely an extension of the latter. The Green Revolution provided vastly improved varieties of basic foodstuffs that had higher harvest index and improved tolerance to pests. This allowed many poor countries to greatly increase food production and to feed their increasing populace. The anti-industrialists, who mostly live in rich countries, want to dictate to poor nations to suit their own ideological position, regardless of the damage that is done. Why should these countries not benefit from agricultural advances?

I find it frustrating that the Canadian canola industry is so often portrayed as a corrupt and dying industry, simply because Canadian farmers have found GM canola to be a valuable product. The truth of the matter is that the Canadian canola industry is not in trouble. Farmers are continuing to grow, harvest and sell their product. The biggest danger they are facing at the moment is the flood of soybeans from Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil on the world oilseed market. This is tending to drive canola prices down. Canadian farmers have adopted herbicide-tolerant technology as it provides substantial production benefits, not least of which is they don’t have to spend so long tilling their fields. More than 95% of all canola in Canada is herbicide tolerant and over 75% is GM. The number of farmers using GM canola continues to grow, but has almost saturated the market. Canadian growers are now looking to specialty oils as a way of continuing to grow their industry.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 11 December 2005 1:55:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With going on and on about Julie being funded by Greenpeace, she has said that the only funding that she has had is the start up of her website. How long has the website been going for? Get over it and let it go as this is petty.

I am not saying that you cannot convince me about GM foods but so far you have not given data to suggest that I should. This is not evolution unless you use science correctly. Isn’t the first rule of science sceptism, and take nothing for granted? Give me proof of the scientific tests that have been performed by external and non judgemental scientists. Where are the papers/factual evidence? Are the rules of determinism and empiricalism followed or are they one result over many because that result suited your purpose. I am doing a “Socrates” and questioning your truth. I want evidence on these tests via biopsies done over a 10 year period on human subjects testing for any indication of change given each year or change in protein levels: Mucosa and submucosa of the stomach, Spinal fluid/meninges, Spirograph to check lung tissue/strength, One major organ (like spleen), hair papilla for strength. Halitosis, deformation in bones, fertility, inflammation or joint discomfort. I want to know if there are any oncogene in any part of the body whilst and after eating GM foods - blood muscle and bone tests needed. Test subjects only eat GM. You have been tested your doctor has cleared you. I want more than this as GP’s don’t test everything. GP’s would not know if something is truly amiss as the body does tend to hide things until it is too late. You are using qualitative measures which are notorious for being subjective. I want quantitive measures done by non judgemental scientists on the above reported tests and then and only then would you convince me. Until then, I will keep asking the question “Is it really safe” because until you prove it, I will believe that GM is not
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 11 December 2005 3:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chuck Benbrook focussed on the resistance to glyphosate that is developing in US since the overuse of glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops. Farmers are using more glyphosate applications and more alternative chemicals to try to kill the weeds that single glyphosate applications previously controlled. If the weeds are not going to die from the chemical that GM crops are resistant to, why would you want to plant GM Roundup-Ready crops? Farmers will be in serious problems if we lose the effectiveness of our most commonly used herbicide.

Benbrook wasn't fired from his job. He was politely asked to resign from a particular chemical advisory committee as he was considered too outspoken. Many (including media) expressed their disgust and embarrassment at the slander campaign aimed at him.

You shouldn't be frightened of giving your name and freedom of speech unless you are planning on deliberately lying publicly with an aim to slander people. Paula Fitzgerald claimed I was Greenpeace-funded when I am not and Bill Crabtree was being rather outrageous publicly claiming I was lying over issues he knew were true and threatening that I and NCF should be “wiped from the face of the earth”. The hard data from ABARE was a perfect example, he constantly claimed I was lying so I sent him the hard-data, he agreed with the figures and promised he would publicly apologise but he didn't. Despite knowing the truth, he still kept claiming I was lying and still has this on his website. Bill Crabtree is no expert and has very little respect from the farmers around here or from other agronomists, particularly those that were at university when he apparently took twice as long to get his degree. If he had more support he wouldn't have failed his attempt to run for parliament.

If Japan was not so sensitive to GM, they would not have sent a delegation to visit Canada and US making the clear statement that they would not buy US/Canadian wheat if GM wheat was introduced. Combined consumer groups lobbied each Australian State government with similar statements regarding canola
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 11 December 2005 6:15:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the update NonGM Farmer ....

Nature is such a complex thing ... In a simple world everything man invented would work without any downsides but alas Nature just doesn't seem to work that way.

What you have reported makes lots of sense... I wonder what the 200 times increase of residual levels of roundup in our foods will taste like with the other chemicals the USA farmers are now having to use.

Agronomist : Aren't you slanting your argument .... We agree that 3rd world countries SHOULD benefit from agricultural advances AS LONG AS they are safe and that the third world countries aren't being used as guinea pigs and that what we are feeding them is SAFE. PLUS I am concerned that Corporations may use feeding the starving line to get around reasonable precautionary principles arguments. Things like what you'd rather see a person starve... my answer ... of course NOT now guarantee me that the food generationally safe!

That too is a sound moral position to take. What happens if we launch all this GM stuff on the third world and it causes illnesses or deformities in kids at some later stage. Who will pick up the pieces. Big Corporations do not have a strong track record here. Remember Bhopal!
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 11 December 2005 10:05:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now this is worth a read ....

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

Great to see that some scientists are very worried about GE.

Of course they won't get a Corporation job but hey they probably don't need one.

Any scientists who read these lists prepared to join these luminaries?

Keep up the good work NonGM Farmer and Is it safe!
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 11 December 2005 10:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Independent trials should be funded by anybody but the chemical companies, that's what makes them independent. GRDC funding would be logical however GRDC is ramming GM down our throats because of what I believe is a fear that governments are planning to withdraw public funding from plant breeding and alternative multinational investment is not interested in less profitable non-GM plant breeding. GRDC relies on around 40% of their funding from government.

I change research documents on my website if I have evidence that it is incorrect. If it is flawed data from a well funded pro-GM lobby group, I will not although I will often mention this and the reason the data is flawed.

Why is it the pro-GM activists constantly claim "trust the regulatory process" when they don't trust the regulatory process assessing chemical safety? Atrazine has undertaken a stringent review and considered to be safe. Whereas the actual regulatory process on GM crops is flawed as it is difficult to assess what would actually fail. I am waiting for a reply to my question to the OGTR asking if they would have approved the CSIRO pea if the documentation was submitted to them. While the pro-GM sector is saying the regulatory system works, the regulatory system had nothing to do with the withdrawal.

Timeline from when I knew to when I told the media? Less than 2 minutes.

Regarding subsidies, I checked and found, contrary to what has been stated, the Chinese cotton growers are extremely heavily subsidised.

As mentioned, some consumers will not eat GM and we want to retain the right to market uncontaminated produce without astonomical costs and liabilities. Why should we accept vandalism of our consumer preferred product?

We need to get the rules right where the GM industry does not cause others economic loss and does not remove the choice of farmers or consumers. What do you see as a pathway to resolve these issues, ignore them and force GM in with no risk management?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 12 December 2005 10:12:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

So Chuck Benbrook told you that he “wasn't fired from his job”? The journal “Science” reported that he was “sacked” from his National Academy job (Volume 250, page 1202). “Science”has very high journalistic standards. The article states “According to several sources, he was handed his walking papers by academy president Frank Press and given less than a month to clear out”. Please check your facts again, Julie.

With respect to Crabtree, isn’t it true that you threatened to sue him but then dropped the case because it you defamed him a week earlier and he therefore had the "right of privilege" to defend himself? Wasn’t it also the case that you were inferring that Bill was professionally incompetent or lying? Given that you have now written that “Bill Crabtree is no expert and has very little respect from the farmers around here or from other agronomists”, which I know to be false, I am no more inclined to reveal my identity. Looks to me that you have attacked his competence again.

I have talked to many US farmers growing Roundup Ready crops, and they would never want to give them up because they provide superior weed control. The first Roundup resistant weeds globally were found in Australia in orchards, not GM. We also have resistance to penicillin; should we throw that out? No, we should use both more wisely. Atrazine is also selecting for atrazine and simazine resistant ryegrass (and probably radish). Again, for this additional reason, will you give up your TT canola next season?

The references I gave you contradicting Greenpeace/NGIN’s claims were all independent of companies. What more does it take now for you to withdraw those claims?

Do you have any,evidence that the GRDC supports GM because it is afraid of the loss of public funding?

I trust the regulatory system, but you have misrepresented their conclusions on atrazine. The system finds that the risks are “acceptable”, not that that it’s “safe”.

Can you tell us how the Chinese cotton farmers are heavily subsidized, by how much and your source of information
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 12 December 2005 4:12:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM farmers have some suggested legal options but the courts will need to decide if law really protects us or not.

Yes, we are collecting documentation in preparation for a legal claim against Bayer Cropscience but this process may take some time. The class action will cost around $300,000 so we will wait until we have significant economic loss to lodge the claim. Farmers like Geoffrey Carracher have a very strong case of informing Bayer Cropscience of their unwillingness to accept trespassing GM genes.

We could sue the GM farmer or we could even vandalise GM crops. If we point our mister over the GM farmers fence to spray it out deliberately, we could claim we were protecting our property. This week, the French court ruled that the action of protestors tearing up GM trial crops was justified. The court was quoted as saying, "The defendants have shown proof that they committed an infraction of voluntary vandalism in a group to respond to a situation of necessity," and that situation of necessity "resulted from the unbridled distribution of modified genes that constitutes a clear and present danger for the well-being of others, in the sense that it could be the source of contamination and unwanted pollution."

Or we could seek compensation from the government that caused economic loss for neglecting their duty of care.

Yes, we will take action to protect ourselves.

My lawyer’s letter to Mr Crabtree was to remind him that he should be more responsible when giving public statements and he has settled.

Chuck’s wife Karen did not give details and the trivialities of how Mr Benbrook left a chemical advisory committee didn't interest me.

Chinese subsidies on cotton: http://www.l21.com.au/downloads/L21%20Worth%20Noting%20Volume%20III%20Issue%2
These massive subsidies are scheduled to stop after this months FTA signing so it may be doubtful if Chinese cotton farmers will maintain viability.

I would not plant a chemical resistant crop if the weeds were resistant to the chemical the crop was resistant to. It would be no point because the whole idea is to kill the weeds not just spray the chemical.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 12 December 2005 7:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie Newman raised the idea that linseed is a source of "omega-3"

I commented that the omega3 profile of linseed and fish oils are different
Here is documentation.

The relevant point is that important omega3 fats eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acids (DHA) are not found in linseed BUT are present in fish oil.

The following paper gives some published analysis of linseed and linseed-fishoil mixture 50/50% diets

Br J Nutr. 2004 Apr;91(4):551-65.
Effects of dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, breed and dietary vitamin E on the fatty acids of lamb muscle, liver and adipose tissue.
Demirel G, Wachira AM, Sinclair LA, Wilkinson RG, Wood JD, Enser M.

Table 1 g/kg diet, linseed or linseed-fishoil

Fatty acid............................Linseed...... Linseed-Fish-oil50:50

18 : 3n-3 (linolenic).................25·7 23·5........18·3 20·3
20 : 5n-3 (eicosapentaenoic).....ND ND...........2·2 2·4
22 : 6n-3 (docosahexaenoic)......ND ND...........2·5 2·2

ND=not detected, different columns represent different diets

Conclusion Linseed lacks Omega 3s present in fish oil

similar data in
British Journal of Nutrition (2004), 91, 539–550
Biohydrogenation of dietary n-3 PUFA and stability of ingested vitamin E in the rumen, and their effects on microbial activity in sheep
S. Chikunya1*, G. Demirel, M. Enser, J. D. Wood, R. G. Wilkinson and L. A. Sinclair
Division of Food Animal Science, School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK

Interestingly, the papers mention that trans-fatty acids, about which much health fuss is made, are produced NATURALLY by bacteria in the rumen from the polyunsaturated vegetable oils (linseed) fed to animals, and trans fats thus appear in the meat.
I DONT THINK WE SHOULD NOW BAN MEAT from sheep who eat oilseeds though.
Posted by d, Monday, 12 December 2005 8:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a number of definitions of the Precautionary Principle, so we could end up arguing the merits of the various definitions. In broad, the principle states: “When threat of harm to the environment or human health is foreseen, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”. The principle should not involve guesswork, although some would use it in this manner. Equally, it should not be used to stifle activity, simply because we are not certain of the consequences. Again, some would have it used in this manner. I can think of lots of areas of human activity where we know the cause and effect relationships, such as driving motor cars, where instead of stopping the activity we put in place precautions to reduce the impact, such as, air bags, catalytic converters and so on. Curiously, industry has mostly come up with these ideas.

Compare with GM foods. Despite your reluctance to eat them, there are plenty of studies showing that GM per se does not make food inherently more dangerous and none showing the opposite (there are some that seem to show some small changes of unknown significance). Likewise, there are plenty of studies showing no greater threat to the environment from GM plants compared to conventional plants and none showing a greater threat. The current state of science dictates there is no foreseeable threat from GM plants. There are a lot of imagined threats and there are still some unknowns, but if we were to apply such actions to our other activities, we would end up doing nothing. Remember, there are still people around who believe the world is flat.

My understanding is that there are two peer-reviewed animal studies that have looked at generational effects of consuming GM food. Neither found any important effect. One did find that the offspring of mothers that ate GM food grew slightly faster, but I doubt that is important.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 3:34:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.avcare.org.au/files/biotechnology/Managing%20genetically%20modified%20crops%20in%20Australia%20-%20GM%20crops,%20segregation%20and%20liability%20in%20Australian%20agriculture.pdf
Strict liability
A number of individuals who oppose the introduction of GM crops in Australia have advocated the introduction of a ‘strict liability’ regime. The Australian Government has chosen not to implement a strict liability regime for possible damage caused by GM organisms, and nor have the United States, New Zealand, Canadian or United Kingdom Governments.
Strict liability is a tortious common law principle which imposes liability at law to a third party for the actions of another party, without proof of fault in their own actions. In other words, strict liability is liability regardless of fault, rather than without fault.
However, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, after discussing a range of case law, concluded that the doctrine has “no place in Australian law”.
The Australian courts resistance to strict liability is also partly explained by the difficulty the courts may face in defining what an extra hazardous activity is. Defining GM crops as extra hazardous would mean that the courts are over turning the OGTR approval process.
In the US ‘there is no strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff’s activity ’.
It may be difficult for the organics industry to claim damages under ‘strict liability’ on the basis that GM crops are ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ as it would be difficult to establish that these farmers’ tolerance of GM crops was not abnormally sensitive, given that other areas of their activities allow quite generous tolerances of the use of non organic inputs in comparison.

The National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia Limited (NASAA), which has developed one of Australia’s leading organic standards and provides certification services for many Australian organic farmers, has established that organic labelling and the use of the NASAA logo is permitted at 95% purity. See National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia (2004), Organic Standard 2004, sections 2.20.4 and 2.20
Posted by d, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 7:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Abnormally sensitive?!" The GM activists can't set tolerance levels for unwanted GM contamination that don't comply with law or market demand and where there is no workable field test to make tolerance levels operational. How exactly do you see tolerance levels work? Who should pay when those tolerance levels are exceeded? Non-GM farmers are not interested in subsidising the GM industry.

Why are you against independent health tests? Why shouldn’t someone other than the GM license holder do health tests? What are you afraid of?

David, do you think the bread labels sprouting the health benefits of Omega 3 due to the linseed added is false and misleading?

More to counter Rebels claim that "Subsidies don’t exist in Argentina, Brazil, India, China or South Africa, but they have adopted GM anyway."
National Cotton Council of America President "My problem with world cotton subsidies is the whole world subsidizes except Australia." http://www.cotton.org/news/meetings/2004annual/dunavant-III-report.cfm
China failed to give a committment to WTO Subsidies Committee http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2005/05_01_21_china_inthe_wto.htm but December 2005 China agreed to dropping subsides to a maximum level of 8.5% of the value of production. http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2001/0615/epf502.htm
A correction from Bill Crabtree, the information I received from an agronomist was obviously incorrect. Bill emailed and said he didn't take twice as long to get his degree, so I retract that statement with an apology to Bill.
Rebel, the point of my chemical article was that any health concerns can be dragged up on chemicals, but the safety to consumers eating canola derived from triazine- tolerant varieties pose no more risk than the varieties proposed. I also gave the APVMA Q&A on residues to allay consumer fears.
My GRDC quote was what "I believe", not a referenced quote.
Agronomist, the link about you and a paid consultant was purely guessing who you were. Since then though I recognise the “attack by misrepresentation” style of Chris Preston. A question for you if you are Chris: Why did you misquote and use quotes I had removed from the website around 9 months before when attacking my article on yields for Agbioview?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:14:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have no right to demand that I trust scientists tinkering with my food. Excuse me but no I will not trust you. If you are not willing to do the tests previously stated then I am sorry, that just gives me more reason to not trust you at all. You have done a fantastic PR game with the populace and they are all confused as to what GM is compared to non-GM and in some categories what they think is GM is actually non-GM. You have purposely got people to say “Whatever… we have no choice as it’s coming in anyway”. This is wrong as people should have a choice and they should know the facts. You are hiding them and I will not trust any scientist or Corporation that says “Trust me” until they have given me proof from scientists that are non judgemental and renowned to not be paid by these large corporations to say what you want them to say. What other pesticides like DDT and Thalidomide has been said before “Trust us, it is safe”. This will affect everyone and I mean everyone in the future. But then like I’ve said before, it may just be that you are trying to reduce the population to save the world’s resources so the rich Companies can strip the planet dry.

We now have a choice and I personally am fighting for my choice to stop this “She’ll be right mate, just eat it” attitude. If it is found that GM is unsafe years down the track like DDT or Thalidomide, you will not be able to recall a potential time bomb and if it is found to be extremely unsafe, then you have wiped the world of humanity. Or are you just so caught up in the money that you cannot see this
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 1:18:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM farmer:

On 7 December 2005, you described Charles Benbrook as a “top agronomic adviser in the US for many years”, but now seem remarkably uninterested about his sacking, or any independent assessment of his reputation. Why not?

Have your lawyers advised you that you can follow a French trial judge’s precedents in Australia?

You claim that Crabtree “has settled”. Can you describe for us the terms of this settlement, including any agreements you made?

The following link does not open a site. Chinese subsidies on cotton: http://www.l21.com.au/downloads/L21%20Worth%20Noting%20Volume%20III%20Issue%2 Can you be more specific?

Australian farmers grow GM cotton without subsidies and have increased their use to more than 80% of the crop. Are they fools or ignorant?

US farmers also don’t plant a chemical resistant crop if ALL the weeds were resistant to the chemical. The point is that, despite resistance to a few species of weeds in some areas, Roundup Ready crops still provide superior weed control. Will you keep using TT canola if atrazine resistance is found in annual ryegrass on your property?

Who is against independent health tests? I think they are great as long as they are run by experienced and scientifically competent, peer reviewed labs. Do you think Judy Carmen and her two friends qualify? If so, can you please outline their relevant qualifications, and why this work should be done in Adelaiide instead of WA?

Speaking of Brazil, Reuters reported yesterday that biotech soy's share of Brazil's 2006 harvest area this year grew to about 40 percent from 30 percent.

It’s also been reported that “Third generation British farmer, Paul Temple provided a European farmer's perspective to the gathering, describing biotech crop cultivation as "precision farming at its best". Speaking from personal experience, Mr. Temple said that "science was the future of sustainable farming". "I used to be a sceptic, but having seen the benefits of biotechnology, I am now a convert," he said. "I used less fuel, saw an increase in wildlife habitats on my farm and had less troublesome weeds which are very expensive to control."
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 5:21:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What statement don't you agree with regarding human health?

The Federal regulatory bodies, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) do not do any testing, they rely on data supplied by the GM company.
The OGTR is mainly looking at impact on workers dealing in GM, not on human health from consumption.
There are no guidelines regarding what would fail approval, it is at the discretion of the regulator.
There is clear evidence that by transferring one gene to the DNA of another, it could perform differently or release allergens.
Despite the pro-GM claims that the CSIRO peas showed how the regulatory process worked, the regulatory bodies were not involved in the decision to withdraw the license as they did not receive the tests for review.
The regulatory authority might have approved the CSIRO peas despite the allergenic response in rodent testing (answer pending).
GM canola oil, the part consumers consume has not been tested.
GM canola meal has been tested for market impact for stock fed GM meal and when liver weights were found to be increased by around 16% after only a few weeks it was not considered a problem.
If a health problem was found after commercial release, it would be virtually impossible to recall the product.
Consumers do not trust the information derived from the companies wanting approval for release.
Undertaking independent health testing would reassure consumers more than denying them.

Did Chuck Benbrook actually say anything you didn't agree with?

More "settled" in responses and attitudes - less volatile.

Following the French trial is not legal advise, just an interesting twist in the legal debate. The "point the mister over the fence and kill it" solution was what one of our neighbours suggested. One thing for sure, there will be neighbourly unrest over GM if it does come in without fair risk management. If there is no legal protection, what do you suggest?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:27:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Are health claims that are made for bread labels containing omega-3 from linseed oil false and misleading?"

I'm glad you bought this up Julie, because I've been interested in this for a while now and have written about it elswhere.

eg http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/opportunities-and-threats-to.html

It is really pleased to find out linseed oil is going into some sliced breads. As you know contains the essential fatty acid ALA that is a nutrient needed for human diets and is healthier for some people to eat this bread especially if they don't often eat fish or vegetable oils like olive oil.

But whether the bread label is misleading or not about health advantages, depends on what exactly is on the label of the particular “omega-3” bread.

They are unlikely to say this on the bread label:

Fish oil is good for the heart, but linseed doesn’t cut the mustard.

We use linseed oil because it’s cheaper, and to people who don't know much biochemistry, it sounds good to just say "omega-3".

Besides there wasn't room on the label to qualify the implied claim with:

“Linseed oil has ALA omega-3 but fish oil also has EPA and DHA omega-3 and this difference matters for health benefits.”

This doesn’t really sound like a good advertising pitch to me, but I'd say it’s nearer the truth.

In short, there are two dietary important omega-3 fatty acid nutrients called EPA and DHA that are found in fish oils, but which are essentially absent from linseed oil. Only the most discerning health freak (or a Pundit) would go to the trouble of checking whether linseed has EPA and DHA.

http://www.omega-3info.com/importance.htm
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/genetically-modified-oils-with-omega-3.html

Of course, GM oilseeds such as Brassica's (now available) containing EPA and DHA will be high value products that would sell at a premium. Australian canola growers will have them years after their North American competitors.
Posted by d, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 6:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM farmer:

There isn’t enough space here to outline everything on which Benbrook is misleading, but I have already given examples (as have Agronomist and David) including the claims that taxpayers are subsidising GM crops (differently than nonGM) and that GM is failing due to herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is an issue, but the crops are not failing.

On the subject of subsidies, you are quoting folks with a partisan interest and/or who are out of date. US cotton farmers and the US trade office are trying to shift attention from their own cotton subsidies. I can’t educate you on all of this in a few emails, but have some summary words from a real expert, Prof. Dan Sumner (www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/) who was Assistant Secretary for Economics at the USDA (which means he was a lot closer to advising Presidents than Benbrook) and more recently was a consultant to Brazilian government in a WTO dispute over US cotton subsidies.

Sumner wrote: “Outside the US the only significant cotton subsidies are in the EU (Greece), which has now pledged to cut most of their cotton program….. A few years ago (through 2001) the Chinese government speculated in cotton stocks and
lost a bunch. It was a significant government cost and they sold cotton at a loss (buy high sell low seemed to be the mantra). There has been no ongoing producer subsidy that anyone can find. There is always an issue of transparency in China, especially in financial markets, but any subsidy must be tiny on a per unit basis. China is by far the biggest producer of cotton and also a huge importer of cotton….. Subsidy on cotton in other places may be in the range of 1% or 2% of revenue for such things as government supported IPM research, which we usually do not bother to count.” Sumner provided me with a book chapter which shows details and citations of other authors (which Benbrook often fails to offer, by the way) on pages 280-81.

You really need to research the analyses of experts who don’t fit your views.
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 7:35:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who’s selective? In 2001-2002, China paid $1.2 billion in cotton subsidies. http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/052005/liebhardt.html There are numerous web references regarding Chinese subsidies, take your pick.

The GM debate in Australia is not about Bt cotton, that’s grown as a very minor crop in Australia-mostly irrigated.
The GM debate is about 2 herbicide-tolerant canolas.

Do you agree? :

Monsanto's Roundup-Ready canola:
There is no way to calculate cost/benefit/cashflow as prices and contractual-agreements are confidential.
Independent trials of with/without the Monsanto gene are needed to establish if there is a yield penalty/reward associated.
By increasing the use of glyphosate as a post emergent chemical rather than just a knockdown, it will increase weed resistance.
More chemicals will be added to glyphosate knockdowns in following crops to control the glyphosate tolerant volunteers.

Bayers Invigor Canola:
Is very expensive at $16/kg for seed and $72/ha for glufosinate ammonium.
It does not yield more than non-GM hybrids.
Glufosinate ammonium does not kill radish (our worst weed in canola).
There are no workable field tests to test for contamination

Both:
Sowing GM canola dry is not recommended.
It will not be possible to totally segregate GM from non-GM.
Tolerance levels do not currently match the ACCC legal definition to label a product as non-GM or GM-free and will not satisfy some markets demanding no contamination.
Non-GM farmers will be expected to pay significantly to try to segregate.
All farmers are expected to market on the GM market.
There is evidence of market sensitivity to GM.

The current Topas19/2 GM contamination that led to acceptance of GMcontamination tolerance levels was caused when bulk up of Grace seed was grown near Tasmanian OGTR trials prior to approval. During that time, BayerCropscience was reprimanded for breach of trial conditions but never held responsible for recalling their unapproved product.
Topas19/2 was approved in US after contamination was found in seed.
Topas19/2 has an antibiotic resistant marker gene that was listed by EU for gradual removal from food acceptance.

It is unlikely that farmers will be able to seek legal redress for testing costs, market loss and loss of premiums caused by GM.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:00:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM farmer:

Your response that “There are numerous web references regarding Chinese subsidies, take your pick” shows a typical approach by anti-GM campaigners. Are all sources equally reliable? You can find support for just about anything on the web, including that God created all living species in 6 days. That doesn’t mean that all claims on the web are factual.

I offered evidence from a former senior Economics official at USDA who actually participated in the WTO dispute, and you offer what, a freelance reporter living in Burkina Faso, who can only mention the WTO? My source is a publication from the World Bank:

Sumner, Daniel A. 2006 "Reducing Cotton Subsidies: The DDA Cotton
Initiative." Chapter 10 in Anderson, K. and Martin, W. eds. , Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan and Washington, DC: World Bank.

Even if we accept your source, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/052005/liebhardt.html, the claims made are not inconsistent with Sumner’s facts. Your person John Liebhardt claims $1.2 billion in cotton subsidies in China in 2001-2002. Sumner says the Chinese government speculated through 2001, but there is no ongoing subsidy. GM still thrives in China and other countries without subsidies.

I should also point out that NONE of your citations makes any mention that ag subsidies prop up or cover losses in GM crops. Benbrook is still alone on this, even more alone than strict Creationists.

There have been independent assessments of the safety of GM foods, but let’s turn to those submitted by the companies. I have reviewed some and they are extensive, mostly undertaken by independent contracting labs who work for many clients and have to meet government lab practice and record standards. If not the GM companies, who do you expect to pay for these tests, on which tens of millions are spent ? When government pays for them, anti-GM campaigners whinge about government subsidies for Biotech.

Which brings me back again to another current key issue. Do you think Judy Carmen and her two friends are appropriately qualified to such tests? What are their relevant qualifications and expertise?
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 15 December 2005 12:43:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course I expect GM companies should pay for research on their product. They are bringing in a potential hazardous chemical into my food, they should pay to do research so that I know it is safe. But it needs to be done via an institution that is not fudging results. CSIRO could be a good example, and employing Judy and her friends so that we the consumer know the results have not been falsified. It would also need to be in a locked experimental lab.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 15 December 2005 3:24:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Isitsafe, CSIRO has a vested interest in GM crops.

The qualifications of IHER staff can be found on their website. Are you worried that IHER research results would be different to Monsanto/Bayer Cropscience data?

If there were no cotton subsidies in China, they would not have given a recent commitment to reduce the subsidies to 8.5%, or are you denying this FTA planning to reduce cotton subsidies is real? It appears China adopts subsidies in poor seasons but chiefly relies on very high excise on imports to allow Chinese farmers to receive a higher price for their cotton.

Benbrook did not mention subsidies when he was in WA but I have seen comparable US charts showing US subsidies going up in direct proportion to the area of GM crops grown. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1292 Canadian farmers have just had a big increase in subsidies and it was reported that the Oilseed sector was worst affected. Canola prices are hedged on the soy prices and because of the glut of GM soy, prices have plummeted. There is however still a significant premium and demand for non-GM soy.

Another Canadian farmer rang on Sunday and spent hours discussing the problems many of them are having with GM crops and the influence sponsorship and personal bonus trips etc had on gaining lobby group support. He confirmed that if they had their time over, they would be sure that they had adequate rules in place first.

That is what the NCF is doing, identifying the problem and trying to get adequate risk management in place to prevent problems happening. State governments have imposed moratoriums based on extensive studies and it is good governance to ensure that a new activity does not impose outrageous risks and impositions on the existing industry.

Just had a call from our Network of Concerned Farmers NSW spokesperson and founding member Juliet McFarlane, they won the NSW state ASC Dryland wheat competition with a yield of 6.9tonne/ha.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 15 December 2005 10:20:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer has been casting a number of aspersions around. This could become quite interesting.

Given the level of interest, perhaps I should provide some background. I work in agriculture. I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the chemical industry, although I will admit to meeting with people from Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow and DuPont while I was in Kansas City this week. I happen to also work with farmers. I have met many farmers who grow GM crops and many who do not. I have stood in commercial fields of GM cotton, GM soybean, GM corn and GM canola and talked to the farmers that grow them. I have also seen trials of GM rice, GM alfalfa and GM wheat. I have met only a few farmers who after growing GM crops have decided not to grow them again. Most often these decisions were made on operational grounds; usually the variety did not suit the region. I have met many more farmers who like the products this technology provides. I have also met farmers who do not want to grow GM crops. That is their decision and I respect it. I would like to see the same respect accorded to farmers who do want to benefit from the technology. Just because it is GM doesn't make it good, but Bt and Roundup Ready crops can provide economic benefit to farmers.

NonGMFarmer likes posing as questions. Can I respond in kind?

Is it the role of OGTR and FSANZ to do testing? Do they test other foods for safety?
As FSANZ looks at food safety, wouldn’t it be redundant for the OGTR to do the same? IF FSANZ says it is unsafe, would the OGTR be able to say it is safe?
How many Roundup resistant weeds have occurred in Canadian canola fields? How many Atrazine resistant weeds have occurred in Australian canola fields?
If independent studies showed GM foods were no less safe than conventional foods, would you eat them?
If GM crops are as bad as you say, why does the area sown continue to increase?
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 16 December 2005 6:28:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just breifly as I am heading to Perth...
Some consumers will continue to avoid GM foods as rejection is also based on non-health reasons such as aversion to "unnatural" crosskingdom breeding or corporate mistrust. This rejection leads to a demand for uncontaminated produce.
Farmers not wishing to grow GM crops do not want to sell their produce as GM and do not want to spend a fortune to try to follow the identity preservation required to sell as "non-GM" (as happens in US/Canada)
We farmers, don't mind what our neighbours grow, but we do mind if it impacts negatively on our income or our farming practises.
If those wanting to grow GM want to help resolve the problems that have led to state based moratoriums, why not work out a way that it will not negatively impact on non-GM growers.
Just to tell us "she'll be right mate" and expect us to pay when it is not, is not acceptable.
We need to adopt rules where the responsibility is on the GM industry to contain their product, not on the non-GM industry to try to avoid GM contamination.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 16 December 2005 8:59:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that the ABC raised the alarm over trans fat or hydrogenated oil yesterday.

www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1532155.htm

Trans fats are present in a lot of conveniece foods where it acts to give a crisp taste to the food. However it has also been shown to raise the bad cholesterol and lower the good cholesterol in humans.

It is estimated that 30,000 people die each year in the US alone due to consumption of trans fats and the diseases that it brings on.

This is why the US FDA has forced the food industry to label all foods with their trans fat content from 1 Jan 2006 and why Visitive Soy bean oil which contains lower linoleic acid is such an sucess.

Looking forward to 2006 as the year that GM products with a clear health benefit to consumers are marketed. This will undoubtedly make a difference.
Posted by sten, Friday, 16 December 2005 11:05:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason that I can see for the area sown to continue to increase is because of the contamination of neighbour's crops into non-GM forcing the non-GM farmer to become GM. Or am I missing something here? The OGTR I believe don’t consider what the general public wants. For example they are doing within Australia GM Sugar trials with antibiotic resistance. They do not want to seek public comment. FSANZ recalls foods on an on-going basis. Assessments are done on scientific evidence provided by the food/GM supplier. Even in their regulations: 2.4 The meaning of safe & suitable food. Food is not suitable if it (d) contains a biological or chemical agent or other matter or substance that is foreign to the nature of the food. And in the definitions: Hazards covers biological, chemical and physical conditions of food. i.e. specific foods when the specific agent causing the illness may not be identified. Food is not safe if it would be likely to cause physical harm to a person who might later consume it. 2 (2) The definition makes it clear that the presence of allegens that do not affect the general population does not make that food unsafe. What about the increasing amount of people that are getting allergies. What about them and even myself.
The way I see it, is these two bodies are not looking at a long term picture and GM cannot be recalled at a later date. I want to know outside of these bodies, Long term trials as previously stated, supervised by non-GM scientists so that we know that they are done correctly. When these tests have shown me that GM is safe, only then will I eat this potential hazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 16 December 2005 3:49:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

On subsidies and the 8.5%, do you google these urls yourself or does someone give them to you? It doesn’t seem that you read them carefully. You have sent me chasing through a lot of words and wasted time, but I have studied your citations and they don’t say what you claim for them. Most obvious is http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2001/0615/epf502.htm, which is actually from 2001 (not 2005) and doesn’t even mention cotton, contrary to what you wrote on 13 December. The other, http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2005/05_01_21_china_inthe_wto.htm, is a “report” from a law firm and appears to be part of a lobbying effort to argue for tougher negotiations with China. Hardly an objective source, but even it doesn’t give specifics on any subsidies or tariffs for the GROWING of cotton, but general remarks about a lot of ag crops. It refers to “bulk agricultural commodities (such as wheat, corn, cotton and vegetable oils)”, textiles, and phytosanitary requirements (which are what we use to keep NZ apples out of Australia.

There is not one specific sentence in anything that you have sent me that contradicts international expert Sumner’s statement that there are no appreciable subsidies now for cotton in China. Nor have you managed to offer any evidence for subsidies for any other major GM crop outside North America.

With respect to your claim that US subsidies are going up in direct proportion to the area of GM crops grown, apparently referring to the silly Seeds of Doubt report, you could also show that US subsidies are going up in direct proportion to EU subsidies and/or the incumbency of farm belt Congressmen, which is what actually drives US subsidies. Bush tried to lower them this year; not one word was mentioned about GM crops.

I see that a summary of the paper that I mentioned earlier the lack of effect of Roundup on earthworms has been posted at GMOpundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_gmopundit_archive.html. Can you now remove the Greenpeace/NGIN claims on this from your website?
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 16 December 2005 4:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

I am very familiar with the qualifications of Judy Carman and the rest of IHER. That was not my question. I asked if YOU thought they are appropriately qualified to undertake such tests. WHAT among their backgrounds makes them qualified? I want to make sure that when they can’t find any problems that hold up under scientific scrutiny that you and Is-it-really-safe will be satisfied. I just don’t want public money to be wasted. But then again, it is WA money being spent in SA, so why should I care. … On the other hand, don’t you think that if such work is to be done that it should be competitively bid?

Please, please do undertake your planned lawsuit. We’d all love to see the results.

Here’s some news for you about Japan from the Capital Press Agriculture Weekly. Despite resistance in some countries to importation of GM crops, Canadians have been successful in securing markets. Japan, for instance, is one of the largest importers of Canada’s canola. Japan may be thought of as a country where GM crops are frowned upon, but it is actually one of the United States' largest importers of genetically engineered products. Sixty-one biotech events in food, 38 for feed and 50 for planting have been approved. “Several countries dominate global GMO leader board”, Scott A. Yates, 9 Dec 2005.

Where is this significant premium and demand for non-GM soy, and what is your source for that, especially for oil? Please have the courtesy to make sure that your citations actually say what you claim, so that I am not sent off on another wild goose chase. Without such a citation, you have just admitted that GM soy is doing so well that it is overwhelming the world’s demands for oils, which hardly sounds like a failure

Can you name this mysterious Canadian farmer? He is sure out of synch with the vast majority of the Canadian farmers that Bill Crabtree and I have met.
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 16 December 2005 4:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. Some more questions for you to ponder.

If you don’t mind what your neighbors grow, why do you run scare campaigns about yields and susceptibility to drought of GM crops? Would in not be better to let your neighbors make up their own minds? Or are your neighbors so gullible that you need to tell them what to do?

If consumers are increasingly rejecting GM crops, why do you feel the need to promote exaggerated reports of the dangers of GM food to frighten people? Won’t GM crops die a natural death when nobody wants to buy them?

If subsidies are required to prop up GM crops, why do almost all cotton growers in Australia grow GM cotton? Are they getting a subsidy that you don’t get?

As there is no detectable difference between GM and non-GM oil from crops like soybean or canola, what is the point of doing feeding trials with them? Do you just like seeing rats killed for no purpose or are you a believer in the Law of Infinitesimals?

Do not both the OGTR and FSANZ require proponents of GM crops to provide evidence related to the potential for allergy of a novel protein? Would they not have asked this information from CSIRO?

Does not the Regulator need to be satisfied that a GM crop presents no additional risks to human health and the environment, or that any risks identified can be reasonably managed before issuing a license? Were such risks evaluated for Atrazine tolerant canola before it was introduced into Australia? (By the way, if Atrazine tolerant canola were proposed for introduction into Canada now, there is a strong likelihood it would be rejected on environmental grounds)
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 17 December 2005 7:29:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

Here are just a few more questions:

Your main issue is coexistence. Who and where are there paying customers wanting guarantees that there is no GM canola present? Do you or any other members of NCF sell to such customers now? How big are these markets for Australia in terms of dollar value or a percentage of the Australian crop? Such a market has had 9 years to develop.

If the aim of Benbrook’s tour was to teach about the failures of the US experience, why didn’t we hear of evidence of a significant problem for coexistence in the US? After 9 years and hundreds of millions of ha planted, has there been one farmer sue another for so-called contamination?

Other than for Starlink (where the pay-outs exceeded US $110 million), how many cases have there been of farmers suing any one else?

Other than Starlink, how many cases, and for how much money, have there been any documented claims of losses to GM “contamination” from farmers anywhere in the world?

In 2004’s ” Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops?, Brookes & Barfoot argue there have been no significant economic or commercial problems (www.pgeconomics.co.uk) at least in part because farmers talk things out ahead of time, despite more organic farms and relatively smaller farms than we have in Australia. Can’t we do the same?

If you really believe all those claims from Greenpeace and NGIN that you have put up on your website about Roundup, do you still use Roundup or other glyphosate products on your farm?

Will you keep using TT canola if atrazine resistance is found in annual ryegrass on your property?

I don’t believe that you have answered my questions about whether you were also involved in Greenpeace teleconferences prior to April 1 2004, but as the leader of the NCF, I have to assume that you were. When did you start? Are you still in teleconferences with them? There is nothing wrong with an association with Greenpeace, so surely we deserve this transparency
Posted by Rebel, Sunday, 18 December 2005 3:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cotton seems to be your so called strong point or so you say. The 2004 cotton crops estimate increased due to rainfall events whereas the 2003 crop was drought affected from 61% to 49.7% I think you need to look not only at the increase in crop estimates but the reason that they did increase and I am sure that it is not GM that you so claim.
You must have your nose in the ground to think that consumers like myself are not increasing. More and more people are finding that when they eat organic and non GM then their health improves. This is happening everywhere and I can foresee in the not too distant future that a lot more people will be trying to avoid any GM or pesticides. The way I see it, there is no way that you can put GM next to non-GM and expect it to not be contaminated. There is a slight problem we have called nature. Nature moves via wind, wind and birds moves the seeds of GM across the paddock. Get real. There is no way you can stop nature doing this and slowly the GM completely contaminates the non-GM. If you think that your GM seed would stop at the fence then you definately need that extra head.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 18 December 2005 5:32:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel (?Bayer Cropscience):
Your comments regarding legal action is typical of the arrogance of the GM proponents and their confidence that the legal system is inadequate to protect non-GM farmers.
I do have confidence in Judy Carmen as she is very meticulous and honest. If a problem is found, she will certainly say so, and she will not claim there is a problem if there is not. IHER has lobbied for funding over some time and has finally had it approved. If you want someone else to do more health testing, they need to do the work to get their proposal approved.
If you do a search, "55,185 results containing Chinese Cotton Subsidies" comes up. Considering it is harvest and I have a far slower internet speed than normal (as do most in remote rural locations) You can pick and choose which as I feel it is a waste of time to try to please you.
You certainly can't claim that all Canadian farmers are pro-GM, there are many that are opposed to GM crops and very opposed to marketing as GM when they are not growing it and not happy that it is harder to obtain non-GM seed.

Agronomist (?Chris Preston):
We want risk management so that if our neighbours do decide to grow GM crops, we will not be negatively impacted.
Exposing misleading statements about yields and asking for trials to assess drought susceptibility is certainly not running a "scare campaign".
The debate is about canola, not cotton as GM cotton does not have the contamination problems associated with GM canola.
Why should the human consumer be the first to do feeding trials on GM canola oil?
If you check the Senate explanation, the CSIRO data was not submitted to OGTR or FSANZ.
I'm not surprised that Canada would be unsuitable for triazine considering it is under snow for so long. Australian conditions however do not present the same problems.

Sten: The technical difference between Omega 3's has certainly not convinced me as a consumer that there will be a "clear health benefit to consumers" soon.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 18 December 2005 9:36:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the competence (or otherwise) of Dr Judy Carman and her colleagues at IHER to second guess the OGTR which has already declared the two types of GM canola , Round up Ready and InVigor, as ' as safe as conventional canola' please see open letter from international scientists to Minister Chance appearing on Jennifer Marohasy's blog and gmopundit.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html#comments

http://www.gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by sten, Monday, 19 December 2005 8:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a laugh!! We have Jennifer Marahosey (paid PR consultant with a role to attack opponents of GM http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I) promoting a letter from overseas pro-GM scientists known for their pro-GM activism. They attack a reputable scientist just because she was invited to talk at the same time as a scientist known for anti-GM activism.

The letter is signed by a who's who of pro-GM activist scientists:

Individuals such as Prakash (author of Agbioworld) are known for misleading pro-GM statements http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=106&page=P

or Rick Rousch http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=112&page=R

Companies these people represent are also known as paid PR promotions for GM.

Hudson Institute http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=59&page=H

How much are they being paid by the GM companies?

Why test? The allergic problem with the GM pea was due to glycosylation of the the protein. The best way of determining if the protein is dangerous is to feed the purified protein to animals and watch them.

GM companies believe it is the protein that the GM plant is designed to make that is the only thing that could cause health problems but the protein used in experiments doesn't come from the GM plants at all! The GM companies genetically modify a bacteria to make the protein but bacteria cannot glycosylate proteins when plants can. These companies feed the unglycosylated protein from the bacteria to the animals used in these plants.

However, consumers would be eating the glycosylated protein from the GM plant, not a constructed protein from bacteria.

Regulatory bodies do not consider that GM plants may produce a different protein than expected (eg with a a different glycosylation pattern) or that no other, unexpected, adverse substances will be produced by the GM plant.

If a GM plant is being produced, eg GM corn, then the GM corn should be fed to animals in long term feeding studies. Consumers should not be the first to be the guinea pigs in an unmonitored experiment.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 19 December 2005 9:50:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is-it-really-safe: The main advantages of the use of Bt and RR cotton are reductions in persistent pesticide use. Those have not varied dramatically from year to year, but are increasing greatly with the increased use of the two Bt gene cotton in the last year or two. There has, for example, been a clear reduction in endosulfan residues in water bodies since Bt cotton was introduced, now down to near zero, without losses of jobs or income, except for pesticide companies and aerial sprayers.

I am not ignoring your comments on food safety, but know from past experience that I will never persuade you otherwise. Stick with organic and better yet unprocessed foods so you can avoid real threats like transfats, and use olive oil. GM crops in Australia will have no influence on content of organic. GM cotton and even canola cannot contaminate fruit, vegetables, etc. If organic expands as much as you hope, and consumers are willing to pay Australian farmers for the difference in costs, it will be good news for farmers all over Australia, even if not necessarily good news for soil erosion due to use of tillage rather than herbicides for weed control. Many organic foods will be produced in developing countries where labor costs for hand weeding are lower.

Julie NonGMFarmer Newman: Yuck! I’m not with Bayer.

Can you explain to us why the current legal system in Australia cannot protect non-GM farmers? All you need to do is to be able to show financial harm. In the case of canola, I don’t think you can. There is no significant organic canola industry in Australia, and no significant premiums for any large market for GE free conventional canola, even 9 years after Canada went GM. “Loss” is the burden you’ll have to meet in court, so let’s see it.

Thanks for your comments on Carmen. I now understand that you believe that personality is more important than technical skill. In government, most research proposals are funded in a competitive process of some kind, not due to lobbying. Isn’t that a good practice?
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 19 December 2005 11:44:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello fellow debaters I have been incognito for a week and so have missed the riveting debate on what I am told I have to eat in the future. The "She'll be right mate" attitudes of pro GM food people is unbelievable.

I noticed everyone seemed to ignore the link :

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

Could it be these eminent scientists opinions don't count if your dogma is to meddle with the food supply, to let the companies own it, and to hang the consequences.

I think in sales speak this tactic to "ignore the objection" might work but then again if you keep a lid on things they get out anyway and they come out more loudly when they have been supressed or ignored.

Nevermind I guess it proves the old saying "You are what you eat". Which modified gene in which GM food(s) turns off the "clear thinking" gene? Hangon they won't have tested for that... they might find it.
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 19 December 2005 1:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

All that "55,185 results" shows is that one can get lots of words from the internet, but not necessarily knowledge or wisdom. Are all sources equally expert?

I have met Canadian farmers who are not are pro-GM, such as with NFU. Non-GM canola farmers, at least, are in a tiny minority. Court records prove that even Schmeiser wanted to be GM. Should non-GM canola farmers determine what everyone else does, or come to a compromise? They can market as non-GM if they develop an alternative marketing scheme. The major marketers have never found a premium that made it worthwhile to segregate. Maybe you can sell Canadian non-GM farmers non-GM seed. Other businesses ship seed to Canada.

With respect to your questions for Agronomist, risk management is what everyone wants. What is wrong with a system that uses international standards for adventitious presence? (not zero, for which there is little or no market value) Pollen flow studies show that cross pollination meets international standards anyway, but could be further reduced by choices of varieties with different flowering dates, bee management, etc. Not even the seed remaining in a harvester will make much difference in harvest of a whole paddock. The key is purity of the seed producers, which is their job.

Why would CSIRO bother to submit data to government for a project that would be so obviously be rejected? If CSIRO had moved forward, they would have been asked for a lot of such data. Why else do you suppose they collected it? It wasn’t the first safety study CSIRO published on the peas, eg, Pusztai et al 1999, …. minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30% of diet. Journal of Nutrition 129: 1597-603.

The problem with triazines is not snow, but rain. Triazines moves with rain to ground or other surface water, even in Australia.

No one can find any difference at all between canola oils from conventional and GM crops. There is no DNA or protein left. What would you even look for in a feeding trial?
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 19 December 2005 5:28:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the record, I have not training in PR and I am not paid to promote GM foods. I have a BSc and a PhD from the University of Queensland. I work for the Institute of Public Affairs as Director of the Environment Unit. I work with a network of academic from across Australia - all interested in public policy and environmental issues and in particular taking an evidence based approach to issues.

Now could the 'nonGM farmer' stop spreading misinformation and tell us a bit about herself? I understand she is not really a farmer but rather a saver and seller of seeds on a commercial basis? Is Monsanto a potential business competitor?
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 19 December 2005 11:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't like exposure Jennifer? Are you saying that these claims from GM Watch http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I are wrong?

"With Monsanto amongst its funders, the IPA has a specific focus on 'biotechnology', saying it wants to 'combat the misinformation put out by radical groups' who oppose genetic engineering."

..."In 2001 IPA launched what it claimed was 'an international first' when it 'started publishing a monthly corporate newsletter, by subscription only, dedicated to watching activist NGOs' [Non-Governmental Organisations]. These were, it warned, 'targeting business' and other 'organisations as never before'. This new corporate newsletter was NGO Watch Digest"

"With regard to its own funding, the IPA claims it maintains its independence because, 'Our annual budget - of about $1 million - is obtained from more than 2,000 individuals, corporations and foundations'. However, according to Sharon Bedder , 'Almost one third of IPA's $1.5 million annual budget comes from mining and manufacturing companies.' "

No, sorry to disappoint you Jennifer but your facts are wrong regarding me. We farm over 10,000ha near Newdegate and only a real farmer would do that. We do sell a bit of clover seed for farmers but not canola seed. Monsanto is no competitor threat but is a threat to non-GM farmers.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 1:02:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2. There are people much more qualified to take on your list than I, but because you ask, I will give you my impression. Firstly, you need to ask: “How do you get on this list?” The answer is you sign up. There is no minimum standard of membership to this list and you don’t even need to be a scientist to belong. Equally, you need to know nothing about GM to belong – you just need to be against it. This list of “eminent scientists” contains the following expertise: permaculture, I consume only organic food, organic grower, linguistics, campaigner, web developer, wholistic energy therapist and so on. This doesn’t mean that these people’s views don’t matter, just that they are unlikely to have any expertise in the area. One way to assess scientific expertise is to look at publication records in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I don’t have the resources to follow this up, but my guess is that this whole list would have very few publications in the peer-reviewed literature that are pertinent to GM crops. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong? Just because you can put a Dr. or Prof. in front of your name, doesn’t make you an expert on everything.

At least with the letter that NonGMFarmer criticizes, the authors have some expertise in the area and might be expected to know what they are talking about.

NonGMFarmer. Your assertion the triazines are unsuitable for Canada is at odds with what happens in corn growing. Lots of triazine herbicides have been used in corn in Canada and the US. Both corn and canola are sown in spring after the thaw. Therefore, snow would not affect triazine performance at all. The real problem with triazine herbicides is movement in water and that is why they are under regulatory scrutiny in Canada. As to your claims about drought susceptibility, I would suggest that repeating claims that have no factual basis (for details you might like to look at http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/knowcenter.nsf/0/2BE8AA76EDA77C75862570BB0017A951?OpenDocument) does constitute a scare campaign, wouldn’t you agree? Otherwise, why do it?
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 6:29:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist/ChirsPreston -Asking questions does not constitute a scare campaign. You fail to give reasons why Australians use an additional watering on GM cotton or why Bayer- Cropscience withdrew from NSW trials last year citing drought conditions as a reason.
The reason cited for Monsanto's Roundup Ready's yield penalties in “the Scientist” was that the chemical remains active and sits in the meristems affecting the emerging buds and therefore yields. This problem would be lessened if rain is experienced not long after application, but would be worse during drought.

Near the same Monsanto-sponsored reference http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/knowcenter.nsf/0/2BE8AA76EDA77C75862570BB0017A951?OpenDocument is a comment by RickRoush stating that it is the organic farmers fault for getting contaminated - " Ballarin could have applied some effort to avoid cross-pollination. The most obvious steps include isolation by a few hundred meters, or planting his corn so that it flowered asynchronously from the GM corn."

GM is the intruder to the industry and it should not be up to the non-GM farmer to keep GM out, it should be up to the GM farmer to provide the buffer zone and plant their canola at a time when it will not pollinate with ours. Why should we be expected to waste our land or plant at inopportune times just because our neighbour plants GM?

Rebel (?Monsanto), Judy Carmen has the personality, the qualifications, the technical skill and the background knowledge to perform these tests and outsource any further testing (autopsies etc) as required.
I would say that the government realised that what Judy Carmen said about the differences in feeding studies performed versus what we were misled to believe, was true. What Judy Carmen predicted could happen was confirmed by the CSIRO results. What Judy Carmen was proposing was actually going to test the food and had the potential to alleviate consumer concerns or identify a problem if there was one. Why tender the testing out to someone that may have a vested interest?

There seems to be a genuine fear of these tests from the pro-GM sector before the tests have even started. Why?

Risk management should not be denied.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 10:16:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ms Newman:

I understand that you have mentioned me at this site, including that “Companies these people represent are also known as paid PR promotions for GM.”   I do not represent any company, and demand a correction.

I have also written NGIN as follows:

Thank you for including me among your profiles (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=112).  To be included in a group of so many truly great scientists such as Charles Arntzen, Roger Beachy, Peter Raven, Bob May, Jennifer Thomson, Anthony Trewavas, John Pickett, and Ingo Potrykus is a great honor that I intend to list on my CV.  

However, can you spell my name correctly?  It’s Roush, not “Rousch”.  That will make it much easier for people to find me at your site when they google the web.

However, in the interests of fairness and full disclosure, I must also confess to you and my colleagues that you have given me too much credit. First, I retired only from one email list, the anti-GM gentech, on which I spawned at least two free speech debates over whether I should be allowed to stay because I had the temerity to challenge many of the anti-GM myths being spread there.

Second, the journal Science concluded that the funding we received from industry did not constitute a conflict of interest and that “others were able to create the perception that (we) were hiding something”.  We did not hide anything of course, and the reason this issue came to light is that we told leading anti-GM campaigners in Australia about our funding and gave them pre-publication copies of our research.  One of them, Bob Phelps, even used some of our data in a poster to show that pollen moved a few km, in support of his contention that GM could not be contained.

In making these corrections, I note that several colleagues who are not yet on your list have asked me about how to apply.  If there is an application process, I don’t want their contributions to be judged as less than my own due to any errors in your records.
Posted by Rick Roush, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 11:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear  Ms Newman:

You have also taken my comments on the corn case out of context.   The original Wall Street Journal article referred to a grower who was trying to   produce
organically grown RED corn for extra value.    As the article stated  "But when the ears first emerged late last year, the farmer made a horrifying
discovery: Yellow kernels were mixed in with the red."

This farmer, organic or not, had not taken the most basic steps  to protect his purity even against any kind of yellow corn.  Surely that was his fault, not that of anyone growing yellow corn  of any genotype.

I prefer not to spend time on such issues and would appreciate it if you checked these details first.
Posted by Rick Roush, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 11:20:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Agronomist but you don't have to ask "How do you get on this list"

You need to read the names of the people on this list and then you should accept that many have considerable expertise in Science.

Then you ask youself why would some of the eminent scientists put their names to the letter... I suspect they did it because they believed in what the letter said.

Then you ask : Are these people more qualified than me? - and you answered that with a yes.

So at that point you take on their views and add them to your list of resources to enable you to self-question whether these eminent scientists are worthy of your contemplations.

By now you should have had the thought "Perhaps I had better consider my position in the light of these people"

And at that point you should have come to a simple conclusion .... Don't trust GM foods! The science is still out!

The fact that not everyone on the list has expertise means "diddly squat" it's the ones that have the necessary expertise that really count, and their warnings are reasonable and cautionary.
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 1:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel, you are giving me no choice when consumers should have a bigger choice than what you are allowing me. There is obviously no way that organic or just non-GM can be split from GM due to contamination. So in reality you would like me to eat, let me see, olive oil for the rest of my life. Great diet you’ve given me. But then again, GM will take over olive oil soon and I will be left to starve.
GM should not be allowed into the country until the full scientific evidence has been provided that it is safe to eat over long term trials. What part of moratorium don't you GM'ers understand? Leave it out of the country until it is checked.

So you've decided in your so called wisdom that the consumer should shut up because you are trying to control what we eat and wave us off like pesky flies. Too bad mate, it's made me more determined to know the truth and I'm very sure that it's not what you want us consumers to know.

Rick Rousch – I’ve looked at what non-GM said and she just gave a reference of you. Why should she give a correction for something that you’ve misrepresented. A bit arrogant that everyone should know how your name is spelt. By the way, I thought you were Canadian or American. I thought this was an Australian citizen forum
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 2:19:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie Newman NCF
I'd like to return to to argument that GM crops only succeed because of subsidies, and particularly to the example of India. There is ample evidence Indian farmers are taking up GM cotton varieties because of their economic benefits
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/technology-improvement-in-india.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/gm-cotton-successes-in-india-detailed.html
India, like Australia, is regarded as a low subsidy country. Enthusiastic takeup, with increased markets year after year, as in Australia, is alone evidence of economic benefit, but the links also show cost calculations featuring increased margins and higher cotton prices (premiums for GM).
Since these present a story that quite contrary to NCF view of Indian GM cotton, I wondered whether you would comment on them, Julie, and wonder if you would include them, for completeness, in your own website?

Re Opinionated2's mention of isis. I'd caution you, Opinionated2, against regarding this as a source of sound scientific comment. It a long story, but the short and gentle version is that the Institute is not mainstream genetics.
Posted by GMO Pundit, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 2:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Opinionated2:

Few scientists take ISIS seriously for reasons you can find easily at the website you cited. Look at some of the claims there:

“The only radical science magazine on earth: Science in Society”

How about Mae-Wan Ho’s latest book,

“Unraveling AIDS” (review the contents yourself!), promoted on the cover by Joe Cummins (fellow ISIS member and frequent co-author with Ho; so much for independence) and praised by Dr David Rasnick, who promoted the disasterous program in South Africa to deny HIV as the cause of AIDS and the use of drugs for suppression of AIDS (http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/05/discredited-doctors-cure-for-aids.html) and Gary Null, who has a similarly inglorious career (http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html).

As noted by Agronomist, many of the people on ISIS’s list of “international scientists” are clearly not scientists. Compare their list to http://www.agbioworld.org/declaration/index.html supporting biotech with more than 3000 scientists, including 25 Nobel Prize winners, and supporters like Jimmy Carter. No Prize winners at all with ISIS. You’ll also find a summary of papers on GM feeding trials etc. at www.agbioworld.org

Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman: Not even retired Monsanto.
I am also on a dialup phone line, and thus often lag behind the posts and don’t have the speed to chase all your urls.

You’ll also find a summary of papers on GM feeding trials etc. at www.agbioworld.org

Where did Judy Carman ever predict the CSIRO results?

I’m still waiting for answers to many of questions, listed again in the last few days. In the meantime, you might be interested to learn that Germany has just approved the cultivation of GM corn (http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/26199.shtml). Germany will thus grow GM grain crops before Australia, and apparently there are already about 200 ha there.

Sweden's leading meat processor will end its decade long ban on the use of genetically modified (GM) feed by its member farmers.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=64630&m=1FNED16&c=kzldommuocyjajp
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 2:48:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel according to the Macquarie is a person that resists any authority or control or the other meaning someone who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against, the established government or ruler. So is that you? Anyway back to what we are meant to be talking about:-
Rebel, what has Mae-Wan Ho’s book on aids got to do with this discussion? Biotech, yes can buy however many great scientists they want at a price and I don’t give 2 hoots what Jimmy Carter is doing supporting GM as I’m Australian. Australia is setting a high standard before we fully immerse ourselves in this potentially hazardous product. If we find something major wrong with GM at least we would have a chance to avoid it. Rick Roush, you come in again at the website of Agbioworld. I found this Agbioworld comment under Myth 4 http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/myths.html "GMOs are not safe": "No one really knows whether GMOs are safe or not -- so little work has been done on this and even less has been released to the public. There has, however, been a lot of opinion put out, little of it substantiated." This is an admittance that consumers are guinea pigs. In the so called experiments, they are done by chemical companies, societies, universities etc. (which can be funded by large chemical companies) and the projects were done on bees and rats. I’m not a bee or a rat the last time I looked. Where are the human experiments?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 20 December 2005 7:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. If I were to publicly ask General Motors why their motor vehicles disintegrate in head-on accidents, I suspect they would accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about (true, I know little about motor vehicle accidents other than a desire to avoid them) and that I was trying to start a scare campaign. I take it from your comments that you find it perfectly acceptable to make unsubstantiated comments about a technology, most of which are demonstrably incorrect and some of which are clearly fictitious, as a means of asking a question. If that is your moral compass, there is probably little point in this conversation continuing.

Opinionated2. No, I didn’t need to ask how to get on the list as the web site provided a means to do so should I wish. Anybody visiting the site could add their name and I am guessing here that some of these “eminent scientists” don’t in fact exist. Which of these particular eminent scientists do you think I should be looking up to and what are their qualifications that mean I should follow their advice? I have looked through the names and I must admit that I have never heard any of these people talk about managing field crops, what varieties are most suitable in which regions and soil types, what fertilizer rate to use, what nutrients should I be testing for, how certain weeds should be controlled or how to scout for insects. Most of them probably could not tell me what are the main agronomic issues for growing Bt corn. If you like, you can sign up for all sorts of internet petitions. Here is one advocating the labeling of pet food for road kill ingredients (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/406753774?ltl=1135115015). It already has 1879 signatures. I am sure some of these are eminent too. Should I listen to them and conclude that the science is out on the safety of pet food and it should all be banned? Let me know, I don’t want my pets becoming cannibals.

Hope you all have a merry and fun-filled Christmas.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 7:48:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick Roush, I did not mention you representing a company (thanks for pointing this out "isitreallysafe".
Ricks comment that it was the non-GM farmers fault for not taking steps to avoid GM contamination is exactly what our Network of Concerned Farmers chief debate is about as your recommendation follows the coexistence principles that have been prepared by the GM industry.
Rick may not feel it is worthy of him spending time on this but it is critical to farmers. As mentioned, GM is the intruder to the industry and it should be up to the GM industry to contain this wandering patented product that consumers are rejecting. If they can't, it should be the polluter that pays for the economic loss caused, not the polluted.

GMOPundit/DavidTribe: Who said that GM crops only succeed because of subsidies? As mentioned, the Australian GM debate is not about cotton, corn or soy, or subsidies, it is about GM canola which certainly does not have a track record of soaring adoption and yes, GM growing Canadian farmers are heavily subsidised. Without subsidies Australians need to avoid economic risk.
The news articles I put up on my website are just that, news articles expressing GM concerns, not pro-GM opinion pieces. Indian cotton? The latest: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2595 and http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2596 includes lack of performance in stress conditions.

Rebel, frightened to be honest enough to reveal your identity and accept accountability?
As mentioned, the feeding trials do not involve feeding the animals the food that consumers are expected to eat.
The CSIRO result has been what scientists with concerns have been saying for some time. Try reading IHER’s submissions.
Tolerance levels can only be accepted if they comply with law or market demand and if they can be complied with and tested with a cheap accurate testing regime. However, tolerance levels adopted by those pushing GM don’t comply with ACCC definitions of “non-GM”, don’t comply with all market demand and are not workable as there is no workable field test.

Agronomist: There are reports for GM performing worse in drought. Why avoid trials to test for it?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 8:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is-it-really-safe. Mae-Wan is the founder and principle member of ISIS, cited above. Her book on AIDS puts ISIS and its claims on GM in context, showing that she is off-beam in other areas as well.

Please take a deep breath and go back and read things a bit more carefully. What foods do you think GM will exclude from your preferences based on what I wrote earlier?

I took a quick look at the claims you attributed to Roush and Myth 4 of http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/myths.html.

The lines you quote are the myths being rebutted, not an admission of a problem! You may have also overlooked more recent articles such as
http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html,
http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMmyths.html, and
http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

Animal feeding studies are more precise than human feeding studies because you can dissect the subjects afterward for any hints of a problem.

I was wrong to think that Jimmy Carter would have any impression on you. After all, he is just a Nobel Peace Prize winner, international humanitarian, and leading moral example. Why would you care when all that matters is your own fears?

Julie NonGM:
I see you have found another string on the National Forum to attack Jennifer as well as here, but have continued to dodge questions on your own dealings.

I ask the following because you have admitted here on 13 December 2005 that you wrongly claimed that Bill Crabtree took twice as long to get his degree, and corrected this only when contacted by the accused. You were otherwise apparently quite content to impugn his reputation without double-checking your facts.

Going back to your claims that you threatened to sue Paula Fitzgerald because she said that you were funded by Greenpeace, I heard Fitzgerald speak around that time. She said only that you were Greenpeace linked or were getting help from Greenpeace, which turned out to be true. Do you have any evidence that Paula said you were funded by Greenpeace?

Can you tell us when you started (and ended?) teleconferencing with Greenpeace, or do we assume from your lack of answers that you want to keep this secret?
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 8:09:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Rebel (? Paula Fitzgerald), you certainly rely on the persistant and predictable "discredit by contantly claiming association with Greenpeace" tactic don't you. I am continually answering the same questions but you don't like my truthful answers. ? How can you possibly claim I have given you a lack of answers?
These teleconferences just involved farmers giving farming information to others. Greenpeace mainly listened and asked a few questions. Actually I was very impressed with the intense research Greenpeace did on these issues and the questions they asked (considering they were not farmers). The conferences finished when they understood the farming issues. But really who (other than you) cares about who we talk to and for how long and what about?
I would have responded to your question more times than I had these teleconferences.

Contrary to misleading claims: I made it clear that I was repeating (for the first time) what I was told about Crabtree and I did so on this casual forum because I figured I would be immediately corrected if I was wrong. When you are told by someone that did the same course, you presume their information is reasonably accurate. My correction was immediate and genuine. Perhaps the agronomist meant that Crabtree needed to resit exams, I don't know but I will clarify that when I see him next. I didn’t repeat far worse statements I have heard.

While it helps to know who is funded by the GM industry (eg. Jennifer Marahosey and Paula Fitzgerald) I am more interested in the issues.

You are being deliberately misleading by claiming "She said only that you were Greenpeace linked or were getting help from Greenpeace, which turned out to be true."
Paula was saying I was funded by Greenpeace but later claimed only “links”.
Why not say the same about my links with Bayer Cropscience because I have had numerous communications with them and they even funded a flight? Exactly... it would be silly, and it is just as silly to continue saying I am linked to Greenpeace when everyone knows full well I am not.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 4:27:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to what Rebel claims, I mentioned the myth and the rebuttal. The rebuttal states clearly that there is not enough known about health. On one of your GM results http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html (Alexander TW etc.) I looked at the one on sheep and canola just as a sample and it said “On a qualitative test on sheep, this study shows that digestion of plant material and release of transgenic DNA can occur in the ovine small intestine. However, free DNA is rapidly degraded at neutral pH in DF, thus reducing the likelihood that intact transgenic DNA would be available for absorption through the Peyer's Patches in the distal ileum”.

It is a reduction in the likelihood of GM affecting the intestinal tract of the sheep. Hang on a second. Humans have only 1 stomach not 4 that sheep have so the possibilities of absorption surely would be higher. In the sheep, the food has more time to break down GM through the rumen storage, reticulum, cud chewing, omasum and the abomasums. What about rumination? Humans are always under stress and don’t ruminate, so food is absorbed at a quicker pace and would not have the ability of the sheep to breakdown DNA from GM. This is why I want human testing.

Rebel said “Stick with organic and better yet unprocessed foods so you can avoid real threats like transfats, and use olive oil. GM crops in Australia will have no influence on content of organic. GM cotton and even canola cannot contaminate…” and yet if GM is approved in wheat, canola and all grains, then there is no way that organic cannot have GM in as it will contaminate. Also there are other things being trialled now that are GM including tomatoes, sugar, beets etc. that would not leave me much to eat. Are you denying me concern for what I eat by telling me “she’ll be right mate” knowing that it will not be? You have to prove to me that GM is safe and you have not done that so far. I look forward to Carmen doing independent tests.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 4:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

Let’s get to the bottom line. You have raised many criticisms and complaints about GM, but are there any conditions under which the NCF would accept GM canola in Australia, short of prohibitive conditions like strict liability (ie, making companies responsible for mistakes by anyone in the production chain)? If not, is there really any reason to bother arguing about your other claims?

What about any crop other than cotton ?

I already know that the answer from Isitreallysafe and Opinionated is that there are no such conditions.

Why should it matter what my name is? Accountability for what? In a sense, I am too frightened to reveal my identity. As I said before, I don’t have the resources to defend myself against the kinds of apparently groundless legal threats that you have made against others who dare to disagree with you, such as Crabtree and Fitzgerald. Why did you make such threats? Are you so sensitive about the rough and tumble of political debate? Since there is little they could do to affect your reputation (your website and the sources you cite sets out your agenda and does that pretty well), it appears that your intent was solely to intimidate and bully. You still have not offered evidence for your claims against Fitzgerald. Why did you need my name other than that so you can attack me personally?

That you interacted with Bayer is well documented, so not at issue. What I want to know is by what month and year that you started teleconferencing “with Greenpeace listening in”. In March 2004, you claimed a lack of links with Greenpeace, which seems to be incorrect from Nic Kentishh’s remarks. When these teleconferences started is a key factor in the history of the anti-GM movement in Australia, linking farmers with Greenpeace. You have never answered this simple question of a date.

I think I have answered all of your questions to me except giving you my name. In contrast, you have left many of mine unanswered, since at least 16 December. Can you please address these
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 5:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought this forum was talking about GM foods not people some of us have never heard of. All those pushing GM seem to be putting this debate in a boxing ring with “added to this corner we have Mae-Wan Ho and this corner we have the most famous Jimmy Carter”. I’ve searched through your tests and they don’t satisfy what I’m asking. Jennifer you haven’t denied the GM Watch profile on you so it’s obviously true. Rebel I’m sick of this Greenpeace attack on non-GM farmer. I don’t consider phone calls as links to Greenpeace. Non-GM farmer is not being paid a salary by Greenpeace so it is not an issue. Unless she is, then get off this little kids tantrum. You GM’ers don’t seem to be taking any notice of what consumers and farmers are saying. Let’s play the ball rather than playing the man and look at what the game is about. The issues are what we care about and we need to look at them.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 22 December 2005 12:08:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice to see you are settling down a little Rebel and actually discussing a way forward (albeit amongst ridiculous continual time-wasting questions about phonecalls that don’t equate to "links"):

Our aim is to ensure non-GM farmers can continue to market unhindered on the non-GM market - without the ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed.

The following are the key issues to address:

If tolerance levels are set, they must be based on market demand (not just international legislative guidelines) and our legal definition of non-GM. With moratoriums we can currently prove that contamination caused during pre-OGTR-approved trials is accidental, but not after any commercial release.

No GM contamination can be accepted if a "user fee" is to be charged on contaminated produce.

Coexistence principles must be based on ensuring the GM grower contains their product, not that the non-GM farmer must take steps to avoid contamination. A closed loop marketing system for GM is logical and principles like a GM zone rather than a non-GM zone.

Workable, practical, cheap and accurate testing regimes must be in place prior to any release. If you have not got a field test, how can coexistence hope to work?

If GM crops cause economic loss to those not wanting to grow GM, there must be a fair and practical compensation regime.

Any GRDC or government funded research must not withhold new varieties to the non-GM industry ie. the add-the-GM-gene-for better-profits-for-everybody-except-farmers can not be exclusive to a variety, the variety must be available in uncontaminated non-GM (pre add-the-GM-gene) form too.

Prior to acceptance, there must be proof that there is widespread education and acceptance of coexistence protocols, that no sector of industry is faced with unmanageable problems or additional costs and liabilities without approval from those expected to accept these.

Independent performance trials must be undertaken and proposed costings must be released to ensure accurate information is given to farmers to allow them to make an informed choice about growing this product.

This is just common sense risk management and yet the pro-GM sector find these unacceptable. Why?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 22 December 2005 8:16:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is-It-Really-Safe:
You have clearly indicated that you can’t be convinced that GM foods are safe, so why should we continue discussing that?

Julie Newman has clearly indicated a desire to go after the person rather than the ball in her unprovoked attack on Crabtree’s academic record, and in asking for my identity, instead of answering many questions about issues (partial list below). I am offering her what she didn’t offer to Bill; a direct invitation to clear up confusion.

Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

It’s an interesting style that you use, following your exact words: “I made it clear that I was repeating (for the first time) what I was told about Crabtree and I did so on this casual forum because I figured I would be immediately corrected if I was wrong.” In other words, throw mud first, and if no one corrects you, it‘s ok. Why didn’t you just ask Bill first?

In any case, I am trying to get your side of stories in the papers and ABC. You have argued that there is no embarrassment in talking with Greenpeace, so I don’t really see why you find my questions about a date to be so hard. In any case, I won’t ask again. By the way, when did your website go up?

Thanks for the answers you’ve given so far. I am also still keen to learn:

About subsidies. Again, do you have any evidence that the Canadian subsidies are any higher to support Canadian GM canola than they would be for non-GM canola? All we have agreed is that GM soy is being so successful as an oil crop that it is pressuring Canadian growers. Are Canadian subsidies any higher than for the EU subsidies to its canola growers, all of whom are nonGM?

An estimate of Carracher’s market losses from some 0.5% GM in his canola. This would help us understand how to address liability.

What liability or other rules did you refer to (on 5 December) as what the US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop?

Continued later.
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 22 December 2005 8:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to the assertions made, NonGMFarmer clearly doesn’t care a rats for the issues. It seems that NonGMFarmer has an agenda to push at all costs. If people get in NonGMFarmer’s way, she bullies them. NonGMFarmer’s repeating of untrue allegations about people such as Bill Crabtree, Jennifer Marohasy and Rick Roush in order to belittle them is the classic behavior of a bully.

NonGMFarmer claims “While it helps to know who is funded by the GM industry…”. Why does it help? So NonGMFarmer can discount their statements solely because of those links and not have to worry about whether they are accurate or not?

If NonGMFarmer were truly interested in the issues, why should it matter whether I work for Monsanto, Bayer, a PR company or not? It is what I say that should matter. Is what I say right or wrong? Can I back up my statements with evidence? Even Monsanto can occasionally get things right.

If NonGMFarmer was so interested in the issues, she would have checked the claims in her postings rather than just repeating things she was told because they fit her agenda. NonGMFarmer has posted many statements on this forum that are either totally untrue or bear little resemblance to reality. We could start with Golden Rice being nowhere near the trial stage (actually the first field trial was harvested in Louisiana in September 2004), move on to Monsanto’s end point royalty being based on 0.5% of their material in the crop, then to “Argentina: “RR soya crops also yield 5% to 10% less compared with the non-GM varieties grown under similar soil conditions, confirming findings in the United States."”, Charles Benbrook was a “chief advisor to the White House”, the Canadians have the highest carryover of canola ever, and so on (I am going to run out of room soon). It strikes me NonGMFarmer is either careless or doing this deliberately.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 22 December 2005 9:46:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why target side issues that are not really relevant to the debate? How do you think this issue can be resolved? By bullying your way around and insisting non-GM farmers just put up with contamination and accept any economic loss associated with it? No thanks!

I happily answer your questions and give suggestions for solutions to the problem and rather than discuss the issues logically, I get slammed for doing it.

Who's “bullying” who? Lets get this in perspective, I have constantly been accused of being linked to Greenpeace when you know full well I am not (as mentioned, my first Greenpeace phonecall was the first day of employment of the first Australian Greenpeace anti-GM campaigner). I have even been misleadingly accused of not being a farmer and of being a threatened competitor to Monsanto. Why can't I question the credibility and vested interests of the pro-GM sector when they specialise in doing that themselves? And no, it doesn’t worry me because I have come to expect it in this debate.

I am not keen on the character assasination style that is so popular among those promoting GM either. Rebel(?GraemeO'Neill), I strongly suspected you were Bill Crabtree but I made it clear that I was repeating what another agronomist said about Bill. You implied he had respect and I responded explaining the mild version of what I have heard from others. I genuinely believed it was true and immediately corrected my mistake. There is no doubt that Bill is pushing GM, he is even taking tours of Australian farmers to visit Monsanto and Bayers facilities in North America. http://www.no-till.com.au/studytour.html

You are taking this forum out of context, this is an internet chatline and postings do not need to be scientific papers or press release statements. I have not spent much time on giving references or fine-tuning responses for the simple fact that I’m a farmer and spend most of Nov/Dec helping with harvest. I've enjoyed chatting and I look forward to continued debate.

We do need to get past the conflict and discuss practical resolutions.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:35:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel, Rebel Rebel. What part of me in this forum has said that you cannot convince me that GM is safe? Time and time again have you said that you cannot convince me and yet I have said if you follow the guidelines of human testing, with supervision of these tests then you would be able to prove to me that GM is safe. But you have not even mentioned any human testing. See my posting of 11/12/05 and see again what I have asked. The problem with human testing is that we don’t only eat one food which has been tested on all of the tests of GM. We eat a variety and how do we know that the variety of GM foods combined is safe? You will be dabbling in the unknown combination of changed DNA and doesn’t that even scare you at all? GM hasn’t been tested enough in any of your tests that you have told me to look up. You give me inadequate tests done on individual animals which are not human and not even close to human like pigs (or maybe I missed that test). Stop saying that I cannot be convinced because that is not true. Your challenge is to convince me and so far as I’ve seen, you have not even come close. Instead you have actually confirmed my fears about lack of adequate testing.

And Agronomist, of course it matters if someone is speaking on behalf of Monsanto. Monsanto has a habit of changing the rules to meet their own wants which is money orientated. How do the farmers know how much Monsanto is going to charge them under royalties as there are no fixed % or $ amount that is signed. If this goes ahead, there is a possibility that Monsanto will have all the power in the world to change the world’s farmers to making different countries farmers broke. Do I trust Monsanto? No, as their track record is not good.

Also it seems obvious to me that you GM’ers are actually bullying non-gm farmer.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 23 December 2005 12:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Newman:

You have continued to misrepresent my comments on red corn and organics, so I invite you to read them again. I am very happy to discuss coexistence and defend my views on that; it is not a good use of time for any of us for me to be rebutting what I didn’t even say.

The original article in the Wall Street also stated:

“In Europe, authorities have begun approving GM strains to be sold there….. North of Barcelona in Spain … a trio of farmers took a late afternoon break recently to argue in favor of biotech. …. Joaquim Paretas said his farm would be doomed without it. He plants a strain of biotech corn that defends itself against an insect known as the corn borer, a
bug that burrows inside a corn plant, making it hard to combat with traditional
insecticide. …Traditional strains of corn, Mr. Paretas says, are weakened by the bugs and are often destroyed by high winds that sweep over the region late in the growing
season.….. Mr. Paretas says ….. he'll work out agreements with his non-GM neighbors to stagger their planting seasons.”

At the url you quoted, http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/knowcenter.nsf/0/2BE8AA76EDA77C75862570BB0017A951?OpenDocument , I wrote “The most obvious steps include isolation by a few hundred meters, or planting his corn so that it flowered asynchronously from the GM corn (the latter has been understood by Mr. Paretas as discussed at the end of the article). This problem is not a lot different than growers with contracts for blue corn must deal with every year in North America, long before GM crops. It has always been the burden of those seeking to produce and market for some price advantage to take steps to protect that advantage.”

The red corn is a new product seeking price advantage, and the offended farmer found yellow corn in it. Even conventional and organic corn would have had the same “contamination” effect, . The grower had not protected against this, even though other farmers, such as Paretas, know how to do this and expressed willingness to cooperate with their neighbors
Posted by Rick Roush, Friday, 23 December 2005 3:38:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Newman:
Continuing against the word limits of this site, if you were to grow a new high value, high purity specialist canola crop, would it be your neighbors’ burden to keep their pollen from your farm?

That is what you are arguing if you defend the red corn farmer. It was not just organic, but red organic that was his premium line.

Ms Newman, this is what you wrote involving me on 19 December, deleting the urls: “Individuals such as Prakash (author of Agbioworld) are known for misleading pro-GM statements or Rick Rousch. Companies these people represent are also known as paid PR promotions for GM. Hudson Institute. How much are they being paid by the GM companies?”

I am glad to read that you “did not mention (that I was) representing a company”, but what you actually wrote is at least as confusing. I’ll assume for now that your note was just imprecisely written.

To Is it really safe?

I don’t care how you spell my name. It’s only fair to ask that those who write significant criticisms of me to get it right so that I can become aware of, find and respond to the critiques where appropriate. Otherwise, it is just whispers behind your back.

What difference does it make whether I am American or African? I have replied to criticisms made of me at this site. In any case, I am an Australian citizen.

I thank Rebel for replying to you about your mis-statements about AgBioView and Agronomist
Posted by Rick Roush, Friday, 23 December 2005 3:42:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More questions for Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

I am not part of the “pro-GM sector” so can’t answer for them, but your conditions leave me confused. Perhaps most importantly, can I ask if you will undertake here to never grow a GM crop?

What are “the ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed”?

What is your “legal definition of non-GM”?

What do you mean by “No GM contamination can be accepted if a "user fee" is to be charged on contaminated produce”? Surely you are not implying that companies will charge if someone has 0.5% or even 10% GM content in their crop? Is this a reference to the legally disproved claims of Percy Schmeiser?

What if GM varieties become so popular that 90% of the canola crop is GM. Would you still require that all burdens for containment are on the GM growers?

Here are other questions not yet answered.

Do you accept that Spain, Portugal, France and Germany now grow GM corn, and feed large quantities of GM corn and soy to their livestock? That Japan imports large quantities of GM from Canada and the US?

Will you keep using TT canola if atrazine resistance is found in annual ryegrass on your property?

Where is this significant premium and demand for non-GM soy, and what is your source of information for that, especially for oil?

Who and where are there paying customers wanting guarantees that there is no GM canola present? Do you or any other members of NCF sell to such customers now? How big are these markets for Australia in terms of dollar value or a percentage of the Australian crop?

After 9 years and hundreds of millions of ha planted, has there been one farmer sue another for so-called contamination?

Other than for Starlink (where the pay-outs exceeded US $110 million), how many cases have there been of farmers suing any one else?

Other than Starlink, how many cases, and for how much money, have there been any documented claims of losses to GM “contamination” from farmers anywhere in the world?
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 23 December 2005 7:29:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On Bullying Behaviours. Asking tough questions does not compare with threatening lawsuits (actually done twice already by Julie) and threatening vandalism and future lawsuits, as Julie has done on this site.

For Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

My friends in the cotton industry are reporting record yields per ha in an industry that is now more than 80% GM.

In 2004’s ” Co-existence in North American agriculture, Brookes & Barfoot argue there have been no significant economic or commercial problems (www.pgeconomics.co.uk) at least in part because farmers talk things out ahead of time, despite more organic farms and relatively smaller farms than we have in Australia. Can’t we do the same?

Can you explain to us why the current legal system in Australia cannot protect non-GM farmers? All you need to do is to be able to show financial harm.

If you really believe all those claims from Greenpeace and NGIN that you have put up on your website about the hazards of Roundup, do you still use Roundup or other glyphosate products on your farm?

In government, most research proposals are funded in a competitive process of some kind, not due to lobbying. Isn’t that a good practice?

Do you believe that all sources on the web or elsewhere are equally expert, whatever their qualifications?

Why would CSIRO bother to submit data to government for the pea project, when the proposal to release would be so obviously be rejected? Isn’t self-assessment by researchers acceptable?

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but pesticide companies very often drop new products late the development stages, after 10 of millions have been spent, when they find unfavorable data.

No one can find any difference at all between canola oils from conventional and GM crops. There is no DNA or protein left. What would you even look for in a feeding trial?

Is-it-really-safe: There is a standard line among GM critics that they are not opposed to the technology but then set criteria for testing that could not be met even for milk much less peanuts or conventional wheat. I’m not fooled
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 23 December 2005 9:09:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, lets look at some of your deliberate misinterpretations that "are either totally untrue or bear little resemblance to reality."

The high Canadian canola carryover can be referenced from any market report.
Toepfer International - Market Review Mar05 "Ending stocks are therefore expected to increase to just under 1.5mln tons. This is an increase of 240% from the year before…" It explains that exports dropped from 7.7mlntons to only 3.4mln tons. Price problems: As mentioned, Australian Graincorp announced recently a US$30/tonne premium over Canadian canada sold to China this year. WA's Grainpool latest weekly comment mentioned a "steep decline in Canadian values."

The “Golden Rice” statement was in reference to what I was told by the breeder of Golden Rice before the trials and I mentioned I was happy to be updated.

I said there is no set contamination level that triggers a deduction of Monsanto’s royalties. As mentioned, framers want risk management to ensure that a positive test (as low as 0.5%) does not trigger a royalty deduction.

Argentina: “yield 5%-10% less...", This was a direct referenced quote. The scientific reason given for this is glyphosate has an adverse effect on legume inoculant.

d/DavidTribe: Ask Judy Carmen directly the questions you want her to answer.

Chinese cotton subsidies www.v-farm.com/new/A12479/Cotton References include the International-Cotton-Advisory-Committee(2000),Valderrama(1999),Goreux(2003)

Rick, I’m glad you explained further. Do you however think it is fair that the existing non-GM industry must take the steps required to prevent contamination of their crops by the “newcomer” of GM crops?

Rebel, legal letters are reminders that there is a limit to public bullying. Why should I accept slander?

It’s no point spraying a chemical if it does not kill the weeds you want killed. I have no problem with glyphosate, the article concerned clearly explains that any chemical has risk, it is a defence of atrazine which is a target by pro-GM activists.

The Federal government paper on liability http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=397E43B7-58BA-4111-BDE46C8AB2961114 explains how farmers can try to take legal action, but there is little chance that we can win.

The ACCC has confirmed “non-GM” = zero GM contamination.

Costs http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=355
Liabilities http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=368
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 23 December 2005 10:06:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you insinuating that I am racial prejudice? I am not and never will be racial prejudice and my clients can attest to this. I have not mis-stated anything and I have corrected Rebel on his mis-statement that I had so called quoted. Read it right as I had quoted the rebuttal of Agbioview and I have not mis-stated Agronomist. The pro-GMers just seem to think it is OK to misread and misrepresent statements, but people reading aren't stupid. Is that your best debate? I am more concerned about health as the end product of this potential biohazard.

Non-GM farmer should have every right to sue GM companies because of the law of the State government that has said to keep GM out of Australia until further notice (moratoria). GM companies have slid into the country via contamination in trials and seed sellers that have sold seed to farmers without them knowing therefore contaminating their crops.

Rebel – milk and peanuts have been around forever and like cigarettes were accepted by the populace of the time and would be hard to retract from the population. But, unlike GM food, those with allergies or concerned for the risks can avoid these products.

Why cannot you accept the human tests that I as a consumer have requested? You are not even giving me an alternative testing regime but just denying all human tests and yet, GM companies are wanting the human population of Australia to be guinea pigs of GM. This is wrong and very unethical. I want to know before I eat what I am eating and the potential problems associated with it. I will not take drugs without knowing the side effects whereas others would as they trust the drug companies and let’s look at the amount of deaths associated with that. I demand a choice to avoid GM until I am satisfied it will not affect my health.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 23 December 2005 11:53:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wishing you all a great Christmas and a Happy GM-free New Year.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 23 December 2005 6:50:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking forward to 2006 with renewed confidence. The States have accepted thresholds that make economic and scientific sense for GM canola.

A good first step towards a more reasonable tone in the GM debate and GM acceptance. Watch the often quoted EU GM sensitive market for new coexisitence rules between GM and non-GM in 2006 in response to pressure from US.

New canola varieties are needed for Australian farmers to compete on the international vegetable oil market which from the 1 Jan 2006 will see Kellogs and other big food manufacturers introoduce Vistive oil into their products.

The GM lite Australian canola with low linoleic acid content is what we need.

The Australian alternative is on the way with GM lite high oleic oil low linoleic oil being field trialled and is two years away from our markets. The puiblic doesn't seem to be concerend about our first GM food crop ,cotton oil which is competing with Australian canola for market share.
Posted by sten, Friday, 23 December 2005 7:17:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is what Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of PG Economics had to say in a paper published this month (http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm). Happy reading!

GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact - The First Nine Years 1996-2004
Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot PG Economics Ltd., Dorchester, UK

Abstract.
2005 represents the tenth planting season since genetically modified (GM) crops were first grown in 1996. This milestone provides the opportunity to critically assess the impact this technology is having on global agriculture. This study examines specific global economic impacts on farm income and environmental impacts of the technology with respect to pesticide usage and greenhouse gas emissions for each of the countries where GM crops have been grown since 1996. The analysis shows that there have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to a cumulative total of $27 billion. The technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kg and has reduced the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 14%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which is equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 24 December 2005 5:38:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho,ho,ho. Thanks for the Christmas present Agronomist.

An excellent report, I particularly appreciated the information on Canadian GM canola. Based on a 10.7% increase in yield, the cost savings (excluding the cost of technology) is C$39/ha and the cost of technology is C$44.03/ha. That equates to a loss of C$5.03/ha despite a 10.7% increase in yields.
Almost 70% of Canadian farmers now grow GM canola and the yield increase mentioned does not reflect the statistics based on ha and actual production . http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2530 The real yield has remained stable and consistent with seasonal variation.
The report also forgot to mention that Canada has lost their US$32.68/tonne consistent premium over Australian canola (1990-2000) and now sell for US$30/tonne less than Australian canola.
In reality, GM canola has cost Canadian farmers dearly.

This is why we need to have independent yield comparisons, to be able to work out the cost versus the benefit of GM canola prior to any consideration of GM introduction.
Incidentally, GM canola will not reduce chemical use, it will increase it due to the control of unwanted volunteers.
The debate in Australia is regarding GM canola, not GM soy, cotton or corn and we need to look beyond the bulldust hype to see what we are really getting.

Hopefully the New Year will bring more common sense to the debate.

Cheers.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 24 December 2005 10:38:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sangita Shah writes in the Financial Express that Bt Cotton demand is up 155% in India (http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=112218). This is hard to reconcile with Bt cotton being a disaster in India. To quote: “Despite all the uproar against Bt cotton in the country, the demand for bollgard seeds has risen tremendously. The acreage under bollgard cotton across the country has also jumped substantially. Bollgard hybrid seed companies have sold nearly 30.55 lakh packets across the country in Kharif 2005, which is equivalent to about 30.55 lakh acres under cultivation.”

For those not familiar with the Indian numbering system a lakh is 100,000. So 30.55 lakh acres is 3.055 million acres.

Another quote from the article: “Considering the sales of bollgard cotton this season, nearly 14% of the acreage is under bollgard cultivation. In India, Bt cotton acreage has been rising at a fast pace since it was introduced in 2002. The acreage has gone up from just 72,000 acres in 2002 to 2.3 lakh acres in 2003 and 12.13 lakh acres in 2004. The demand for bollgard cotton has been on rise chiefly due to higher yields. Farmer Vishnu Jagtab from village Shelgaon in Phulambri Taluka said, "I harvest nearly double the raw cotton I used to take when I cultivated non-Bt cotton a couple of years back."”
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 6:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A study conducted by The National Centre for Food and Agriculture Policy called Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2004 - Impacts on US Agriculture was released this month (http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/biotech-us.php).

Some selected quotes:

In 2004, U.S. farmers planted biotech crops on 118 million acres, an increase of 11 percent over the previous year. Compared to conventional crops, biotech varieties increased food production by 6.6 billion pounds, a 24 percent improvement from 2003, and provided $2.3 billion in additional net returns for U.S. growers, a 21 percent increase from the previous year. Biotech crops also reduced pesticide use by an additional 34 percent, or 15.6 million pounds.

According to the study, insect-resistant crops again produced the greatest yield increase among the crops studied, improving food and fiber production by 6.5 billion pounds. While insect-resistant traits increased production, herbicide-resistant varieties generated the greatest reduction in production costs by reducing the amount of pesticide needed and lowering costs associated with hand weeding and mechanical cultivation. Herbicide-resistant varieties cut costs by $1.8 billion and reduced pesticide use by 55.5 million pounds.

Donna Winters, who grows biotech cotton, corn and soybean on her farm in Lake Providence, La., has personally experienced the benefits of growing biotech crops. Winters said adopting the technology not only helps her operation remain profitable, but also lessens agriculture’s environmental footprint.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 6:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are Canola farmers in Australia meant to accept Herbicide tolerant GM canola just because the Monsanto funded studies and reports show that farmers like Bt insect resistant GM cotton? Whose going to pay them if they make a loss? The GM Cotton growers or Monsanto?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 10:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps you should more correctly ask whether Australian farmers should forgo the benefits enyoyed by others in having access to new technology, solely to satisfy the ideological position of a small minority? Who will pay the opportunity costs incurred by those farmers?

GM technology is not a solution for all problems, but it has proven useful for more than 8 million farmers in at least 18 countries, including Germany, France, Spain and Romania in Europe. So much for Europe not wanting to grow GM crops. Some farmers at least do.

If Australian farmers don't find GM canola useful they won't grow it. So what are you worried about? That they will find these crops useful, just like they have in Canada and te US?
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 30 December 2005 6:05:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are saying that I am the minority and am fanatical about non-GM. This reason is because you are not honouring my point of view. You have subjected me to a stifling, stupefying, barrage of facts and figures hoping that I would accept them but I haven’t because I don’t believe the chemical companies that supplied or paid for these facts. The farmers won’t be able to get rid of GM (or cane toads) if it gets in. It appears that canola doesn’t make a profit anyway. The ones that want to grow and are willing to grow, are they just believing the lies you are telling them or do they know that Canadian farmers are not making any profit from it. The problem appears to be that the non-GM farmers have to pay for other misled farmers to give it a try. You don't supply information about the conditions that either myself or what non-GM farmer are saying e.g. tests on health or being sure that non-GM farmers are not paying for this stupidity? The consumers don’t want to take the risk that you are forcing onto us. You are making the consumers the lab rats of something that has not been tested correctly by intermingling all of your GM foods together because we eat more than one type of food, so where are these tests and done on something that are similar to humans like pigs? There are none and you cannot deny that.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:13:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, your claim "If Australian farmers don't find GM canola useful they won't grow it." is obviously what the pro-GM sector support.
You forget that if a grower gives GM a try, they irreversibly contaminate our non-GM produce. Non-GM farmers are well aware that this is the intention but we want to ensure we have risk management to ensure we are not going to subsidise the GM industry.
Before Australian farmers give GM a whirl, why not gather the facts that are needed in order to make an informed decision? What is wrong with independent performance trials? What is wrong with farmers knowing the costs?
Every poll done has shown that the majority of farmers do not want GM so the minority is the farmers not wanting to grow GM. If the GM industry truly wanted to gain support for a product they truly had confidence in, they would give farmers the information they need to make an informed decision, they would not be withholding it.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 2 January 2006 10:43:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is-it-really-safe: How can you expect Agronomist, Sten, GMO Pundit, or myself to honour your point of view when you reject all facts that we bring to the debate because you believe that chemical companies “supplied or paid for these facts”? Facts are either facts or they aren’t, but more importantly, they are supported by sources that are not “owned” by chemical or biotech companies. Perhaps the most obvious: no one can make up the fact that GM crops are now grown by some 8 million farmers in 18 countries, most for several years. You must either count these farmers as stupid, including all Canadian canola farmers, or accept the fact that GM crops provide advantages to a lot of farmers in a lot of areas. I have to tell you; farmers are not stupid. You also have to ignore the fact that at least 25 Nobel Prize winners, including Australian Peter Doherty (Nobel Prize in Physiology-Medicine in 1996 "for discoveries concerning the specificity of the cell mediated immune defence"), as well as many other highly respected scientists such as Australian-born Lord Bob May, have declared support for the value and safety of GM, whereas the opponents have not one scientist who has earned any elite honours.

NonGMFarmerNewman: How is it that “if a grower gives GM a try, they irreversibly contaminate our non-GM produce”? Isn’t there turnover of seed varieties that can be tested? Perhaps the most important example, on a scale that dwarfs Australian ag, was the use of Starlink corn in the US, but it has clearly not been irreversible.

I have not written for more than a week now, but you still have not taken a try at answering most of my questions (let alone whether I accept your answers; eg., the link to “Chinese cotton subsidies www.v-farm.com/new/A12479/Cotton” doesn’t work; I have hunted around www.v-farm.com/ and couldn’t find anything relevant, and gave up on my dialup).

Here is a partial list.

Will you undertake here to never grow a GM crop?

Can you give an estimate of Carracher’s market losses from the 0.5% GM in his canola?
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 9:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmerNewman:

Here are more of the questions I have continued to ask on the issues:

What are “the ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed”?
The websites you gave on 23 December don’t seem to open. In fact, your whole website doesn’t seem to open.

Do you have any evidence that the Canadian subsidies are any higher to support Canadian GM canola than they would be for non-GM canola? Are Canadian subsidies any higher than for the EU subsidies to its canola growers, all of whom are nonGM?

What liability or other rules did you refer to (on 5 December) as what the US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop? On 23 December, you wrote “The ACCC has confirmed “non-GM” = zero GM contamination.” I believe that you have confused the ACCC’s view of “GM free”, which is zero GM, with non-GM (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/87952; http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/610481). Non-GM usually means that the GM content is low enough not to require a label.

So I ask again, what is your “legal definition of non-GM”?

What do you mean by “No GM contamination can be accepted if a "user fee" is to be charged on contaminated produce”? Surely you are not implying that companies will charge if someone has 0.5% or even 10% GM content in their crop? Is this a reference to the legally disproved claims of Percy Schmeiser?

Even your comment on 23 December that farmers “want risk management to ensure that a positive test (as low as 0.5%) does not trigger a royalty deduction”, does not address the substance of my question. Why is there any reason to believe that 0.5% or even 10% would trigger a royalty ?

Can you explain to us why the current legal system in Australia cannot protect non-GM farmers? On 23 December you referred us to the Federal government paper on liability, but neither you nor the paper explain your claim that “there is little chance that we can win.”

After 9 years and hundreds of millions of ha planted, has there been one farmer sue another for so-called contamination
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 9:46:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The “ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed” on the non-GM grower is at the heart of our debate. The "coexistence" plans proposed are along the lines of countries that have adopted GM first then found consumer rejection later. If a non-GM grower wants to market as non-GM, markets require the non-GM grower/supply chain to undertake a rigorous identity preservation system which was estimated by ABARE to be around 10-15% of the gross value of the product.
The non-GM grower is to:
- have the buffer zone to prevent contamination which is to be marketed as GM rather than non-GM;
- keep the produce from this GM buffer zone completely separate to the non-GM produce (will require fencing to prevent stock spreading seed, will require separate machinery or rigorous cleanout regimes)
- avoid planting in the opportune times to prevent crosspollination (will reduce yields significantly)
- provide a separate supply chain that can prevent contamination
- rigorous and expensive testing regime
- if attempts to avoid contamination fails, the liability for market loss and contamination cleanup will fall on the farmers who have signed industry exemptions and contractual guarantees.

Or of course, we sell as GM and accept the market loss and loss of premiums associated with this.

Why should we accept it?

Funny how the education of these “coexistence” plans has been avoided isn’t it?

If Australian farmers are to prevent the same "all sell as GM or pay to avoid contamination" principle, it is necessary to take legal action against neighbours as soon as possible while it is possible to trace contamination to an individual source. Not ideal, but GM growers need to contain their product and not expect other farmers to just accept contamination with a product markets are rejecting.

No, I have not confused the ACCC comments, try phoning them and having them explain it fully to you. Non-GM and GM-free mean the same, no GM. FSANZ can confirm this as they were involved in prosecuting a NZ firm for believing the misleading GTGC guideline. He was prosecuted for having 0.0088% GM in a non-GM labelled product.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 11:29:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are numerous papers explaining Chinese cotton subsidies, I can't believe you are ignoring facts. Try a paper called "Understanding the impact of cotton subsidies on developing countries" by Ian Gillson, Colin Poulton, Kelvin Balcombe and Sheila Page (May 2004). On page 27 you will find a chart with subsidies ($ per kilogram). China is listed as: 97/98-0.4378*, 98/99-0.5962*, 99/00-0.4268, 00/01-0.4356*, 01/02-0.2266. 3 of 5yrs Chinese subsidies exceeded US subsidies (*).

Starlink is an excellent example of irreversible contamination. Despite every effort to recall Starlink, it is still found in around 1% of corn samples.
If the Australian seed industry allows 0.5% contamination in our seed, how on earth can we plant uncontaminated seed?
It should not be up to the non-GM grower to keep GM out of our produce, it should be up to the GM grower to keep it contained. What do you think?

Contamination of the variety Grace was caused by Bayer Cropscience not being able to contain GM trials in Tasmania. Geoffrey’s first loss was testing costs. Geoffrey Carracher could not sell his canola when he knew it was contaminated. Rather than Bayer Cropscience being held responsible, both Federal and State governments decided that farmers will need to pay for any economic loss caused by accepting a tolerance of contamination in non-GM seed. Who is going to tell farmers if markets are refusing to buy seed that is contaminated? How much is the supply chain testing costs? Farmers have not been advised of this information even though we are expected to pay for losses and costs. Why shouldn’t Bayer Cropscience pay for the testing costs? We would not need to do it if they were not so careless at controlling their product.

It is not that I am not answering your questions Rebel, it is that you don't accept the answers. You have your point of view and I doubt if you will ever accept answers that do not follow that point of view.

GM is the intruder to the industry and should have no right to cause loss to the existing agricultural industry.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 12:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The facts that you GM’ers have supplied are tests done on animals (as I have said before) that are not remotely like humans i.e. rats, birds etc. This is why I say I am not accepting them because no long term trials on either humans or animals like humans have been done. I don’t care about who’s who. All I want to know is “Is it Really Safe?” as my name implies. Have these so called names that you have supplied done any of the tests on humans that I have asked for on 11/12 and given the full scientific analysis? No they haven’t so I don’t care for these names that you throw at me. I don’t care if a scientists is waving an “I am great and fantastic” and “oh look I’ve won some prize” awards as I want real facts and real figures. You have not given them to me so why should I listen to all the so called tests that you say are done on rats when I am not one. The tests that are outside of the GM industry are more likely to be accurate so these are the ones I want to listen to as they will not fudge the full report which is what I will be asking them for. And only then when these health issues have been looked at and have shown that GM food is not dangerous, then I will be satisfied.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 1:48:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it really safe?, I am guessing from your posts on this site that you are indeed fervent about non-GM. For example, you have made statements such as “keep GM out of my food”. I accept your point of view as your personal opinion, but not necessarily as a position from which to create policy. Personally, I would prefer to see policy driven by factual information rather than personal prejudice.

For example, your statement that Canadian canola growers are not making money is at variance with what the vast majority of Canadian canola growers I know will say. Growers on the Canadian Prairies are planting canola in tight rotations specifically because the crop is profitable to grow. I take it from your comments that you believe Australian growers should give up growing canola because you say it is not profitable, rather than looking at the factual information available (even from the companies selling the seed) saying it is profitable to grow?

As to tests of GM foods on humans, what is your rationale for GM foods to be singled out in this way? Perhaps you can provide a list of other foods that are comprehensively tested on humans before being marketed. For example, was canola oil from atrazine-resistant canola tested in this way?
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 7:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have the technology to test for health issues. Why not use it? I want to keep GM out of my food until it is proved that it is safe and that proof is not forthcoming. I have high allergies and you are changing the DNA of the whole grain which has a more potential death impact on me if I am allergic to the DNA strain you put into my food. I had no control or no voice when Atrizine was bought into the country but now I am able to be heard. You are challenging me as a consumer of a potential biohazard and I am saying “Check the health issues before you bring it into the country”. What’s wrong with that? You are acting childish with "But you didn't check this other product and now you are making me test my product. That's unfair and I'm going to throw a tantrum". You say that Canadian farmers are "saying" they are making money from GM foods but this seems to be in contradiction from the facts of the 10 year study of Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of PG Economics in a paper published in December (http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm) as yes, they made a profit and after paying for the technology to Monsanto they made a loss.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 8:28:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brookes and Barfoot state that the average technology cost to Canadian farmers has been $C44.03 per hectare per year. Savings in imput costs for growers adopting GM have been $39 per hectare per year. They also state that there has been a 10.7% yield increase per year for growers of GM canola.

Canadian canola growers have average 1.46 T/ha over the past 10 years and achieved an average price of $C372/T. A 10.7% yield increase is a handy $54.31 per hectare bonus that more than offsets the $C5 extra cost of the technology. Over an average of 150 hectares per grower, this comes to over $C8000 extra profit for a grower.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 9:27:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie NONGMFarmer Newman: You need to retract your claim from 2 January that “Every poll done has shown that the majority of farmers do not want GM” . I don’t think that is true even in regions of WA, eg., news reports from Esperance, but results from Vic on December 20 prove otherwise. The tide is turning.

I have deleted some comments on differences between men and women in this story to keep within 350 words.

WEEKLY TIMES

Survey backs GM crops

Peter Hemphill

December 20, 2005

A survey of Western District farmers has given strong backing to genetically modified crops.

Cropping research group Southern Farming Systems surveyed 225 farmers …… attending its recent field days at Inverleigh, Yalla-Y-Poora and Hamilton.

But, despite the backing for GM crops, SFS executive officer Col Hacking said the results did not mean the research group would get involved in the testing of GM crops.

''We are yet to decide (on GM crop research),'' Mr Hacking said.

''We need to make that decision at a board level.

''But we probably need to survey our Tasmanian and South Australian members as well.

''This has just been a fact-finding exercise; we thought we had to be proactive.''

The survey is believed to be the first conducted of Victorian farmers.

SFS members were asked three questions:

Should SFS get involved in GM testing?

Would you grow GM material if there was a profit advantage?

Would you grow GM material if it meant a reduction in pesticide use?

On whether SFS should involve itself in GM research, 80 per cent of all respondents said ''yes'' while 19 per cent were opposed, with 1 per cent undecided.

For the question on growing GM crops if there was a profit advantage, 75 per cent of all respondents were in favour and 24 per cent against.

For the third question on pesticide advantages, 80 per cent of all farmers said ''yes'' and 18 per cent ''no''.

Women were again less convinced with the arguments, with 71 per cent in favour and 25 per cent saying they would not grow the crop.
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 9:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the Brookes and Barfoot report, read the table and this is what it says: Cost of technology = $/ha $44.03. Cost savings EXCLUDING cost of technology + sources =$/ha $39. Where are you getting your figures from? This is what the table says, read it. That means that the farmer is out of pocket $5.03 surely if you do the sums. The SFS members where asked if there is a profit advantage and there is not, so their answers would change. The increase in yield would have to look at the seasons not just your so called wonderful GM. Farmers yields change yearly according to the weather and this should be in all reports of the GM industry that is patting themselves on the back for higher yields. I want to know what the yields are in a drought or flood and then show me how wonderful your so called GM is. And I want it compared to exactly the same conditions of a non-GM crop and shown if there is a difference and a non-biased supervisor to make sure there is no watering of GM plants in drought conditions. Are you disputing what non-GM farmer is saying when the figures are in front of everyone?
I’m not alone with consumers and we shouldn’t be forced to eat GM which is why we should not be ignored in policy. I am interested in the safety of GM as I’m not a farmer, I’m a consumer and guess what, we are the ones that pay for quality food as we are the end of the line and we don't want potential biohazards as our food. We do not care about technology that has been manipulated to suit Corporations needs. We want the true answers to “Is GM Really Safe” and we want the knowledge that we can choose non-GM and know that it is completely free of GM which is an impossibility factor as far I am concerned due to contamination.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 3:01:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

You are ignoring many questions, and providing answers that are either without independent corroboration or confusing.

I’ll start with Carracher as an example. You have made all sorts of statements about Carracher but never directly and explicitly answered my questions (just as a politician would). Again as you did on 5 December, you have asserted that NCF member Carracher “has already experienced losses. His testing cost him $1200”. I asked on 6 December and I’ll ask again now, “Who required any testing from Geoffrey Carracher?” It’s a bit too convenient that he (or an ally like Greenpeace or GeneEthics) spent the money and NCF made a media case out of it; that’s simply a setup. On 7 December, you stated that “Geoffrey Carracher tested his seed because farmers are expected to sign a guarantee they have no GM contamination and that we will accept liability if there is.” Fine; who then actually asked for the tests? Give us a name.

Further, I have been asking since Dec 5 for an estimate of what Carracher has lost in the market. You now state that “Carracher could not sell his canola when he knew it was contaminated”. Who refused to buy it? And in fact, as you allude, the Federal and State governments instituted a tolerance. So again, what did Carracher actually lose in the market? Don’t give me more polemics about companies, please just answer specifically and directly the same “critical issue” questions I have been asking for a month. Otherwise, we’ll all have to assume that no one in fact specifically asked Carracher for a test, it was fishing expedition voluntarily undertaken by Carracher (perhaps with a suggestion from someone else), and that in any case, he has had no problem selling his canola for his usual market price. Further, since the government now allows a tolerance, there is no longer a need for anyone to test unless they think GM is above that level. Problem solved.

Here’s a question you’ve ignored: After 9 years and millions of ha planted, has any farmer sued another over GM?
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 3:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it really safe?, I did read the table (Table 1) in Brookes and Barfoot’s paper. The Table has 5 columns. Column 3, headed “Yield effect”, describes the positive or negative impact on yield of growing the GM technology. Column 4, headed “Cost of technology ($/ha)” describes the seed and/or technology cost to the grower. Column 5, headed “Cost savings excluding cost of technology and sources”, describes the cost savings to growers including, but not limited to, pesticide, tillage, fertilizer and application costs. The yield increase for growers of GM canola in Canada is given as 10.7%. This is a real benefit to farmers that you choose to ignore so you can say that GM canola is less profitable. When the effects of the increased yield are included, farmers are not out of pocket at all, but are making almost $C50 per hectare more. Look at Table 4. Brookes and Barfoot estimate that GM canola across Canada and the US resulted in $US135 million in extra farm income in 2004.

In Canada, GM canola invariably performs better than non-GM canola. The 2005 PCVT are just out (www.canola-coincil.org/PDF/Variety_Trials_1-7.pdf). They show the highest yielding non-GM variety was equal 11th in yield among all varieties in the short season zone and equal 5th in the mid-season zone. The best yielding non-GM variety in the long-season zone was equal 7th in yield. All 3 Liberty Link canola varieties out-yielded the best performing non-GM variety by 15-18% in the short season zone, by 12 to 17% in the mid-season zone and by 8 to 16% in the long season zone.

There is a lot of tinkering with plant DNA. Almost all plant species that we eat have sometime in past been crossed with a plant species we don’t eat with lots of DNA introduced. Atrazine-resistant canola was created in Canada by crossing an atrazine-resistant weed with canola. Many of the plant species we eat have also been subject to mutagenesis with radiation or chemicals changing the DNA in many places. Should we demand human testing of all these foods? If not, why not?
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 5 January 2006 7:48:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it Safe: "Back to the Brookes and Barfoot report, read the table and this is what it says: Cost of technology = $/ha $44.03. Cost savings EXCLUDING cost of technology + sources =$/ha $39. Where are you getting your figures from? This is what the table says, read it. That means that the farmer is out of pocket $5.03 surely if you do the sums."

No the farmer is NOT necessarily out of pocket. What is being missed here by Is it Safe is the REVENUE side of economics, which is boosted by yield increases INDEPENDANTLY of any costs. That is why all the claims of better GM crop economics fit so well with clearly increased yields from GM hybrid canola. The story of a better cost equation is also played out by detailed cost data for GM cotton in India published by Reading University workers and which is available on the GMO pundit website
Posted by d, Thursday, 5 January 2006 9:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel, you might find this press release issued by Greenpeace last October illuminating. It can be found at http://www.greenpeace.org.au/media/ge_canola_details.php?site_id=55&news_id=1812 and also at http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2474. The latter is Julie Newman's website.

To quote:

“First Australian farmer falls prey to GE contamination

Thursday, 06 October, 2005 : The first confirmed case of genetically engineered (GE) contamination in a field of commercial canola has struck a Victorian farmer. The incident opens up a legal mine-field for farmers and threatens Australian export markets.

Geoffrey Carracher, a Canola farmer from Wimmera, accepted a Greenpeace offer to test his canola seeds at an independent lab. The seeds were found to be contaminated with Bayer's Liberty Link gene at a level of 0.5%."

It did not cost anything for Carracher to get his crop tested. Greenpeace did it for him.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 5 January 2006 9:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I have said before, I am not a farmer and don’t know the technical things that you are trying to impress on me with your yield estimates so I am leaving that to non-GM farmer to go through with you later. What you say that has happened for years as mutagenisis that you say has been done with radiation or chemicals. This has happened with natural mutation and speeding up the process within the same plant kingdom. But GM is cross-kingdom interruption of the DNA by forcing a gene through bacteria bombardment that could disrupt the DNA sequence. This is very unstable and should be pointed out.

By cross-kingdom changes in the DNA, it produces allergens that were not allergens in the same kingdom. Look at the bean and pea example as according to GM Corporations, it was meant to be safe, but it produced allergens that were not in either the bean or pea. It created completely different allergens and had to be recalled. We did not need to demand human testing on the same plant kingdom but we should be demanding human testing if the DNA structure is being changed from cross-kingdom bombardment with a risk of transference to human DNA. GM is forcing and interrupting the DNA sequence with unstable foreign genes into the DNA structure itself in the hope that it would stick somewhere along the DNA strand. This has the potential to be very much a biohazard with unstable cross-kingdom bacterial genes crossing over to the human kingdom DNA
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 5 January 2006 3:09:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

Here are more questions that have gone unanswered.

Other than Starlink, how many cases, and for how much money, have there been any documented claims of losses to GM “contamination” from farmers anywhere in the world?

Other than for Starlink (where the pay-outs exceeded US $110 million), how many cases have there been of farmers suing any one else?

In 2004’s ” Co-existence in North American agriculture, Brookes & Barfoot argue there have been no significant economic or commercial problems (www.pgeconomics.co.uk) at least in part because farmers talk things out ahead of time, despite more organic farms and relatively smaller farms than we have in Australia. Can’t we do the same?

Do you accept that Spain, Portugal, France and Germany now grow GM corn, and feed large quantities of GM corn and soy to their livestock? That Japan imports large quantities of GM from Canada and the US?

What if GM varieties become so popular that 90% of the canola crop is GM. Would you still require that all burdens for containment are on the GM growers instead of cooperatively? If so, doesn’t that constitute tyranny by the minority?

I understand that you won’t use a herbicide if it doesn’t work, but you have not directly answered my question “Will you keep using TT canola if atrazine resistance is found in annual ryegrass on your property?” Perhaps I need to spell this out more specifically; isn’t annual ryegrass only one of the weeds you deal with? If resistance developed only in ryegrass, would you keep using atrazine (and simizine, since they are related) for other weeds?

Where is this significant premium and demand for non-GM soy, and what is your source of information for that, especially for oil?

Who and where are there paying customers wanting guarantees that there is no GM canola present? Do you or any other members of NCF sell to such customers now? After 9 years of GM canola production in Canada, how big are these markets for Australia in terms of dollar value or a percentage of the Australian crop?
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 5 January 2006 5:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it really Safe 's worries also apply to non-GM food: see eg
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2006/news06.jan.htm#jan0603

"Cellini et al.2 have considered transgene integration in the context of naturally occurring DNA recombination. It is well known that genetic variation is the cornerstone of plant breeding. Natural chromosomal recombination plays a central role in generating new variation. Non-homologous end joining, which is the predominant form of recombination in plants, rarely occurs without any sequence alterations, and usually gives rise to deletions of up to more than 1 kb and introduction of new filler DNA. Since the double-strand break repair system involved in recombination is more error-prone in plants than in other organisms, errors that change the original sequence occur at a very high frequency. The fact that gene-rich regions (and genes) are hotspots for recombination has facilitated the emergence of novel characteristics in crop plants.

Integration of exogenous DNA (transgene) occurs via the same mechanism as natural recombination. Several types of rearrangements are thus observed, both in transgene integration sites and in natural recombination sites. While this mechanism provides a selection of natural variation for breeders, it is also a source of unintended effects similar to that in genetically engineered crop plants.

In the light of variation generated by natural recombination and by the repertoire of conventional breeding technologies exploited for decades, the question is how much variation in the overall genetic makeup of a crop plant might be generated by the transfer and integration of a single gene, compared to the variation already existing...

...we made a comparative analysis of eight GM lines of potato, including vector-only lines without the target gene.3 Nine of 730 proteins showed statistically significant differences among the GM lines and controls. No new proteins that would be unique to the individual GM lines were observed. The conclusion from this study, supported by the EU-funded GMOCARE project, was that there was no evidence for any major changes in protein patterns of the GM lines tested."

Should we therefore stop all crop breeding, even though stopping it will cause long term harm to food security?
Posted by d, Friday, 6 January 2006 7:52:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/repair-of-damaged-dna-eg-radiation.html

Is it really safe?, there are numerous examples of natural DNA changes in plant chromosomes. They arise frequently in plants repair of broken DNA strands, such as the DNA strand breaks formed during exposure of plants to radiation.(see link above)

This constantly occuring natural genetic diversity poses numerous hypothetical risks in the form unexpected, untested, novel DNA configurations. Extensively altered diverse chromosomesare found if you look for them in natural populations of plants, e.g. in maize varieties found world wide. These risks are all generated during natural evolution.

The question I have for "Is it Really Safe" is which would do more harm:

1. Continuing to take these "risks"?
2. Stopping all introduction of genetic novelty into the food supply until it is proved to be safe?
Posted by d, Friday, 6 January 2006 9:58:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmerNewman:

On 23 December you stated “I have no problem with glyphosate, the article concerned clearly explains that any chemical has risk, it is a defence of atrazine which is a target by pro-GM activists.”

Atrazine is a target of many environmentalists, including those of us who were won over by GM crops on their environmental benefits.

Here are other questions not yet answered.

In government, most research proposals are funded in a competitive process of some kind, not due to lobbying. Isn’t that a good practice?

Do you believe that all sources on the web or elsewhere are equally expert, whatever their qualifications?

Why would CSIRO bother to submit data to government for the pea project, when the proposal to release would be so obviously be rejected? Isn’t self-assessment by researchers acceptable?

FSANZ has commented on this, by the way at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/mediareleasespublications/factsheets/factsheets2005/geneticallymodifiedf3097.cfm

“FSANZ has not conducted any safety assessment of the peas since
they are still in research and development, nor has any data been
submitted to FSANZ for assessment. However, CSIRO approached FSANZ
several years ago to obtain advice on the type of data they would need
to support an application to FSANZ to approve the peas for human
consumption. FSANZ gave advice to conduct studies to, amongst other
things, fully characterise the novel protein and in particular to
determine its potential for toxicity and allergenicity in line with
internationally accepted guidelines……

“While the significance of the research results for
human allergenicity is not clear, the CSIRO has decided to end the
research program. This type of situation is not unique to the
development of GMOs - the development of conventionally bred, non-GM
plants have also been terminated when unexpected or adverse effects have
been detected.”


No one can find any difference at all between canola oils from conventional and GM crops. There is no DNA or protein left. What would you look for in a feeding trial?

As I noted on 21 December, “you still have not offered evidence for your claims against Fitzgerald” that she claimed you were funded by Greenpeace. Can you show us evidence?
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 6 January 2006 10:53:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ms. Newman:

I understand that you asked me on 23 December “Do you however think it is fair that the existing non-GM industry must take the steps required to prevent contamination of their crops by the “newcomer” of GM crops?”

I am glad that you now understand that the red corn grower had not taken steps to protect his investment against any yellow corn.

However, asking whether it is “fair that the existing non-GM industry must take the steps required to prevent contamination of their crops by the “newcomer” of GM crops?” is like asking what I think about the “boat people” parents who threw their children overboard. Despite the pre-election Howard government propaganda, we know that no children were thrown overboard, so it’s a misleading question.

Similarly, it’s misleading to ask whether “the existing non-GM industry must take THE steps required” for identity preservation or whatever. Cross-pollination has been an issue for ag for decades, yet growers have worked it out cooperatively. It seems that only this adversarial relationship driven by activism against GM crops has made this a political issue, but it has not been a real issue on farm, other than for Starlink, which has been financially settled, especially with growers.

One of the reasons the anti-GM ordinance in Sonoma county lost here recently is that the campaigners couldn’t produce a single farmer who had actually had trouble with a neighbor growing a GM crop, despite the fact that they managed to enlist various anti-GM personalities to campaign in the county, including Percy Schmeiser (though not Prince Charles, though he visited only a a few dozen miles away just days before the election). We have heavily organic regions in California (such as Sonoma County), Iowa and Minnesota where there a lot of organic and GM corn growing in close proximity for nearly 10 years now, without problems. Growers talk to each other and work it out, like they have worked out other issues (weed and pest contamination, pesticides, etc) for more than 50 years. (continued below).
Posted by Rick Roush, Monday, 9 January 2006 9:07:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MsNewman:
If you think otherwise, find the documentation. I certainly have asked organic activists for it, including in Sonoma county, In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle, a fairly left wing and important newspaper in the US, after hearing both sides of arguments, explicitly rejected the anti-GM claims, concluding that “modern agriculture employs an array of techniques to protect the purity and integrity of crops. Some large operations have fields of organic, genetically modified and conventional crops on the very same farm.” As the editorial shows, Dave Henson and the other anti-GM proponents had their chance to provide evidence of problems, and didn’t.(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/02/EDG9UFH1P01.DTL)

Despite the various claims on the internet, Professor Drew Kershen of the University of Oklahoma has researched this issue and concluded “There have been no lawsuits of farmer vs farmer for adventitious presence (called "contamination" by activists) of transgenic crops in other crops. None, anywhere in the world.” And he knows of your claims: “Julie Newman of Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia is threatening to file a farmer v farmer lawsuit - but it is only a threat at this point in time.” In short, you seem to be about the only such complainant in the world.

As far as I can tell, no one has had a case on which to sue companies either, except for obvious political reasons.

By the way, Tom Abate, a Chronicle writer, interviewed Schmeiser, and wrote: “Simply put, Percy Schmeiser is not quite the innocent victim he makes
himself out to be. The impression he conveyed during our lengthy meeting was
that Monsanto's seeds had drifted over from adjoining fields like so many
snowflakes, and then sprouted on his land unbidden. After reading the court
transcripts and speaking with Schmeiser's lawyer, I think it's a bit more
complicated. ….. Schmeiser, who saves seed from each harvest to plant the
next crop, apparently saved some of the Monsanto seed. He seems to have figured
that any plant that grew on his land belonged to him, as did its seed…... But he knew that some of his saved seed carried the Monsanto brand.”
Posted by Rick Roush, Monday, 9 January 2006 9:09:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don’t seem to understand what GM is if you think GM is natural. Bacteria don’t normally breed with canola nor do fish with tomatos or humans with rice or any other strange unnatural cross-kingdom breeding. Farmers are proud people especially in Australia and look after their neighbours and Monsanto know it and prey on this. Aren’t American farmers draining the American economy from subsidies? Wouldn’t this make the American president prey on puppy dog Howard to “Go for GM as we won’t hurt our allies”? Starlink is a prime example of GM and contamination occurring. Isn’t organic a growing industry in Australia? Have you got proof that it’s not? Schmeiser isn’t the only farmer that has had contamination who wanted to grow and sell non-GM and found that they couldn’t. How can a farmer remove GM contamination from their non GM crop? Look at the other side of the coin. I am a consumer and I want non-GM. How are you going to give me non-GM and I mean non-GM with no contamination at all? What right do you have to contaminate every farm with your product as you have done with the seed that was sold to Australian farmers under the guise of not knowing that it was GM? This is Australia and I have the right to non-GM as it is not known the long term effects or safety on humans. Or are the big chemical companies only interested in controlling all canola because it is a potential fuel source.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 13 January 2006 6:41:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Organisms don't have to interbred for us to share genes. A very large number of genes are shared among any comparison of organisms as a direct consequence of evolution from shared ancestors.

The war in Iraq is a far larger source of drain on the US economy than crop subsidies. I doubt that George Bush even thinks of GM crops, much less talks with Howard about them.

Who and where are these other farmers who have "had contamination who wanted to grow and sell non-GM and found that they couldn’t?"

I made contact with the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) recently. Despite continued monitoring, there has been no positive test since October 2004 for Starlink.
Posted by Rick Roush, Monday, 16 January 2006 11:38:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the claims were accurate that GM canola has increased yields in Canada by over 10%, statistics would show that the average yield would progressively go up in proportion to the adoption of GM with relevence to seasonal conditions. However, this has not occurred, when GM canola was introduced, average Canadian yields did not go up, they went down and have now come up to the level that they were pre-GM. Even though Canada is more suited to favour the post emergent benefit of GM canola, they have not had an increase in yields, not a decrease (based on ha and production statistics) http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2530

The GM canola varieties that are GM by adding a Monsanto gene, are not released in non-GM form to be allowed to make accurate comparisons and farmers are restricted from growing trials because it is a condition on the contracts.

GM canola benefits are no different except that they are resistant to different chemicals than our triazine tolerant varieties or Clearfield varieties. GM canola will not increase yield just because it is GM! The chemicals GM crops are resistant to are not necessarily value for money as non-GM alternative chemicals may be more effective and cheaper. For example, glufosinate ammonium does not control radish despite being astronomically expensive.

If you look at the Canadian Canola Council survey that favoured GM claiming yields of over 10% were from GM crops, you will also find that these farmers applied more fertiliser which would give a very good reason why yields are higher. The total yield data more accurately reflects the truth about yields.

The farmer survey concerned asked the question "Would you grow GM material if there was a profit advantage?" which is deliberately misleading. There has been no evidence of a profit advantage to date and until there is, you can not claim that a Yes to this question means a Yes to accepting GM canola in Australia.

Rebel-?Hudson: Give a scientific reason why GM canola should increase yields more than non-GM chemical resistant varieties other than for the weed control the chemical resistance offers.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 16 January 2006 1:52:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Starlink corn is a good example of how extremely difficult and expensive recall is. Recall of StarLink corn cost the food industry an estimated US$1 billion (Rodemeyer). "Three years after StarLink corn was banned for human consumption, U.S. government still finds small amounts of StarLink in more than 1% of samples tested." Dec 2003- (San Jose Mercury News)
The last report I was aware was in Guatemala in Oct 2004. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2023

The astronomical cost and problems associated with recall of Starlink should make our industry far more cautious about releasing a product that can not be mixed with our food crops.

Why should farmers pay any testing, recall or market loss associated with contamination? Why shouldn't the GM industry take this responsibility for their product?

Rick, the American organic industry accepts contamination levels up to 5% whereas the Australian organic industry does not allow any GM because this demand is dictated by consumer preference. We are conventional growers and do not see why we need to go to the same costs and hassles associated with the closed loop market system (similar to organics), testing, quality assurance and identity preservation associated with selling as GM-free which is what our markets prefer.

We don't want contamination of our existing GM-free crop, why should we pay for the losses caused by it? Australia has the envied position to learn from other countries mistakes. We need to keep GM contained rather than try to keep GM-free separate.

Yes, we will be setting a legal precedent by taking legal action against the GM-farmer as this is the immediate recommended first course of action to defend ourselves. We are already gradually gathering evidence of a far bigger class action against the GM company.

If legal redress fails, farmers should be compensated by the government because it is the government that has taken steps to protect the GM industry. Good governance is about ensuring that the activities of one sector of the community do not unfairly burden another sector of the community without fair redress.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 16 January 2006 4:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Canola yields are affected by weather conditions as well as by genetics and management decisions. There are a number of ways that herbicide tolerant canola could increase crop yields. This should be obvious given the penchant for Australian growers to use Atrazine resistant canola. Firstly, better weed control by reducing competition would increase yields. Secondly, more-timely sowing due to not having to cultivate as often to control weeds will also increase yields.

The fact that you can’t see the increase in canola yields in Canada is because you are not looking. The highest ever average yield was 32.6 Bu/acre in 2005 (see http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html). The previous highest average yield was 28.2 Bu/acre in 1999. The four highest yield years all occurred since the introduction of GM canola into Canada. The highest pre 1996 yield was 25.4 Bu/acre in 1987.

If “The total yield data more accurately reflects the truth about yields”, is the Australian canola industry in trouble? According to Ausstats http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/pubscat?OpenView&StartKey=7121.0&ExpandView), the two best years for Australian canola yields were 1996/7 and 1995/6. On your arguments Australian canola yields have gone backwards over the last 7 years. Could it be due to failure to adopt GM canola do you think?

Farmers apply fertilizer to match the yield potential of the crop. More fertilizer means more yield potential. Too much fertilizer creates overly lush growth that uses water too fast and reduces yields. So growers of transgenic canola applied 7% more fertilizer (costing less than $2 an acre) for a 10% yield gain (worth $15 an acre). Seems a fair trade-off to me. If you had a higher yield potential, you too could apply more fertilizer.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 9:07:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The GM farmer "benefit" is only chemical resistance which allows post emergent spraying of a specific chemical that will not kill the crop. GM canola is resistant to glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup Ready) or glufosinate-ammonium (Bayer Cropsciences Invigor/Liberty) in the same manner that our non-GM canola is resistant to triazine (TT) or imidazolinone (Clearfield). Only one gene is transferred to produce chemical resistance.

So farmers need to compare the cost difference and effectiveness in weed control. Radish is our worst weed in canola and we know glyphosate is not very effective on radish and glufosinate ammonium doesn't kill it at all.

Farmers need to compare costs but Monsanto will not tell farmers what these costs are and Bayer Cropscience expects farmers to pay an astronomical $16/kg for seed and $72/ha for the chemical. We will be paying more to get less weed control.

You can't fight the facts Agronomist:

Statistics: Canada:
http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html

Yield/t/ha
1996-1.499
1997-1.299
1998-1.136
1999-1.398
2000-1.499
2001-1.299
2002-1.299
2003-1.400
2004-1.598

Canada: Since GM adoption 96-04, the average yield is 1.38t/ha with the highest (better seasonal conditions) being 1.598 t/ha.

Australian statistics:
http://www.australianoilseeds.com/info/industry_facts_and_figures

2000-1.26
2001-1.42
2002-0.81
2003-1.61
2004-1.36

Australia: 2000-2004, the average yield is 1.29t/ha with the highest (better seasonal conditions) being 1.61 t/ha.

Both Canada and Australia had excellent seasonal conditions this year and the yields are high but statistics are not yet released for Australia.

You will note that the yield for Canada is more consistent due to less variation in seasonal conditions but Australia has experienced a series of serious droughts that have slashed canola yields. Drought is nothing to do with GM.

An increase in costs rather than yields does not equate to a benefit to farmers!

We can't make decisions based solely on trial data where farmers have used more fertiliser, planted or slashed at inopportune times etc.

Do you agree that we need independent contained performance trials to assess GM canola against our commonly used varieties, using the same standard farming practices amongst the standard weeds we are likely to experience?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 3:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoffrey Carracher paid for further testing after the generous Greenpeace funded testing of his seed was positive (and slandered as a "publicity-stunt"). He did a tissue test so that he could find if the crop would be GM or not. If it was negative, he could sign his GM-free contract knowing he wasn't breaking the law and the GM seed was killed by the triazine he used. Unfortunately, it was positive which revealed that this was a gene-stacked crop where the GM contamination was now resistant to both glufosinate AND triazines (it would have died if it was not resistant to triazine).

Your comments claiming positive testing was a "setup" is ridiculous. Contamination of Grace was confirmed by the industry. The Victorian DPI revealed that the contamination of Grace occurred during the bulk up phase in Tasmania near OGTR trials of Topas19/2.

Another ridiculous statement "there is no longer a need for anyone to test unless they think GM is above that level. Problem solved.". How exactly would we know if it is above that level without testing and what tests? ABB and the Grainpool policy confirm some markets prefer no GM and this is a market advantage. Testing will be far more rigorous if GM is introduced but accepting contamination means we need to now pay to test to find what level is present.

Unfortunately, there are no field tests available to quantify the amount of GM contamination present, yet farmers are already required to sign contracts guaranteeing we do not have any GM contamination or no contamination beyond a certain level. Farmers are doing testing because like any sensible person, we don't sign contracts with a statement we are not sure about especially if we are to accept liability if our guess is wrong. Why should we be expected to sign contracts blind? Why should we accept contamination if we are to be liable for it?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 6:57:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What piffle!

Average canola yields in Canada in the 7 years from 1999, when GM canola became 50% of all canola grown, to 2005 were 26.7 Bu/acre including the drought years of 2001 and 2002. This equates to 1.50 T/ha in your terms. Average canola yields in the 10 years prior to the introduction of GM canola in 1996 was 22.8 Bu/acre. That is more than a 15% increase. Yields of canola have increased in Canada and some of that increase is a result of the adoption of GM crops. 2005 was the best ever year with 32.6 Bu/acre - this is 1.83 T/ha.

Australian canola yields sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (perhaps you could explain to me why the Australian Oilseed Federation should be preferred to Government statistics? Particularly when it is not stated how the former were obtained):

1995/1996 1.48 T/ha
1996/1997 1.53 T/ha
1997/1998 1.22 T/ha
1998/1999 1.36 T/ha
1999/2000 1.29 T/ha
2000/2001 1.22 T/ha
2001/2002 1.32 T/ha
2002/2003 0.67 T/ha
2003/2004 1.41 T/ha

It seems to me that canola yields in Australia are lower now than they were in 1995-1997, unlike the situation in Canada.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 9:29:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist-Crabtree, even your own 2003/2004 statistics (?link). This years yields do not support your claim that yields are declining, it only proves your unwillingness to face the truth. Graph the data for clarity.
Seasonal conditions account for the major drop in yields we have seen in Australia as we have had serious drought during the years of low yield, it is nothing to do with not being GM. I know farmers that have yielded around 3t/ha this year and I have not heard of any real failure areas so this years statistics will be well above our previous averages.
New varieties are released every year claiming to be better than the last, we need to look at why GM would actually give a yield advantage.
The new Non-GM Triazine tolerant hybrids will probably have more vigour than the Bayer Cropscience GM hybrid (claimed to be less vigour than conventional non-GM hybrids) and the chemical will probably be more effective on weeds.
With Roundup Ready GM, a gene is added to an existing variety and you only have resistance to chemical and it is only weed control that will be improved. "The Scientist" explained that Roundup Ready varieties experience a yield penalty as the chemical sits in the meristems and remains active affecting reproduction. Trials of the variety before and after adding GM and one/two/three applications of glyphosate will assess exactly how much yield penalty is associated with this.
If a farmer controls their weeds properly now, they shouldn't see any improvement in weed control but you will probably see an increase in radish which markets object to. What chemical would you recommend to control radish post emergent in a GM crop?
Do you agree that we need small scale independent trials to assess yield comparison? Trials of current popular varieties (not old superceded varieties) that will be planted at normal times using normal farming practices and not involving planting Non-GM twice as thick to hamper production, not watered, not swathed at inopportune times etc.
Are you for or against independent performance trials, you refuse to answer the question?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 3:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can find the link at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/pubscat?OpenView&StartKey=7121.0&ExpandView. I gave this two posts back.

Even in 2003/2004, average yields of Australian canola had not reached the levels from the mid 1990s. Yields in Canada are going ahead despite droughts. How do you explain the discrepancy?

Either "The Scientist" is wrong or you have misconscrued what they have said. Roundup Ready canola contains a gene for an enzyme that breaks down glyphosate (http://www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/ofb-094-325-a.pdf). There would be no glyphosate left to build up in the reproductive tissue.

I absolutely agree that trials need to be conducted. This is done every year in Canada and the US and the GM varieties come out on top every year. Why don't you allow them this year? Perhaps you should also let some farmers in Australia see the trials as well so they can make up their own minds?
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 20 January 2006 9:03:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie Newman NCF and GMO pundit / Tribe discussed vitamin A enhanced rice (Golden Rice) quite a few entries back.

A recent news report from India:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/golden-rice-near-market-approval-in.html

suggests that this rice - a central part of my essay - is now close to commercial release, which is not the impression Julie had gotten. I really hope the latest news is true.

BTW Re-reading all the comments on my essay, I'm pleased that so few of the comments challenge the arguments and ideas in the original On Line Opinion. And debate about all the rest is just great.

cheers and thanks
GMO Pundit aka David Tribe
Posted by d, Friday, 20 January 2006 10:10:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it safe.
"You don’t seem to understand what GM is if you think GM is natural. Bacteria don’t normally breed with canola nor do fish with tomatos or humans with rice or any other strange unnatural cross-kingdom breeding."

There are two points that can be made- first, natural is no measure of safety.

Second, breeding and conventional sex is not the only way genes move around.

There are natural mechanism to relocate and transmit genes between species and within species. There is solid evidence this occurs frequently in nature, and particularly rich evidence for plants. Many of the mechanisms in natural gene moment have been detected, and many probably are still to be recognised. Viruses are just one mechanism for natural gene movement between species. In the ocean they are the most numerous organism. Natural gene movement is probably a major generator of genetic diversity.

In short, all the noise about GM involving things that never occur in nature is uninformed bunkum. If you believe it, you "should get out more".

Key words to check this: transposon, helitrons, mariner, horizontal gene movement, integrons, conjugation, viruses.
Posted by d, Friday, 20 January 2006 10:24:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let’s look at samples of possibility of problems with GM as a biohazard. Let’s look at Omega 3 as you think this would be marvelous to get all the poor countries into having it to stop their deficiencies. I am interested in the long term effects and effects it has if you change the DNA to admit Omega 3 into whatever you are trying to bombard it with. The University of Maryland Medical Center Research on Omega 3 http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Omega3FattyAcidscs.html#HowToTake “However, people who eat more than three grams of omega-3 fatty acids per day (equivalent to 3 servings of fish per day) may be at an increased risk for hemorrhagic stroke, a potentially fatal type of stroke in which an artery in the brain leaks or ruptures”. And another part of the same report “However, in an animal study of rats with metastatic colon cancer (in other words, cancer that has spread to other parts of the body such as the liver), omega-3 fatty acids actually promoted the growth of cancer cells in the liver. Until more information is available, it is best for people with advanced stages of colorectal cancer to avoid omega-3 fatty acid supplements and diets rich in this substance”. Your tests show when you give animals your enriched Omega 3 GM they become healthier. Did you grain feed these animals or let them eat grass as the Omega 3 count is larger in grass eating animals. There are major implications of what you will be bombarding into GM product as there are the problems associated with too much of Omega 3 can cause problems in some people. How would you know if people are not finding that the heart patients are dying off for no particular reasons would not be caused by GM bombardment of Omega 3 into their diet and increasing it to a dangerous level? I want the choice to avoid GM that’s all.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 20 January 2006 6:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking at the statistics it's the same except that Australia had the droughts not Canada. Please provide evidence of Canadian drought of the same severity as the Australian droughts.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 20 January 2006 6:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isit Safe: Re Omega3 you misunderstand my remarks, possibly confusing vitamin A and omega3. I do not propose anything other than oils with omega3 in them, which would pose the same health issues as fish oil. As far as your comments about adverse efects of omeg3, anyone reading the link you quote will realise how highly selective your few sentances are, and that your concerns, which in my view are not troublesome, apply equally to GM and non GM omeg3.

New paper in EU J Agronomy: Gm pollen cross-contamination is manageable
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T67-4GFNGCS-1&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2006&_alid=357065127&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5023&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6b5124151af939bf79214d6d8c8898ea

The outcrossing of transgenic oilseed rape in the neighbourhood is of major concern with regard to the actual EU labelling threshold of 0.9% for transgenic contamination in food and feed and the regulations for the co-existence of cultivation of genetically modified crops, conventional and organic farming. In a two-year field trial, the outcrossing frequencies and distribution from plots with different ratios of transgenic plants (100%, 1.0% and 0.1%) containing the pat-gene for resistance towards the broad-range herbicide glufosinate-ammonium were determined in surrounding acceptor plots within a distance of 3–11 m. Randomly distributed outcrossing with isolated pollination events became apparent, and an average gene flow of 0.28%, 0.01% and 0.0065% was detected for 100%, 1.0% and 0.1% transgenic donor plots, respectively. Significant effects on the distribution of outcrossing were found for distance, but not for the prevailing wind direction. The random distribution in combination with the behaviour of honey-bees and bumble-bees gives strong evidence that insects play an important role for short distance gene dispersal. A curve fit assuming an exponential decline was performed with the experimental outcrossing data as a function of distance and was applied to the actual EU labelling threshold. The contamination limit of 0.9% in food and feed could be kept without cultivation distances to the transgenic source. The impact of effective detection limits of analytical methods on the establishment of specific rules for the co-existence is discussed.
Posted by d, Saturday, 21 January 2006 3:47:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, you are still ignoring statistics. The yields in Australia are similar to Canada except for depression during droughts.
A graph of the statistics from ABARE and the Canadia statistics make it very clear that there is no evidence of yield improvement linked with the adoption of GM crops in Canada.
Farming practises in Australia have changed over the last 10 years. Rather than canola being a year in year out crop in high yielding areas, it is now a widely adopted crop used in continual cropping. Yields will of course be considerably less in marginal areas and considerably less if it is part of a continual cropping regime rather than as a stand-alone crop or after a legume crop for example.
Pollen is only a small reason for contamination with other causes including storage and handling, farm practises (seeding, harvesting etc), animals (both wild and stock grazing stubbles and carrying GM canola in their faeces to deposit seed miles away) etc etc.
My debate is that the GM grower should be responsible for keeping GM contained, not the non-GM grower responsible for keeping GM out.

Isitsafe makes a very good point regarding GM crops bred for introduction of additives. Some consumers are not deficient in those vitamins or minerals and do not want to be overdosed with them.
Golden Rice producing Vit A for example may be safe for a Vit A deficiency, but explorers on the arctic died with an overdose of Vit A caused by eating the vitamin rich livers of their sled dogs.
There is no control over adding only one gene and many genes may be added and many times the intended dose could be present in the food consumers eat.

The key issue is that consumers should have the right to choose not to eat GM crops (with additives etc) but if it is too expensive and too difficult to segregate, the choice will be denied by both farmers and consumers. There is no recall strategy in place and this should be a condition of license.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 22 January 2006 11:29:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say that I am mixing up what you said and I disbelieve this but we will look at Vitamin A with overdosing. http://www.vitamin-supplement-reference.com/vitamin-A.html will show you the side effects with toxicity associated with overdose. With Vitamin A, you have to remember also that it is only fat soluble and overdose can occur over long periods as the body stores it in fat content and over time will build up the toxicity. “Acute toxicity occurs after accidental ingestion of a single large dose (100,000-300,000 UI). Patient will present headache, vomiting and stupor because of intracranial pressure. But remember that chronic toxicity may also occur in patients with liver disease or in adults who takes in excess of 50,000 UI every day during a long time period. Signs and symptoms are: hair loss, anorexia, nausea, fatigue, gingivitis and dry skin. Pregnant women must avoid vitamin A supplementation because of risk of birth defects. The same recommendation is for women who are breast-feeding an infant”.

If you have a normal diet and have your vitamin quota, when GM food has been bombarded with Omega 3 or Vitamin A, the side effects will be rife. You will not know how many parts of the additive are actually in the grain attached to the DNA. With you saying that I have selectively taken from the website of Omega 3, then you should see that I have looked at the side effects of overdosing and I said this. I am mainly interested in the safety of GM for humans. I have looked at the side effects only. Yes, Omega 3 is a fantastic vitamin, but if you overdose on it then you will have side effects. This is what I am interested in as you are planning to bombard my food with a product that may be very harmful to my and other consumer’s health. And what I have quoted says that extra bombardment of what you say is a fantastic product will make my food toxic.

P.S. You still haven’t told me how you get rid of GM in a non-GM paddock.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 22 January 2006 6:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to what Agronomist claims, the stastics for canola in Australia show very clearly that Australian canola yields have consistently improved since adoption of canola (non-GM).
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/a89f51dcb5e2e31bca2568a900139429!OpenDocument
The map referenced as 6.8 shows yields consistently improving. On introduction of canola, yields were around 1tonne/ha but apart from in 1994/1995 (bad drought), yields have steadily risen. How can you possibly claim that yields have got lower?

To top it off, Agronomist also claims either the reputable magazine, "the Scientist" is wrong or I have misinterpreted the statement using some lame excuse that the glyphosate is not in the DNA. No, of course it is not, the idea of Roundup Ready crops is to make them resistant to glyphosate. The problem that causes the drop in yield is spraying the glyphosate where the Scientist explains that the chemical remains active and rests in the meristems affecting the emerging buds/tillers. This would explain perfectly the yield reduction in any chemical resistant crop. As I explained, performance trials are needed to establish how much of a yield penalty is associated with this. One would say that the yield penalty is significant considering the best on their website is 1.055t/ha which is well below the national average and that is despite integrating the RR gene into "elite varieties".

How can Agronomist possibly say I have prevented trials? I want independent small scale performance trials but Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience refuse to participate. What they want is large scale commercial release under the guise of "coexistence trials" where it is obvious that coexistence is not possible by just reading the principles of coesistence and there is no ability to return to the status quo and non-GM growers don't approve of accepting liability when the "trials" go wrong.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 22 January 2006 7:59:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it safe.
Re excessive doses of vitamin A and omega3

Overdosing of vitamin A is not the problem in the third world that golden rice addresses. As far as possible harms omega3, I reiterate, GM methods are proposed as a way of producing omega3 enhanced oils that are an #optional# part of a diet. People can decide to use low-omega3 foods if they think this is a risk, but they probably would be making a bad decision. I continue to occasionally buy omega3 bread even other sources of different omega3 are better, they are expensive.

With your line of reasoning one might argue because excessive eating does harm, we should therefore ban eating! Almost everything does harm in excess, and almost everything we do is a mixture of harm and good, like exercise for instance. The healthiest path is a trade off somewhere in the middle. Why you chose to discount all the benefits listed in the link you gave and pulled out the only negative evidence of omega3, and not realise in any case the evidence is unrelated to GM, I cannot fathom.

Re getting rid of GM in a paddock
Sorry, hadn't noticed this question was outstanding
This can be done; see
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/starlink-crisis-shows-that-contrary-to.html
Cultivated crops, including GM die out if not looked after by farmers ( studies by Crawley results Nature 363, 620-623, 1993 illustrate this). This can be accellerated by judicious use of herbicide.

That reminds me that some questions I put previously to Julie Newman NCF wern't answered- concerning relevance of her demands for "independant" field trials to her liability concerns.
Posted by d, Monday, 23 January 2006 10:34:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d, you appear to have taken the question out of context. Geoffrey Carracher found he had contamination and did not want it. If contamination was found in a paddock, how can you remove it without destroying the non-GM crop? For example, How can GM plants be removed in the crop and in following crops without declaring the non-GM product permanently contaminated? It can not be sprayed out (The Topas 19/2 is now resistant to triazine), can't be handpicked out (plants look the same and there is no cheap field test), can't grade it out of seed (sorts by size and weight and it is the same and even all looks the same etc).
We don't want GM contamination in our non-GM product.
If segregation is not possible and if dosages are not controlled, overdosing of Vit A and Omega 3 will occur. While you say it is an "optional" part of the diet, if it is too expensive and too difficult to segregate GM from non-GM, farmers and consumers will be denied the choice to avoid contaminated produce. Thats the difference between excessive eating, smoking, drug taking etc, it is the users choice to take this risk. The problem with GM is that consumers will not have the choice to avoid it, as more and more GM products are grown, more and more contamination with a range of GM crops with a range of traits will be found in our food.
How exactly will farmers segregate GM food crops, GM pharmaceutical crops (with a range of traits from vitamins to anticoagulants to viagra), GM industrial crops (from plastics to fuels) with our non-GM crops? We can't! What value is our crop if it is contaminated with a range of unwanted mixed GM traits? We insist on compensation and will not accept contamination until this fair risk management is in place. Non-GM farmers shouldn't be expected to compensate the GM industry.
What question were you referring to re liability and trials d?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 23 January 2006 6:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t want this in any of my food. Starlink was not approved for human consumption which required expensive government intervention. How do you get an approved variety out of my food? On golden rice, what is the dosage and will it be consistent with every kilogram ever produced from a golden rice crop. If multiple genes trigger over production of Vitamin A or Omega 3 and causes the overdose health problems, how are you going to recall and who will pay? Scientists like yourself that have made your money producing this crop? You should do, but I don’t think so. What about the people that have little variety that eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner compared to those that need it that only have one meal every week. How are you going to adjust the dose? You astound me that you say that Omega 3 is not related to what you are doing as you have said the benefits of the Omega 3 in the GM. Are you confused? I’m not confused. What I am doing is showing that the “Caution if overused” label on any drug or vitamin bottle should extend to these crops. And consumers like myself should not be forced to eat what we don’t want to eat. You didn’t answer my question of how do you get GM out of an existing non-GM crop.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 23 January 2006 7:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non GM farmer, you need to read more carefully.

Firstly, It was you who were saying that GM canola yielded less. I just pointed out that yields in Canada were increasing despite the increased use of GM crops. I didn't say Canadian yields are better than Australian yields. I did point out that yields in Australia are at best flat over the period 1995-2004 for which I could get data. Your link shows that both area sown and production increased between 1989 and 1999. It does not show relative yields and has no data for the last 5 years. At least I was able to find data for 200 to 2004.

Secondly, I said nothing about glyphosate in DNA. To summarise in a more lengthy fashion so that you might understand. Roundup Ready canola contains a gene for a glyphosate oxidase protein. This protein breaks down glyphosate within the plant to non-toxic compounds. This means there will be no glyphosate accumulation in the reproductive tissues unless you spray at flowering. If glyphosate is not present, it cannot have any affect on reducing yield.

Thirdly, I said nothing about you, or indeed anyone else, preventing trials. You asked whether I supported trials. I said yes and asked: "Why don't you run trials this year?". You have complained consistently about the lack of trials in Australia. Based on the Canadian and US experience, I would be confident that GM crops would also perform well in Australia.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 8:03:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully Agronomist. I gave the yield data up to 2004 season on the 17Janposting: "If the claims were accurate that GM canola has increased yields in Canada by over 10%, statistics would show that the average yield would progressively go up in proportion to the adoption of GM with relevence to seasonal conditions. However, this has not occurred, when GM canola was introduced, average Canadian yields did not go up, they went down and have now come up to the level that they were pre-GM. Even though Canada is more suited to favour the post emergent benefit of GM canola, they have not had an increase in yields, not a decrease (based on ha and production statistics)"
and on Australia "Contrary to what Agronomist claims, the stastics for canola in Australia show very clearly that Australian canola yields have consistently improved since adoption of canola (non-GM).
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/a89f51dcb5e2e31bca2568a900139429!OpenDocument The map referenced as 6.8 shows yields consistently improving."

The Scientist article was referring to the GM research you mentioned but that is in the pipeline. The existing varieties clearly suffer yield penalties if the glyphosate sits active in the meristems. Naturally, rain would wash this off but dry conditions would exacerbate the yield penalty. Could this have been a reason why trials have been watered (claimed by a farmer at a meeting over east who witnessed this)?

Your comments regarding trials: "Why don't you allow them this year?" etc, are a tad misguided. Its not me that has the power to allow or disallow. I am pushing for small scale independent trials to be funded by GRDC so that we can assess the performance accurately. It is Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto that are refusing to participate. They want "coexistence trials" which is a backdoor commercial release of around 5,000 acres or more. In order to assess performance we need to know how effective the weed control is, what the yield penalty is etc.

If you support small scale, independent trials, we have a good starting point.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 9:25:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non GM Farmer. Let me try this again.

Roundup Ready canola as grown in Canada and also as approved for Australia contains the glyphosate oxidase gene (http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/dir020qa.pdf).

Glyphosate oxidase is an enzyme that breaks down glyphosate.

Farmer sprays glyphosate on Roundup Ready canola.

Glyphosate goes into Roundup Ready canola and is broken down to non-toxic metabolites by glyphosate oxidase.

There is no glyphosate left in the canola.

As there is no glyphosate left it can't do anything in the reproductive tissue.

Was I clear enough this time?

Secondly, the 6 highest yielding canola years ever have been since the introduction of GM canola in 1996. That is, in 60% of years GM canola has been grown, average yields have surpassed the highest they were prior to the introduction of GM canola (http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html). How is this evidence that yields have decreased? In the six years from 1999-2005 yields are 17% higher than they were in the period 1986-1995 before the introduction of GM canola.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 10:16:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dec 9 2005 Question for Julie Newman NCF : You have made repeated demands for extra independent field trials of GM canola. What I cannot understand is why, given they are huge costs to other parties, how your demand for these is relevant to the liability issue you are concerned about. Why are you demanding extra costs for others: how is it relevant to your need to reduce your personal liability?

Is it Safe:
I don’t want this in any of my food. On golden rice, what is the dosage and will it be consistent with every kilogram ever produced from a golden rice crop.
#The trait has been tested for genetic stability.

If multiple genes ... causes the overdose health problems, how are you going to recall and who will pay? #The problems you suppose we already have in our current food and they are manageable. Weed toxins pose similar risks already.

Scientists like yourself that have made your money producing this crop? #I dont get income from such work.

What I am doing is showing that the “Caution if overused” label on any drug or vitamin bottle should extend to these crops. #Why not same for existing linseed/fish oil then?

You didn’t answer my question of how do you get GM out of an existing non-GM crop. #I gave an example and argument. If you don't want to discuss my respose that's fine.
Posted by d, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 10:56:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ms Newman:

I see that on Monday, 16 January 2006 you claimed that “the American organic industry accepts contamination levels up to 5% whereas the Australian organic industry does not allow any GM because this demand is dictated by consumer preference” and so on.

Where in hades did you get this? Look, there is no difference in the positions of the American and Australian organic industries on GM. Neither allows GM, both play leadership roles and fund much of the opposition to GM and, incidentally, both clearly profit by raising public concerns about GM (as Patrick Holden of the UK Soil Association was forced to admit for the UK by our interviewer on a radio debate on ABC a few years back).

Still, as noted in my last post on this (January 9), anti-GM campaigners couldn’t produce a single farmer who actually had trouble with a neighbor growing a GM crop (and by that I meant any losses). I continued “If you think otherwise, find the documentation”. So far as I can see, even with two weeks to try, you haven’t found any examples either.

Yes, you should learn some things from the experience of other countries, but from what I read on this site, you largely haven’t. You have largely focused on claims that anti-GM activists make rather than checking out the facts for yourself. Come on out to California (or even Iowa or Canada) and I’ll introduce you to some real farmers growing GM crops and neighbors who aren't. Maybe you’ll even learn that despite the President, most Yanks (and better still, Canadians) solve problems even over GM with discussion, not legal action. Surely we Australians are as wise.
Posted by Rick Roush, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 12:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You said the trait for genetic stability has been tested so what were the results? What are the dosages and are they more than fish etc? Could you say that exactly the same amount of genes producing a precise dose of Omega 3 or Vitamin A are in every grain?
If there are problems with current food, it can be recalled because it’s easy to identify as the recalled says “date, product, where sold etc.” With grain this would be extremely hard as grains are in most foods so the whole food chain would be affected and it has contaminated the seeds used on farms for the following crop. Are you saying at this juncture that it would be up to the government to recall all the products if fault is found? Great, so me the taxpayer pays for GM mistakes!
The reason that I’m asking for GM to be advertised as a cautionary note is because this is a “common” food that is put into a lot of different foods without people realising that it is there. Whereas you know if you are taking a vitamin pill as they are taken separately and it is your choice.
The example you gave is not taking GM out of the non-GM paddock. I want to know, seeing as I am not a farmer, how would you get the GM product out of the paddock of a non-GM. Do you destroy all the crop? Do you overdose the non-GM paddock with toxic chemicals and will both crops die? Do you wait for it to die (this doesn’t work as it’s still in the paddock as seed and will reproduce once the correct conditions apply). So how do you get GM out of a non-GM paddock? By the way who pays for this? Put it in this forum not in some obscure webpage so all can see.
You may not get a salary but have you ever been paid by a GM company or got grants? And before you ask, no, I am not on any salary to do with non-GM or Greenpeace.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 1:41:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick, I think ABARE, Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Canola Council, Oilseeds Federation, "The Scientist" etc, would not be impressed at your claim that the references I quoted from them are anti-GM references. You just don't like facts exploding your pro-GM myths.

American National Organic Standards http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html state labelled "organic" produce needs to be only 95% pure organic. Growers (including pro-GM) confirm the allowable tolerance but IP is needed and some markets are stricter. Canada too is lenient http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/032_310/standard-e.html

Agronomist, In "The Scientist" article Charles Q Choi quoted Henry Daniell, professor of molecular biology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando"Currently, Roundup Ready plants do not detoxify glyphosate, but rather overproduce EPSPS to resist lethal glyphosate levels, Daniell said. In these plants, the herbicide still accumulates in meristems, where it may interfere with reproductive development and lower crop yield."
The damage is not done when it is absorbed by the plant, it is when it is sitting in the meristems and when the emerging buds emerge from the meristems.

I was specifically referring to the drop in yields in the few years of early adoption of GM but I am sure you know that. Australia's yields have gone up in the same timeframe you quoted as well so GM can't be given credit for that. Improved yield is expected as better agronomic practises have been used and new non-GM varieties are bred with better traits. My debate is that Australian farmers are not going to be "left behind" and that Australian farmers are not experiencing the 30% yield penalty that Mr Crabtree (?Agronomist) refers to.

As I explained "d", my proposal is that GRDC (mainly farmer-funded) perform these trials in the same fashion as the National Varietal trials as farmers need to know benefits and alternatives. It is obvious we can't trust the promotion by people like Mr Crabtree who claim a 30% yield increase when there is no reason for it and no evidence to support it. The performance trials are nothing to do with liability, unfair liability is a risk and strict liability is risk management
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 6:25:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it Safe
As far as getting GM out of a farm, you harvest the crop, feed it to pigs if you wish, or chicken or burn it if your that rich, and next use an appropriate herbicide, or tillage (which is more harmfull than some herbicides), to eliminate any residual plants. I gave the Starlink and the other example as evidence this can work. It may take two seasons.

You seem to have missed the reasoning behind my repeated comments that omega3 will be in oils, as you are going on as if other food will be containing unwanted omega3 like golden rice with vitaminA. The oil is squeezed and used separately- so only people who deliberately buy the oil, and informed about the content, need to be involved. Informed consent.

Let me respond to your supposition that I work using research grants from GM companies. I don't do research in the plant area.I dont get such grants. I work on medical subjects that have been funded by government agencies. Whats more, I have for years deliberately avoided taking earnings from GM companies so my voice cannot be silenced by the kind of question you are putting as I am well aware the antiGM groups use that slur to shut up criticism of their own poorly thought out opinions, and I consider their strategy to silence criticism to be unethical. In any case, its irrelevant to the argument. Do you really think I really read hundreds on comments on this thread (and many others) as a way of making money? The fact that you need to bring up money rather than evidence suggests that you yourself have run out of evidence.

If you wish to continue the argument that money cancels out evidence and argument, explain to me why groups who use scaremongering to make money, as the main anti-GM lobby do, and many in organic food, shouldn't be discounted because of their own self interest, from having opinions about hazards? And its your argument, not mine.
Posted by d, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 1:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drop in canola yields in the first few years of adoption? I can't see it in the figures (http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html). The five years before GM was adopted yields were

1991: 24 Bu/acre
1992: 22.7 Bu/acre
1993: 23.9 Bu/acre
1994: 22.4 Bu/acre
1995: 21.8 Bu/acre

GM canola was first grown in 1996 when it was about 5% of the area.
Yields were 26.2 Bu/acre (obviously a pretty good year.

In 1997, GM was about 12% of the area, yields were 23.4 Bu/acre.
In 1998, GM was about 35% of the area, yields were 25.1 Bu/acre.
In 1999, GM was about 50% of the area, yields were 28.2 Bu/acre.

Except for 1996 when yields were higher, it looks pretty much like yields increased as GM area increased. How on earth can you conclude that yields went down except by using 1996 as a benchmark? If you are going to use any single year as a benchmark use 1995 when no GM canola was grown.

Choi and Daniell are wrong when it comes to canola. Roundup Ready canola has both a resistant EPSPS from a bacterium and a glyphosate oxidase from an other bacterium. You could have read this in the links I gave you if you had bothered. If your quotes are correct, Choi is also wrong about other Roundup Ready crops. Roundup Ready cotton, soybean, etc. have a resistant enzyme from a bacterium - they don't "overproduce EPSPS to resist glyphosate."
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 26 January 2006 9:20:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5407595

Omega-3 fatty acids are a crucial component of a healthy diet—particularly, it seems, for pregnant women wanting bright, sociable children

Sadly, these days, the average see-food diet doesn't include enough seafood, even though fish are a good source of a group of nutrients known as omega-3 fatty acids.

... data from a long-term study of British children suggest they are even more important than had previously been realised. In particular, the amount of omega-3 in a pregnant woman's diet helps to determine her child's intelligence, fine-motor skills (such as the ability to manipulate small objects, and hand-eye co-ordination) and also propensity to anti-social behaviour.

...

Perhaps the most startling finding was that the children of those women who had consumed the smallest amounts of omega-3 fatty acids during their pregnancies had verbal IQs six points lower than average. ... And the finding is particularly pertinent because existing dietary advice to pregnant women, at least in America, is that they should limit their consumption of seafood in order to avoid exposing their fetuses to trace amounts of brain-damaging methyl mercury. Ironically, that means they avoid one of the richest sources of omega-3s.

Dr Hibbeln, however, says his work shows that the benefits of eating such fish vastly outweigh the risks from the mercury in them. Indeed, in the Avon study, it was those children exposed to the lowest levels of methyl mercury who were at greatest risk of having low verbal IQ.

The researchers' second finding was that at 3½ years of age, those children with the best measures of fine-motor performance were the ones whose mothers had had the highest intake of omega-3s. Their third finding was that a low intake of omega-3s during pregnancy led to higher levels of pathological social interactions such as an inability to make friends as a child grew up.
Posted by d, Thursday, 26 January 2006 11:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d, why exactly should the non-GM farmer be responsible for removing GM from our non-GM crop? The GM company should be legally responsible for recalling their product if it causes economic loss to others.
"Informed consent"? You still don't seem to understand that if a farmer can not keep this Omega 3 or any GM crop out of our crop, if it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate, we can't market our produce as GM-free or Omega 3 free. That is the issue, consumers want the choice to avoid GM and farmers want the choice to market to them. That choice will be denied unless we get fair risk management in place.
I found your comment about money hilarious. Most of the early sections of this post, the pro-GM sector constantly tried claiming I was funded by Greenpeace etc, I agree "their strategy to silence criticism" is "unethical", "irrelevant to the argument" and the "need to bring up money rather than evidence suggests that you yourself have run out of evidence."
I do not profit from the GM debate, it costs me money and time. Injustice and unfair play only fuels my determination to make the non-GM farmers voice heard.

Canadian Statistics:
Yield/t/ha http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html
= Adoption of GM-canola (million ha) MaxFosterABARE:
1995-NoGM
1996-1.499 =0.1
1997-1.299 =1.6
1998-1.136 =2.7
1999-1.398 =3.0

Statistics clearly indicate a reduction in yield, not an increase in yield. Like I said, yield is mainly dependent on seasonal conditions but one thing is proven, there was no dramatic increase of yield experienced with the adoption of GM canola in Canada. If there was the 30% yield improvement that we are being told to expect, you would have expected to see a 30% increase in yields in Canada.

If an article is printed in the Scientist, you would expect it to be a credible scientifically correct article. Where was your article to correct it?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 26 January 2006 2:38:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22191/

Re "The Scientist" article, by Choi: this is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, but is a journalists magazine article partly to promote new technology of business rivals of Monsanto.
Its title "GM crops detoxify glyphosate" might convince readers that what Agronomist says is true.
It has some obvious factual errors in it, perhaps due to the journalist's haste, or overenthusiastic business promotion.
QUOTE
“Commercialization of this trait may provide competition to Roundup Ready crops,” researcher Linda Castle of Verdia in Redwood City, Calif., told The Scientist. “Verdia is working with Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. to evaluate the commercial potential in corn and with Delta and Pine Land Company to evaluate the commercial utility of the trait in cotton.” "

The glyphosate detoxification charactoristics of the Monsanto canola variety are on the public record in Australia, and support agrononomists comments too. They say Monsanto Round UP ready canola has a glyphosate degrading enzyme goxv247 added to it.
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/dir020finalrarmp.pdf
QUOTE
Section 3.2 The goxv247 gene
86. The goxv247 gene from the bacterium Ochrobactrum anthropi strain LBAA encodes the enzyme glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOXv247) which inactivates the herbicide glyphosate by converting it to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and glyoxylate (Pipke &
Amrhein 1988). Glyoxylate is a common plant metabolite and AMPA is degraded by several microorganisms (ANZFA 2000).
Pipke, R., Amrhein, N. (1988). Degradation of the phosphonate herbicide glyphosate by Arthrobacter atrocyaneus ATCC 13752. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54: 1293-1296.

87. The goxv247 gene encodes a single polypeptide of 431 amino acids with a molecular mass of 46.1 kD. This gene is a variant of the bacterial gox gene and has improved affinity for glyphosate and therefore degrades the herbicide more efficiently. The goxv247 gene varies from the gox gene by only 5 nucleotides and the variant GOXv247 protein is 99% identical to the native GOX enzyme, differing by 3 amino acids out of 400 (Woodward et al. 1994, Monsanto Unpublished).
88. The goxv247 gene was also modified to have a plant-preferred codon usage which was achieved by site-directed mutagenesis (Barry et al. 1994, Monsanto Unpublished).
Posted by d, Thursday, 26 January 2006 2:51:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms. Newman:

I have now reviewed your comments in detail. You consistently misquote ABARE, Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Canola Council, and Oilseeds Federation incorrectly, as Agronomist has repeatedly pointed out. (You have also misquoted and misrepresented the American and Canadian organic standards, as shown below.) Further, you extensively quote here and/or at your website from Greenpeace and GM Watch, which are obviously anti-GM.

You also seem to confuse reliable and non-reliable sources of scientific information. Despite their names, "The Scientist” and “New Scientist” are not written by or for scientists. They are just popular magazines, and tend to be sensational to increase readership. As brief evidence, I point to the ad on The Scientist’s website (http://www.the-scientist.com/) last night:

“Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet” with a link to http://www.gnmagazine.org/evolution/

I guarantee you that no reputable scientific outfit would carry such an ad. The fact that The Scientist carries such ads speaks volumes about their anti-scientific approach. I’m still wondering how many articles about sex The New Scientist can average per year.

By the way, the Economist is also not written by or for economists, although it appears to have higher standards than either The Scientist or New Scientist.

With respect to the American National Organic Standards (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html), I know these very well because I am currently the Director of the University of California’s Sustainable Ag Program, which makes me responsible for organic farming research and outreach. You have clearly confused the use of “conventional” with GM ingredients in your claims about 95% purity in organic production (e.g., p 141 of the Standards). It’s conventional ingredients that are allowed, which is not different from the fact that Australian organic foods are occasionally found to have persistent synthetic pesticide residues (which were defended a few years ago by Biological Farmers on the legal grounds that organic is about process not product). GM is banned in US organics under section 205.105(e) (page 370), where GM is an excluded method in Section 205.2.

(This topic continued in my next message.
Posted by Rick Roush, Thursday, 26 January 2006 4:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More for Newman

Contrary to your claims of leniency, Canada’s rules are clearly and explicitly defined at the site you gave (http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/032_310/standard-e.html ): “Genetically engineered and/or modified organisms (GEO/GMO), or their products, are not compatible with the principles of organic production and are prohibited from use in any aspect of organic production, processing or manufacturing.” No GM!

Further, even if the official standards allowed GM, organic growers and American consumers have explicitly rejected GM at any level in organic food. Check out the parent organization of Benbrook’s employer at http://www.ota.com or the California organic certifiers at www.ccof.org. The only leniency is that a farm in the US will not necessarily lose certification if GM content is found for reasons outside its control, though they will almost certainly lose the sale as organic of any product found to have GM.

In implying that Canadian or American organic farmers or consumers are more lax than Australian growers, you insult both Canadian and American organic farmers and consumers.

I don’t have time to get heavily involved in your debate on this site, but point out that Henry Daniell (who is a professor of molecular biology at a non-ag university whose expertise is on plant chloroplasts, not agronomy) is not only wrong on the facts, as Agronomist has noted, but can claim only that glyphosate “may interfere” with yields. Again, you should actually ask real agronomists and farmers in the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil about this.

The clearest evidence that there are no detectable yield penalties is that Roundup Ready soy was 30% of Brazil’s crop before it was legal to grow it there. That is, the farmers saw the advantages and bootlegged the seed from Argentina before it was legal, and with no promotion. I was in Argentina in Sept, and RR soy is seen by everyone, except a very few overseas-sponsored activists, as a great success.

Everyone except perhaps other herbicide companies, that is, who figure they have lost a $300 million per year market because the bills for glyphosate are much lower than the herbicides they replaced
Posted by Rick Roush, Thursday, 26 January 2006 4:44:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have said that Omega 3 is so wonderful that you are happy putting it in your GM food. I can’t figure out from what you have said how you are going to do this as you have changed your mind from saying that instead of putting it in as a gene you are putting it in an oil. There are recent findings (25/1/06) on this oil that are being produced http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_29297.html Omega 3 is not a panacea as you so marvellously try to sell it, they are finding that it is a risk for certain types of cancers including skin cancers. You are not looking at the studies showing that there are problems with too much of a good thing. I am not denying that Omega 3 has its good points in small quantities but I am more interested in large quantities because that has potential for biohazard contamination.

I want a choice to deny having your GM food as I can see potential hazards from having too much Omega 3 or Vitamin A or whatever you are planning to put in my food. Can you give it to me? Can you support non-GM farmers so that there is no risk of having any GM in their crop? GM scientists are bombarding their way through any red tape that the government has put up and I believe that is totally wrong. What part of moratorium don’t they understand. They sneak their way into back doors and get our farmers to plant GM contaminated crops. This is wrong and the government should be putting their foot down and stopping it. But you just laugh it off knowing that the way you have changed the rules to meet your criteria the world’s food supply is contaminated and you cannot be sued and be justified for the actions of causing biohazard problems if it comes out that GM is a potential disaster.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 26 January 2006 6:34:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue for farmers is that it is pretty obvious that GM canola can not live up to the hype of 30% increase in yields.

A scientific study by Fulton and Keyowski found Roundup Ready canola in Canada was associated with lower yields of around 7.5%.

But then some do see an increase in some studies.

The Australian Productivity Commission analysed Canadian GM canola and reported a 1% productivity increase with little evidence of cost reduction.

Thats why we need independent studies to find out what yield penalty or yield advantage there is.

Farmers also need to know how much this technology is going to cost.

Without this information, it is impossible to say that a farmer is making an informed decision to want to grow GM canola in Australia.

We as non-GM farmers are certainly making an informed decision that we do not want to market as GM and do not want additional costs and liabilities imposed on us.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 26 January 2006 7:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ISITSAFE"I am not denying that Omega 3 has its good points ...has potential for biohazard contamination".

## I expect that whatever I say, you will still have your concerns, so the best I can do is honestly state my opinion and continue to be open to questions.

I don’t propose that people be forced to take GM oils. I am myself sensitive to olive oil, but can avoid it quite easily by buying other oils. In the same way, any GM sourced omega 3 can be made available so that people who want to take advantages of it, especially to avoid the risk of Mercury toxicity in fish sources of omega 3, can exercise that option, and people who don't like GM can avoid it too. They can eat fish oil, or be unhealthy, and avoid fish oil too if they like.

Already we have rapeseed non-food crops that contain toxic compounds. They are grown widely, but are easily kept separate from our food and actually cause no problems. We have dangerous weeds; known toxic ones that are part of normal and particularly part of organic farming. GM risks are much, much less than these existing hazards.

As poor people can benefit from vitaminA, I argued for a fair go. I don’t expect everyone to respond to that call. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but can only state why my judgment is different to yours.

I cannot identify any justification to your fears about overdosing, and I don’t believe they can happen. With rice, vitaminA provides it own colour. Changes would show up as red rice. You can stick to white rice.

“I can see potential hazards from having too much Omega 3 or Vitamin A or whatever you are planning to put in my food.”
###I would not want to put GM materials in your food

They sneak their way... get our farmers to plant GM contaminated crops.
###Easy to say, but where's the proof?

PS Julie Newman: It’s good to get your support on $s and see your sense of humour surface.
Posted by d, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:17:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick, it is very corny to claim I am misquoting ABARE, Canadian Canola Council and Oilseeds Federation when the facts and figures can be obtained from the references I gave. You will find they are accurate but I know it is normal for pro-GM activists to blame the messenger rather than the message.

The quote from the Scientist makes sense to why any post emergent spraying impacts on yield. What farmers need to establish is how much of an impact and we will let scientists continue to debate why.

I became interested in the tolerance levels of GM in organic produce when a pro-GM speaker visited WA and claimed that he grew GM, non-GM and organic corn on his farm. He explained that there was a tolerance level of 3% in organic. No doubt this allows the upstream market to admix up to 2% before liability becomes a problem as 5% is the limit.

Re Canadian references I gave:
"By themselves, organic practices can not ensure that organic products are entirely free of residues of prohibited substances and other contaminants, since exposure to such compounds from the atmosphere, soil, ground water and other sources may be well beyond the control of the operator."

205.671 Exclusion from organic sale. (from the National Organic Program)

When residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.

d, the statement: "people who don't like GM can avoid it too." is what we have been debating. If it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM (and it is unless we get the rules right), farmers will not market as GM-free or non-GM or Omega 3-free. Nature and logistics make it too difficult for farmers to achieve and legally the non-GM farmer is liable. Turn that around and contain the GM product and then farmers and consumers will have a choice to avoid GM.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms. Newman:

It’s the truth that you have misquoted (or simply misunderstand) ABARE etc., as anyone who takes the time to research these sources in their entirety will learn. You have illustrated your practice by continuing to misrepresent North American organic standards with some undocumented hearsay from some unnamed farmer, and selective quotes from the organic standards. Your quote from the National Organic Program refers to chemical residues and follows immediately after a paragraph that reads

“If test results indicate a specific agricultural product contains pesticide residues or environmental contaminants that exceed the Food and Drug Administration's or the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory tolerences, the certifying agent must promptly report such data to the Federal health agency whose regulatory tolerance or action level has been exceeded.”

The EPA and FDA do not have tolerances for GM. These are set by the national organic standard, where GM is not allowed (as I indicated in my last message), which in practical terms means that GM has to be below the limits of detection.

Quotes from “The Scientist” are about as reliable as ones you could find in magazines at Woolies or Bi-Lo, and don’t merit further discussion.

By the way, your Minister Chance's contract with the Institute for Health and Environmental Research has attracted the ire of the editorial page of the (truly) internationally respected journal Nature Biotechnology. It is disappointing to see WA held up to such ridicule. I have to trim the full text to fill into the space allotted, but I am sure you find the article. I’ll even email it to you if you provide me your email address, and dare you to put it up on your website.

Editorial
Nature Biotechnology 24, 2 (2006)

Genetically modified mush
January 13, 2006
Nature Biotechnology

It is not often that field peas capture national headlines. ….. Contrary to media reports, the paper did not provide definitive evidence that the transgenic protein was allergenic in humans. Nor were the changes in protein structure particularly shocking or surprising. What was shocking, however, was the political fallout following the study's announcement.
Posted by Rick Roush, Saturday, 28 January 2006 3:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…….The key question is whether the transgenic pea would have been flagged by current internationally recognized CODEX food standards. The answer appears to be yes. Such assessments are based on sequence homology to known allergens or serum IgE screening with sera from patients allergic to the source of the gene (or sources showing significant homology). A search of a database of known allergens (http://www.allergenonline.com/) reveals limited amino acid sequence identity (approx35-39%) between the P. vulgaris alpha-amylase inhibitor and minor allergens of peanut and soybean. ……it thus seems very unlikely that the protein would have sailed through the CODEX process.

All this would probably be a scientific sidenote if it weren't for the fact that a senior Western Australian official took it upon himself to use the pea study as pretext to go on the offensive against genetically modified (GM) food. No sooner had CSIRO released its results than Minister Kim Chance announced the setting up of an "independent study" to review the possibility that "when a gene is taken out of one organism and put into another, the protein expressed in that gene may be different." The study was needed, Chance said, to investigate the propensity of rats fed Bt transgenic corn to develop "cancerous and pre-cancerous growths" and the potential of "GM DNA to enter animal bodies." A few days later, the Western Australian newspaper reported that Chance had awarded the funding for the study to the IHER in Adelaide (http://www.iher.org.au/). This institute consists of three people with no scientific expertise in long-term feeding studies and a clear agenda against anything remotely connected to a transgene. So much for an independent study.

Chance is entitled to his opinion. But the day must come when he, and politicians like him, realize that absolute proof for the safety of GM (or any other) food is a scientific impossibility. We have in place a reliable assessment process to flag potentially allergenic recombinant proteins on a case-by-case basis. With so many other priorities competing for taxpayer money, one must question whether the best interests of the Western Australian public have really been served.
Posted by Rick Roush, Saturday, 28 January 2006 3:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick, the ABARE statistics are statistics, not quotes that can be misunderstood.
I'm not an organic grower so organics is not my area of expertise. If what you say is true, why then would someone funded by the GM industry be making these statements in WA at a meeting held specifically for the agricultural industry to promote GM. I have not got the time at the moment but I did keep a copy of the Countryman/Farm Weekly that reported what he said about tolerances.

The report was not well researched as the GM pea had little to do with the decision for the WA government to grant funding for further research. It was only the timing of the announcement that was linked.
Of course the ire of the Biotechnology industry is upset with anyone standing in their way. Who is really getting embarrassed here and why? The GM industry is pushing their way through each country and it appears to be a failure for those involved that don't get their way without risk management.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 28 January 2006 8:47:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You mention I need proof that Monsanto or Bayer would harm the community. Recent point “Trasylol”. How many people got blood clots in the brain and died before they realized that it was Trasylol? Will Bayer bring victims back to life or reverse their strokes?
The full paper from Finland you have mentioned on “Proteomic..unintend effects in Genetically Modified crops” I have found that there are points in the research are relative to this argument. This 9 page document which took time to go through shows the comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties and genetically modified lines. You base your argument that the differences are not significant enough that the analysed samples of the proteins in DNA and found they are not much different than natural. We need to look closer at this report. A problem is that they have used a principle components analysis which groups things together and looks for the variables. This type of research is factor analysis. Sample size is small (4 potatoes of each variety) this paper does not reflect the potato at a later stage within the human gut. The other thing “it would require observation over years and is not conclusive. It would need more study over longer periods” was quoted in this report. The 2DE equipment that was used in analysis is limited as a promising tool and is not yet in routine use in assessing the safety of GM products.

This is a good research paper but has its drawbacks as mentioned. If you wish to give me research to look at to convince me that GM is safe, please give me a detailed research that has long term studies and large sample sizes. Otherwise I will continually believe that GM is a biohazard.
“By themselves, organic practices can not ensure that organic products are entirely free of residues of prohibited substances and other contaminants, since exposure to such compounds from the atmosphere, soil, ground water and other sources may be well beyond the control of the operator”. It’s obvious they rely on the paper trail not the GM testing.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 28 January 2006 1:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ms Newman:

Like any statistics, those from ABARE can be taken out of context and used against irrelevant baselines.

In any case, my original comment was “You have largely focused on claims that anti-GM activists make rather than checking out the facts for yourself.” It remains the case that you quote extensively from anti-GM activists.

I have no idea why or if any visitor to WA would make comments claiming that North American organics accepted 5% GM. The point is that rather than relying on such hearsay, one should always check a reputable source, such as with North American organic growers, especially when an area is outside your expertise (as you have freely admitted here). It seems that you have little trouble chasing alternative quotes when something doesn’t agree with your views.

Nature Biotech editorial not well-researched? The Minister’s own media release prominently mentioned the peas but no other example:

http://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/chance/index.cfm?fuseaction=media.main

“Government of Western Australia
Media Statement

Statement Released: 26-Nov-2005

Agriculture Minister Kim Chance today announced…..would fund an independent long-term animal feeding trial to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops…..

Mr Chance said it was concerning that the adverse safety effects associated with a study on a variety of GM pea which caused inflammation of the lungs of mice had only come to light recently, despite 10 years of research and development.

The inflammation was as a result of an allergic response to the protein produced by the GM pea…..

Mr Chance said the results of the GM pea study showed the need for thorough and independent feeding studies on GM foods……”

If in fact the GM pea had little to do with Minister’s decision, it would appear that only those with inside information would know that. Are you that close in Minster Chance’s confidence? Do you communicate so regularly?

The Editorial from Nature Biotechnology was also clearly correct in stating that IHER “consists of three people with no scientific expertise in long-term feeding studies and a clear agenda against anything remotely connected to a transgene” which you seem not to have denied.
Posted by Rick Roush, Sunday, 29 January 2006 9:27:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick, you obviously don't have a case against what I am arguing if you are only using the debate that I am focusing on anti-GM activists claims. When you freely label me as an anti-GM activist, it is difficult to make a statement without you perceiving a bias. Why not settle down and actually concentrate on the debate, not the players.

It was an American organic grower that was reported as accepting a GM tolerance. As a result I researched the organic rules and found that to label organic, only 95% needs to be organic. I have asked Canadian and UK farmer contacts for verification in the meantime.

You only need to read the Ministers previous statements in media and the parliamentary record to see that he is trying to deal with the problems rather than ignore them and he expressed the need for futher health testing. I only had one brief meeting with Mr Chance early last year which is not what you would call overly influential.

I am looking forward to participating in the Ministerial Reference Group as this will be an opportunity to discuss both the for and against debate where references will be checked and countered. I found it very interesting that the PGA (vocally against GM) did not want to participate in this. It is easy to disprove their statements and it is obviously they don't want that found out.

What is the concern about independent testing? Surely if a group such as IHER find nothing wrong with GM, it will help bridge the gap between consumers, farmers and pro-GM activists. Why are you so frightened of IHER doing health testing? They can't find anything wrong if it is not there.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 29 January 2006 12:33:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The quote from the Scientist makes sense to why any post emergent spraying impacts on yield.”

Just because a quote fits your view of the universe doesn’t make it right. If you want you can usually twist any quote to fit your views. I see you are good at this. The facts are:

1) Roundup Ready canola contains two novel proteins. One is a glyphosate tolerant enzyme. The other is an enzyme that degrades glyphosate to non-toxic compounds.

2) Post emergent spraying with any herbicide can affect early growth of the crop. For example, nicosulfuron on corn. This occurs because the herbicide is active until it has been degraded by the plant. Only rarely does this result in yield decreases. Even then, the yield decreases are much lower than would occur if weeds were not controlled.

"A scientific study by Fulton and Keyowski found Roundup Ready canola in Canada was associated with lower yields of around 7.5%."

Fulton and Keyowski (http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n2/v2n2a04-fulton.htm) didn’t do a scientific study of yields. They did an economic analysis. If you read the paper, they got their yield data from a Press Release.

“Statistics clearly indicate a reduction in yield, not an increase in yield.”

You are having trouble understanding this one as well. There has been only one year out of 10 (the bad drought of 2002) when average canola yields in Canada were lower than the long-term average before the introduction of GM canola. As I pointed out before, in 60% of years since the introduction of GM canola yields have been higher than they ever were before GM. How on earth can you make a claim for a reduction in yields?

“If there was the 30% yield improvement that we are being told to expect, you would have expected to see a 30% increase in yields in Canada.”

Do the math. If only half the area (e.g. that sown to GM) had a 30% yield increase, you would get a 15% increase in yields overall. BTW yields in 2005 were 42% higher than the long-term average prior to the introduction of GM crops.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 30 January 2006 12:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Newman:

I have a lot to argue against what you claim, but that is not what at issue here, nor do I have the time. Others are doing a pretty good job of correcting you in any case. I need to be content with answering your charges against me.

I didn’t label you an anti-GM activist, but now that you raise the point, it doesn’t seem a far-fetched conclusion). You probably are biased, but I am still willing to analyze what you have said and offer documented facts. I did say that “You have largely focused on claims that anti-GM activists make rather than checking out the facts for yourself.” I didn’t say “only”. You do reference a lot of claims from anti-GM activists on your thread and at your website, right? What’s the percentage of your citations from websites that might be considered neutral or pro-GM?

I notice that you have been asked at least a few times on this site if you would ever grow a GM crop. Seems a good benchmark on which to judge your protests that you are not an anti-GM activist; would you grow GM?

If you are so intent to contradict me on US organic standards, which you seem anxious to do (I guess to explain away why you can’t find any evidence for problems with GM for organic growers in the US or Canada), please give us names and sources. Perhaps instead of being so quick to shout “ bias”, you can spend a little time to dig out that newspaper and find a name and exact quote for the US organic grower (I thought before it was a US GM grower). Give us your Canadian and UK sources. I have given you sources and quoted from the rules.

The Minister’s media release was unambiguous in linking GM peas to his decision. Give us the other statements if you think they prove otherwise.

With respect to your influence, I note the following media release (trimmed for brevity). How many WA members does your network have? Does it have bylaws and elections?
Posted by Rick Roush, Monday, 30 January 2006 4:30:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Biotech Industry Rejects WA Ministerial letter

- AusBiotech, 10 February 2005

AusBiotech, Australia’s biotechnology industry organisation representing over 2,600 Members is stunned at the release of correspondence between WA’s Agricultural Minister Kim Chance and a genetically modified (GM) activist during the current government caretaker mode.

At a time when the WA government has related to biotechnology industry representatives that the government cannot respond to the organisation’s correspondence dated 7 February, it is now evident that the same conditions have not been the case for GM activist groups.

“On the same day that AusBiotech was informed by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture that the Government cannot respond to our letter dated 24 January, a detailed letter was sent to Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmer (an organisation linked with Greenpeace),” said Dr Tony Coulepis, Executive Director, AusBiotech.

The letter not only contained many errors of fact but also brings into question the advice that the Minister is receiving in relation to agribiotech and GM crops.

AusBiotech has been working closely with industry members concerning the GM moratoria and distributed a five-point plan to state governments for the future development and opportunities for Australian agriculture late last year……

“The Minister’s action is not only taking away any opportunity for a level playing field, but also denying WA growers choice in canola production, as well as creating uncertainty about the pathway to market for other Australian GM innovations,” Dr Coulepis said.

This is despite OGTR approval for canola and the fact that triazine chemical currently used for most canola production in WA is 60 times more toxic than Round-up and is subsequently banned in Europe because of ground water contamination.

Greenpeace has called for the termination of atrazine use in several countries. ….

AusBiotech calls for an explanation of the letter and a commitment by Government to create a level playing-field…..

Media Contact:
Dr Tony Coulepis, Executive Director, AusBiotech, Mob: 0419 436 902
Dr Ian Edwards, Chair, AgBio Advisory Group, Mob: 08 9450 480
Posted by Rick Roush, Monday, 30 January 2006 4:32:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back in November and December, NonGMFarmer made several posts about Bt cotton being a disaster in India quoting Anti-GM NGOs as sources. The following exerpts are from an article was published in the Times of India (can be found at: http://www.agbios.com/news.php) and quotes cotton industry officials from the production side. Such people are not involved in selling seed so would have no reason for talking up the technology for personal profit.

Bt experience in Punjab has a silver lining

30 Jan 2006

New Delhi - Success of the maiden Bt cotton crop has come to the rescue of farmers, with production expected to catch up with
last year's level of 243 lakh bales despite substantial damage to the standing crops in northern India due to the late Monsoon...

"Main reason behind impressive increase was attributed to near about 15 per cent acreage under transgenic variety,"
Confederation of Indian Textile Industry, Secretary General DK Nair...

"Cotton production in Punjab is estimated to be around 20 lakh bales this year," Chief Manager of Markfed, Birinder Singh told
PTI here.

This cotton production estimate was based on the trend in actual market arrivals, he added. Till last week, the arrival figures
crossed 15 lakh bales of 170 kg each as against 11 lakh bales in a year ago period.

Stating that cotton would continue to arrive in the market till middle of March, he estimated the final arrival figures to be around 20
lakh bales as against 70 lakh bales last year.

Singh attributed the increase in production mainly to Bt cotton variety which reported 15 per cent acreage in the state during the
first year of the introduction.

"The increase in output in North India was due to a host of contributory factors including 10-15 per cent increase in cotton acreage
under Bt cotton variety," a Bhatinda based cotton trader Ashok Kapur said.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 6:07:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1357708.cms showed on Jan 04 HYDERABAD: Agricultural scientist and chairman of the National Commission on Farmers Prof M S Swaminathan believes seed companies ought to provide insurance cover to farmers.

Pointing out that in several cases, seeds supplied by these companies are turning out to be spurious, causing crop losses and driving farmers to suicide, he said, "the companies have an obligation to provide insurance to the farming community."

Speaking to The Times of India on the sidelines of the Indian Science Congress, Swaminathan said spurious BT cotton seeds drove many farmers in Vidarbha to suicide.

He felt there was a need for an 'evergreen revolution' to enhance agricultural productivity.

29/1/06
NEW DELHI: The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) on Friday issued notices to biotech major Monsanto and its Indian affiliates on a reference made by the Andhra Pradesh government on the controversial Bt cotton seed.

The chairman of MRTPC, Justice B K Rathi, said that at the next hearing of the Monsanto case on March 7, One far-reaching question raised by the case is whether a company selling a much sought-after technology could have an unfettered discretion in determining the quantum of royalty it could charge under the guise of "trait value" or "technology fees." In its application before MRTPC, the Andhra Pradesh Government contends that the saving-on-pesticide argument of Monsanto amounts to saying that polio vaccination should be priced at Rs 30,000 as it saves treatment costing more than Rs 50,000.

He said that the criteria for fixing trait value was "neither scientific nor based on any analysis of mercantile system."

You obviously don’t like pro-GM Ausbiotech not having full say in what the WA Government is checking out. I say pro-GM because if you look on their website www.ausbiotech.org you will find these words in their mission statement: “Agbio advocacy on GM moratoria” and have pro-GM conferences (Perth 2005)involving speakers from Monsanto.

You have not given me research on GM experiments on human or human type animals over long periods so I assume that there are none which means that humans are the guinea pigs
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 7:34:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pro-GM tantrums aside, we are farmers and you can have your way providing you do not negatively impact on our existing industry. Rather than trying to progress by bullying and lying, why not progress by accepting the liability. If you are right about the "no problems" bit, it should not be a problem for you.

Your quote of the rantings of Ausbiotech is typical of the lies pro-GMers are prepared to put out:
“On the same day that AusBiotech was informed by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture that the Government cannot respond to our letter dated 24 January, a detailed letter was sent to Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmer (an organisation linked with Greenpeace),” said Dr Tony Coulepis, Executive Director, AusBiotech. The letter not only contained many errors of fact but also brings into question the advice that the Minister is receiving in relation to agribiotech and GM crops."

I have no idea why Ausbiotech would claim that I was sent a letter full of misinformation when it was a response to a commercial seed cleaner regarding a serious question asking which canola seed was contaminated. The letter explained the contamination of Grace seed and the bulk of it was taken from the Oilseeds Federation document which at that time was not released. Why is Ausbiotech claiming that this "contained many factual errors". The letter was obviously prepared by the Ag Dept, not the Minister personally and contained nothing that Ausbiotech could possibly construe as being linked to misinformation.

Claiming we are an organisation linked with Greenpeace is typical of the lies Ausbiotech are prepared to claim and this sort of trash from supposedly professional people disgusts me.

That aside, how did Ausbiotech get to read a letter the Minister sent me
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 9:20:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick if you compare the historical yields of both Canada and Australia, they have gone up since the introduction of canola which should be expected. This is clearly not due to GM as the statistics prove the yield did not go up in proportion to the rise in adoption. This was obviously due to improved farming practises such as minimal till and improved non-GM plant breeding such as hyola (remember roundup ready is only one gene added to an existing non-GM plant). You can't give credit to GM where it is not due and it is obvious that it can't stand up in its own right if you have to resort to misusing statistics in that way. Compare the average yields for Canada and Australia now and you will find that there is little difference (except Australia is less stable due to adverse conditions.)
Wait for the Australia yield data to be released for this year. I am sure we will have the best year ever recorded... and we have no GM!

We did contract crops spraying for over 20 years so have enough experience in chemicals to know there is often a yield penalty associated with spraying, and this needs to be considered with the burden of weeds and the cost of application.

The US grower was a corn grower claiming to grow GM corn, conventional corn and organic corn on the same farm and yes, when I get time I will look for a name for you.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 9:23:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the subject of India, I have twice been to India to talk with Indian farmers and scientists about Bt cotton (including in their fields with no Monsanto reps in sight). The Bt cotton is working very well, so well that some farmers are growing whatever varieties are available even before locally adapted varieties can be refined and released. Indeed, one issue is that the Bt cotton carries so many bolls (because they have not been eaten by bollworms) that the cotton is maturing a bit too early for maximum yields, and the cotton varieties will have to be re-bred to maximize yields. The very fact that Indian farmer advocates are complaining about what they see as a monopoly is an express recognition that farmers want and benefit from the seeds, but like farmers everywhere, want them at a lower price. As is already the case in China, Indian scientists are developing their own Bt cotton, so the monopoly will soon end, and in any case, India has hundreds of small seed companies from which farmers have many other non-GM seed options. Further, Swaminathan's concern is about illegal "fake" Bt cotton seeds, ie, seeds that are advertised to be Bt but aren't, which further illustrates that farmers want Bt seeds and can see the difference when they don't get them.

Liability has already been addressed in this site, and I don't see any point in repeating the arguments that have been made in detail by several writers (see above). Strict liability is not legally warranted. Current liability laws protect farmers if they can show harm. Farmers have not shown harm or sued their neighbors in more than 8 years of broad use in the US or Canada (or anywhere else, including Argentina), facts which remain unchallenged on this site, or anywhere else.
Posted by Rick Roush, Thursday, 2 February 2006 4:55:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that Ausbiotech is pro-GM. Ms Newman has still avoided answering the question as to whether she would ever grow GM (a simple “yes” or “no” would suffice!), but has made many anti-GM claims, and cites Greenpeace and Gene Watch extensively, so we can safely assume that she is anti-GM.

Ms Newman has confirmed here that she did receive a letter from the Dept of Ag, which works for Minister Chance. The letter was also clearly about information that might be seen as politically sensitive, and Ms Newman is obviously politically active. I served as Director of the Weeds CRC for 5 years, and know for a fact that we were prohibited from making media releases in any state, even on the most benign things (eg. successful release of a biocontrol agent) in the run up to an election. What Ms Newman has described seems clearly to have violated those rules, errors of fact or not.

Comparing historical yields is bound to be confounded by seasonal weather. The trials need to be replicated and side by side. GM trials almost always do well in such circumstances provided there is reasonable weed or insect pressure.
Posted by Rick Roush, Thursday, 2 February 2006 4:56:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rick, you can't possibly be that naive to think that politicians must be silenced in the leadup to elections!

I'm afraid I got the dates wrong and referred to a different letter. In Feb 2005, Minister Chance was only dealing with election issues and I asked for clarity on the Labour party policy on GM after hearing the coalition was going to review the moratorium.

The Minister referred to "concerns" of environmental, consumer and farmer groups and "possible" adverse effects.

He spoke of how "many Western Australian farmers are yet to be convinced of the agricultural and economic benefits of growing GM crops. They have concerns about loss of local and overseas markets if GM crops are introduced, and are worried about legal issues associated with contamination of their crops by GM crops."

and "In 2003 - following the recommendations of an all party committee of the Western Australian Parliament Committee which identified a full range of health environmental, marketing and legal issues associated with GM crops - the Gallop Government’s Genetically Modified Free Areas Act 2003 was passed by the Western Australian Parliament with the full support of all parties including the Opposition.

Most importantly, he explained that "None of the issues identified by the Parliamentary Committee has been resolved to date..."

Since then, Mr Chance has followed his election promise and is arranging the health testing needed to address consumer concerns and has called for a balanced advisory committee.

Yet the pro-GM industry is opposed to this progression to start resolving the issues! Why?

Is it because they prefer to rely on false hype and bullying tactics and ignoring risk management?

Why should we trust scientists such as Ian Edwards from AusBiotech when they lie so vehemently? He has no evidence that the Network of Concerned Farmers "is guided and in part funded by Greenpeace" yet he put out a press release saying this and deliberately misinterpreted the Ministers letter concerned.

Scientists need to open their eyes, they are losing credibility fast by not telling the truth and for an over-reliance on attacking opposition.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 2 February 2006 9:51:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question regarding "would I grow GM?" is obviously upsetting Rick.
On a case by case basis, evaluating GM canola for benefits, alternatives, risks and risk management, I would not grow GM canola.
How can farmers even consider growing something when they don't know the costs or the contractual obligations?
Why should farmers grow something that has little benefit and it is obvious that any benefit to the farmer will be absorbed by the GM company? We have better alternatives.
Why should farmers grow something that markets are rejecting and will prohibitively increase all farmers costs to segregate?
At the moment, there are few benefits and there are alternatives that offer better options, the risks are very high and the risk management is totally inadequate.

I also think GM is not significantly different enough to be registered as a patent rather than the normal plant breeder rights. A patent is not designed for self replicating plants.

I would like to see scientists know alot more about the DNA and the implications of forcing a gene in a place that may interrupt the current association between genes. Techniques should be alot more precise than presently available (so that multiple genes, bits of genes etc are not added) and should not rely on active virus' and invasive bacteria (such as e-coli) to transmit the genes. Techniques should be affordable for scientists and should not require scientists to "do deals" with companies like Monsanto in order to use the patented intellectual property for research. Ethics should be taken into consideration to prevent varieties such as the rice in Japan using human liver genes to provide multiple chemical resistance.
Thorough, independent health testing should be done to allay consumer concerns and ensure we are not releasing something that needs to be recalled.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 2 February 2006 11:09:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the reasons that safety concerns exist about GM is that mis-information is not corrected, and omissions of relevant data not fixed. Agronomist raised tryptophan ealier as an NCF website error, but Julie Newman did not respond (that I detected). The scientific evidence is now very strong that EMS sickness is not caused by impurities created by GM. This is discussed fully at:

A heretofore undisclosed crux of Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome [EMS] : compromised histamine degradation.
M. J. Smith and R. H. Garrett Inflammation Research 54 (2005) 435–450

and
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/big-shift-in-diagnosis-of-gm.html
Its important get the message that false information itself can cause harm by obscuring important safety precautions to be taken. In this case false information about tryptophan can cause deaths so there a very strong ethical reasons for website errors and omissions to be corrected promptly.
Posted by d, Thursday, 2 February 2006 11:20:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Scott Day Canadian farmer (http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=12149&start=1&control=218&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1).

Country Times

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Grain growers have little to fear from genetically-modified crops, according to Canadian farmer and agronomist, Scott Day.

With almost 20 years experience in growing GM crops, Scott believes the technology is vital to the success of his farming enterprise, particularly his ability to farm without tillage.

Scott is one of three keynote speakers from the US and Canada at this year's ABB Grain 8th Annual SANTFA No-Till Conference.

"GM canola and the firm moist seed bed of a no-till field is a perfect match", Scott said.

"We can seed earlier with GM canola, we don't have to wait for a germination of weeds prior to seeding, we can plant GM canola on our dirtiest land, and clean up problems from previous years or on land we are just starting to farm."

Growers look to use less herbicide in the crop preceding a GM canola crop because they know they will be able to keep the canola clean the following year, and when they plant a crop of wheat or barley into GM canola stubble they are often able to use less herbicide because they know the paddock will be clean, he says.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 2 February 2006 11:36:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RADIO DISCUSSION ON THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL RELEASE OF GM CROPS.
RURAL REPORT Time: 06:47 AM ABC SOUTH EAST SA Date: 01/04/2004

DAVID CLAUGHTON INTERVIEWER

....CLAUGHTON:
They'd be looking for leadership, wouldn't they? And the leadership, as far as the agricultural sector goes, would come from the South Australian Farmers' Federation. How have they performed, do you think, in terms of representing farmers' views on this issue?
NIC KENTISH, NETWORK OF CONCERNERD FARMERS
I think that the South Australian Farmers' Federation formed their own opinion and then tried to get the views of their members to suit their opinion. And it didn't really work entirely very well. And they had an 80% negative response to their question, did they think that genetically modified canola should be released in South Australia.
I believe, in this instance, that the South Australian Farmers' Federation are way out of touch. There are many other instances that they are right on the money. But on this one, they got it really badly wrong, and refused to listen to members, hoping that members would come to their way of thinking sooner or later. I don't think it'll work this time. And that sort of arrogance, on behalf of Farmers' Federation is extremely dangerous.
The other alternative is to talk about the Network of Concerned Farmers as a bunch of leaders, partially supported by Greenpeace, doesn’t gel too well with most farmers. It's a paradigm shift they can't cope with. Farmers aren't supposed to get along with Greenpeace or their attitudes and beliefs.
Posted by d, Friday, 3 February 2006 7:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer said: “I also think GM is not significantly different enough to be registered as a patent rather than the normal plant breeder rights. A patent is not designed for self replicating plants.”

Yet you consider GM is significantly different enough to rail about potential health risks. You should investigate these things yourself instead of parroting ill-informed people. It is the process that is patented not specifically the plant itself.

“I would like to see scientists know alot more about the DNA and the implications of forcing a gene in a place that may interrupt the current association between genes.” Techniques should be alot more precise than presently available (so that multiple genes, bits of genes etc are not added) and should not rely on active virus' and invasive bacteria (such as e-coli) to transmit the genes.”

Your ignorance of the process is so great that you don’t even know how much is known. What specific gaps do you want scientists to find out?

For plants, active viruses and E. coli are not used to transmit genes. The two preferred means are the gene gun and a disarmed Agrobacterium. Naturally viruses are leaving bits of DNA in plants all the time and gene insertions and re-arrangements occur catalysed by transposons and other factors. GMOPundit has a long series on these natural genetic modifications. I suggest you read it and you will find out just how much scientists do know about these processes.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 3 February 2006 7:56:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree) Your mate Scott confirms what I have been saying - Canada does not rely heavily on pre-emergent chemicals like we do. Australia’s weed burden needs to be controlled in the pre-emergent phase or we will have a massive drop in yield due to competition on emergence. It is misleading to claim Australian farmers can adopt Canadian practises when conditions and weeds are so different. It is also misleading to claim tillage practises are any different to normal non-GM chemical resistant canola.
How did Scott get 20 years of experience growing GM crops when they have not been out that long?

CSIRO even admitted scientists only know about 95% of what the DNA does so you can't possibly say it is well informed science.
The gun is used, but not always and is a relatively new technique. Most of the varieties available have used the cauliflower mosaic virus CMV35S. When we were doing the GM technique in the CSIRO course, we used e-coli. The whole idea is to get an invasive carrier to invade the DNA and carry the gene. If you have done GM work, you would know that you are not isolating one gene and you are not precisely planting the gene in a particular place in the DNA.
If it was good science, you would not have so many failures and deformed outcomes.

Bill, you should look at who is "parroting ill-informed people". Yes, the processes are patented and the plant and its progeny is too. I suggest you contact the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture for more information rather than resort to immediate name calling.
"Significantly different": Using Roundup Ready plants for example, only one gene in around 30,000 is the different GM gene, why then should the whole plant and all its progeny gain a patent rather than the standard plant breeder rights?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 3 February 2006 11:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As already explained numerous times, The Network of Concerned Farmers is not, and has never been, supported or funded by Greenpeace. Nic Kentish hasn't been an active member but was involved in organising a meeting in 2002 which was when we established founding members. He joined 2 Greenpeace phone conferences where we explained the farmer problems to them. When Nic mentioned "support" he was referring to assistance they gave him to help handle vehement attacks (he rang them individually). Even Nics statement is a far cry from the lie that the NCF "is guided and in part funded by Greenpeace"

LTryptophan is still only a very small part of the debate as a whole. There will always be ongoing debate on LTryptophan as there are anomalies in the debate for and against. While those for GM claim that the reason that so many died and developed permanent disabilities had more to do with the filters than the increased concentration of GM, those against cite cases that discredit the reasons given by the GM sector.

The GM debate is not, and should not be, totally reliant on so called scientific studies by people who avidly support GM and/or have a vested interest in the technology. I know I can drive a truck through the holes in the ridiculous reports that farmers are supposed to accept, yet the pro-GM activists claim it is true.

How do any of you see the debate progressing? For example, non-GM farmers will not accept liability, so how do you see this being managed? Are you going to try to make non-GM farmers accept this liability by ignoring the problem or are you going to make some headway into addressing the problem and coming to an amicable resolution?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 3 February 2006 12:06:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Patenting. Monsanto would find it exceptionally difficult to prosecute me for patent breach if I had a pile of RoundupReady seed just sitting in my shed. Only if I were to use them, either by selling or by planting would I be in breach of the patent. The patent is on the process only. The Canadian Supreme Court Judgement on the Percy Schmeiser made this clear.

2. Genetic modification. CMV35S is a promoter. It is a small piece of DNA that allows genes to be transcribed. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting the DNA into the cell or into the genome. You can indeed transform E. coli by putting plasmids containing genes into them. Sometimes you can get them to ‘mate’ with other bacteria and pass the genes along, but the do not infect plants. If you really knew anything about the details of genetic engineering you would know these things.

3. Ignorance. You may have noticed that there are quite a number of areas raised in this debate that I have not strayed into. This is deliberate because I am entirely or mostly ignorant of those areas. You have consistently shown that you understand little of the process of genetic engineering and how it works. Hence, my comment about your ignorance in this area is not “name-calling”, but a statement of fact (see point 2 above).

With every topic I have mentioned on this forum I have looked at the available research, worked out which elements were trustworthy – did they come from a source that should know? Had they been repeated? Was it possible to trace back to the original quotations? Were they in context? For example, I have preferred the Australian Bureau of Statistics over the Australian Oilseed Federation, because the former told me how the data was collected, the latter did not. Likewise, the Canola Council of Canada gets its data from a source (StatCan) that I can check. That is called research.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 3 February 2006 12:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have continually asked for research done on humans or similar and it has not been given so I presume that it’s not been done. Why are you opposed to others wanting to do these tests? Is GM so bad that you are hiding it until it is too late?
I looked at Tryptophan and EMS link:
Medical research http://www.nemsn.org/medical.htm “There is little research continuing in the effort to find a cure for EMS. This is due to the fact that the epidemic stopped soon after L-Tryptophan was recalled by the FDA and that the numbers of those infected were relatively small in comparison to victims of other diseases. Additionally, since the genetically engineered bacterium is no longer available, definitive experiments cannot be done to resolve the problem.”
www.nemsn.org/Articles/ems%20abstracts.doc Victor Herbert, professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. “We investigated an animal model of EMS, a disease that occurred in various parts of the United States in 1989, with a view to determining its cause. We speculated that adrenal dysfunction might have potentially contributed to the occurrence of EMS and studied the effects of adrenal dysfunction on the eosinophil count in peripheral blood by using rats and mice whose adrenals had been excised or that had been metyrapone-treated, and giving them L-tryptophan. As a result, a significant increase in the eosinophil count was observed in both animal species. The results suggest that EMS may have been caused, not by L-tryptophan alone, but by the combined effects of adrenal dysfunction and L-tryptophan ingestion”.
This GM pharmaceutical was not a crop and was able to be recalled. But the victims either died or had a permanent disability. Perhaps you should add this to your website non-GM farmer?
Prior reports have said that non-GM is not Greenpeace funded. Get over it, as this is petty.
I was only mildly interested in this debate when I started, but from the venom displayed to those with valid concerns, especially non-GM farmer, I understand now why ordinary citizens, including me now, have become activists against this potential biohazard
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 3 February 2006 1:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), You originally claimed that GM crops did not have a patent but now you admit they do (where was your research when you made that statement?). Yes, they do have a patent and the patented progeny is covered by patent law too. Plants are usually covered by a plant breeder right and GM crops should come under the same banner as this PBR patent law is specifically designed to cover plants. Having a patent cover that is not designed for self replicating plants is wrong.

CMV35S is a cauliflower mosaic virus. E-coli is a bacterial invader used in GM. I explained that I don't like virus' and bacteria used in this processes (they are) as I am concerned that mutations are possible. How do we know that playing with bacteria and virus' in DNA will not create more virulent strains or when using cross-kingdom breeding, will give a bridge for bacteria and virus to cross kingdom barriers? Anybody can have an opinion on these things without necessarily being an expert, it’s an opinion, not a scientific paper seeking review.

After contact with Ian Edwards, I recognise "Rebel"s style and considering his major vested interest in this technology, can understand his desperate vehement attitude to anyone in opposition.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welcome to the increasing group of people with serious concerns that are prepared to stand up for our rights isitreallysafe.

Only genetically modified L-tryptophan caused the problem, not L-tryptophan that was made using GM and the article explains that it could also have been other contaminants so is not the radical anti-GM article the pro-GM activists would prefer us to believe.

The article on the NCF website that caused the upset with the pro-GM activists is: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2393 and a quote:
"The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported on July 11, 1990 that people only got EMS from pills made by Showa Denko, one of the six manufacturers whose L-tryptophan was imported into the U.S. from Japan. Showa Denko’s pills had several unique contaminants that were likely to be responsible for the epidemic. Moreover, the manufacturer was genetically engineering bacteria to produce the L-tryptophan more economically. Genes had been inserted into bacteria’s DNA in order to produce high concentrations of several enzymes used in its production."
I have put further links at the bottom of that article to explain the fors/against debate so that should please the pro-GM activists. I included a semi-quote referencing this site (do you mind isitreallysafe?, was an excellent quote).

But really, I am more interested in the farming issues and the fact that we can't manage to retain our choice to market without contamination if it is introduced and, health wise, we can’t recall a crop if it is found to be a problem.

p.s. To Agronomist (Bill Crabtree): Are you, or your costs paid by Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience to take farmers over to Canada and US?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Only genetically modified L-tryptophan caused the problem, not L-tryptophan that was made using GM."

This statement by Julie Newman is factually wrong and dangerous: it will continue to mislead people into taking tryptophan which itself is hazardous. I urge you to correct this dangerous advice Julie on your website and update the medical references.

"The article on the NCF website that caused the upset with the pro-GM activists is: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2393 and "

The Jeffrey Smith book cherry picks data - that is it avoids quoting the extensive information available to him that refutes his innacurate speculations about tryptophan. Smith is also out of date on science and evidence about EMS.
I supplied a November 2005 authoritative medical review (linked via my website and quoted there)and its 350 odd references contain the evidence, which I have personally checked, that Jeffrey Smith has censored out of his book.

Smith has no formal medical education, let alone science education, yet Julie Newman relies on him and his Natural Law Party type connections for dangerous medical advice.

\Is it Safe : the link you gave does not mention the November 2005 article in Inflammation Research that I quote.

I remain seriously concerned that Julie Newman seems unwilling to correct inaccurate and dangerous medical advice, harmful even fatal advice that could mislead people to still take tryptophan. I repeat: all sources of tryptophan add to risks of getting EMS disease. Is it safe? -NO.
Posted by d, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:35:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Smith-and-Garrett2005:

In contrast to early epidemiological evidence offering links between eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) and microimpurities of l-tryptophan-containing dietary supplements
(LTCDS), this account shows why reliance on a finite impurity from one manufacturer is both unnecessary and insufficient to explain the etiology of EMS.

Two alleged (and partially interrelated) cofactors – namely, genetic engineering and a microimpurity/ies of dietary supplements [15] – are both unnecessary and insufficient explanations of enigmatic (multifactorial)4 chains of causality underlying a majority of official EMS cases.
Numerous etiologic incongruities [16–19] – including two reports of L-tryptophan-induced eosinophilia with myalgia in 1986 [20–22] – underscore why a paradigm shift was advisable.

Additional counterevidence from Waller, Wood, Breckenridge and Rawlins, (published by the London Department of Health and Social Security) disclosed at least 3 official6 EMS cases in the United Kingdom that were associated with a Merck pharmaceutical product containing L-tryptophan (Optimax)7 [32]. An analogous survey in Ireland disclosed 5 cases of eosinophilia linked to Optimax [33]. These littleknown landmarks do not comport with hypotheses that “the
etiologic agent” [11, 34–36] of L-tryptophan-induced EMS is a finite microimpurity/ies of LTCDS manufactured by Showa Denko K.K.

One should be mindful of six incontestable facts that collectively
undercut unifactorial explanations of an epidemiologic spike [37, 38] in recorded cases of eosinophilia with myalgia in the late 1980s: the stringent surveillance criteria devised for case-control studies were never meant to be employed as diagnostic criteria [11]; a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nationwide recall and import alert in November 1989 for LTCDS in which L-tryptophan is the sole or major component [39]; a preceding “sharp upturn” [40] in nationwide consumption of L-tryptophan supplements [41, 42]; an inconsistent incidence among subjects who consumed L-tryptophan from common bottles [43]; a relatively low yet telling apparent incidence...; and lastly, analytical determinations of blood cell counts remain unmonitored in most medical checkups.
Posted by d, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have started looking at seed companies to see if Monsanto is taking them over and they are. Does anyone know if the Australian Pacific Seeds is owned by Monsanto?
http://www.pacificseeds.com/media/2004/news_25_Nov_04_Strength.htm “With the redistribution of Advanta's North American businesses, and it now belonging to Monsanto in Canada and Monsanto in the USA, Pacific Seeds is now a core part of Advanta and as a strong performer is in no danger of liquidation”.
I also want GM and GM mixes to be thoroughly tested because consumers will be eating it and it is a major health issue. No-one eats just one product and mixtures could react and has to be tested for safety as no tests remotely look at this issue.
You don’t believe overdosing can happen, that is a ridiculous statement as poor countries eat just one food for all meals which would affect their total Vitamin A/Omega 3 overdosage. They would not notice that the rice is a slightly different colour and natural rice is a brown colour. You are saying that I can “stick to white rice”, when I eat brown rice, but how can you stop your GM rice contaminating my rice?
Thanks non-GM Farmer for giving me the reference site for tryptophan so I could look up what was going on. Feel free to use any of my references or quotes in the future.
The research I quoted was valid and your inflammation research is not the only research around, so why are you defaming the research that I gave when it is valid? Or do you do this all the time when it does not suit your purpose
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 5 February 2006 12:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d (David Tribe), your posts sound a tad confused but let me allay your concerns.
1. At no time have I given "dangerous" medical advise (you are really getting desperate there).
2. It was only the GM L-Tryptophan that caused the problem, not all L-Tryptophan and hence the public outcry that linked GM with this problem. Showa Denko was the source of the massive EMS epidemic. The 8 cases mentioned were in line with normal EMS statistics, the thousands that were related to Showa Denko created the uproar.
3. I did not put the quote you said on my website.
4. Jeffrey Smith compiles data from a range of referenced sources including scientists.
5. I think L-Tryptophan was withdrawn from the market. Article quote: "the epidemic stopped soon after L-Tryptophan was recalled by the FDA"
6. You seem to have missed the point: The quotes I have on my site include at least three other reasons for the problem: Jeffrey Smith explains " they also reduced the amount of carbon in the filter of the manufacturing process from 20 kilos to 10 " and then gives the reason why that published excuse was not acceptable. He also includes "Showa Denko’s pills had several unique contaminants that were likely to be responsible for the epidemic." I also added a section with the quote "The results suggest that EMS may have been caused, not by L-tryptophan alone, but by the combined effects of adrenal dysfunction and L-tryptophan ingestion"

To put it simply, the blame could be that it was a concentrated GM formula gone wrong, that the filters were insufficient to deal with the concentration (highly unlikely considering the facts)or that a batch was contaminated with other material. Also the problem was evident when in association with adrenal dysfunction, not as a stand alone problem.

isitreallysafe - Pacific Seeds appears to be the only Australian company that is taking real efforts to test for and avoid GM in non-GM seed.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 5 February 2006 1:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a preliminary health study from Russia http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=293 which found that an astounding 55.6% of the offspring of female rats fed genetically engineered soy flour died within three weeks. The female rats had received 5-7 grams of the Roundup Ready variety of soybeans, beginning two weeks before conception and continuing through nursing. By comparison, only 9% of the offspring of rats fed non-GM soy died. Furthermore, offspring from the GM-fed group were significantly stunted—36% weighed less than 20 grams after 2 weeks, compared to only 6.7% from the non-GM soy control group. This is dated November 2005 and the Russian scientists want to do more thorough research to investigate these preliminary findings.
These are scary results that could be appropriate to humans and yet you deny me data and want me to stop asking for studies done on humans. You want consumers to be the guinea pigs. If more people knew about this, it would cause an uproar and consumers would demand no-GM and more tests.
This is why I want thorough independent studies done, so that it looks for major health concerns and shows under scrutiny the results of GM testing without the hidden agendas of GM companies fudging the reports.
GM should be stopped at the gates of Australia until proper scientific testing is done before it is too late to recall GM as a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 5 February 2006 9:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer, let us try this again. CMV, often CaMV, is cauliflower mosaic virus. CMV35S is the 35S promoter, a short stretch of DNA, from the CMV genome that is responsible for transcription of the CMV genes. Here is a website where you can get more information (http://www.bios.net/daisy/promoters/768/242/g1/250.html). A virus is in no way used or responsible for transforming plants.

E. coli is a bacterium common in the human intestine and in the environment. It does not infect plants. It is not used in transferring DNA to plants. The only thing E.coli is used for is housing plasmids.

Mutation. All DNA mutates. Are you equally worried about plant DNA mutating in your Atrazine Resistant plants? If not why not?

You need to read more carefully and not just assume things. I said in both posts that the patent was on the process not the plants per se. Think about it this way. If I were to grow a crop of Roundup Ready canola and were to sell the seed to a cattle feed lot, I would be free to do so without paying a license fee. The feed lot would also be free to feed the seed to the cattle without paying a license fee. In fact, I would be free to sell the seed to anybody I liked. The only thing we couldn’t do with it is plant the seed to grow a crop.

The rules covering the use of Roundup Ready canola are identical to those available under Plant Variety Rights, with one exception. The patent on the process stops anybody else using the seed to breed new varieties without a license. Such a restriction is not present in PVR.

Funding. Interesting you keep wanting to bring this up. You have stated on this forum that you have received travel support from Bayer. Why is it OK for you to get support from Bayer and not me?

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. It is a case of whether it is an informed opinion or just a bunch of fairy tales.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 6 February 2006 7:45:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From a paper just published.

Upadhay et. al. 2006. Economics of integrated weed management in herbicide-resistant canola. Weed Science 54:138-147 (http://wssa.allenpress.com/wssaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0043-1745&volume=054&issue=01&page=0138).

Integrated weed management (IWM) decision strategies in herbicide-resistant canola-production systems were assessed for net returns and relative risk. Data from two field experiments conducted during 1998 to 2000 at two locations in Alberta, Canada, were evaluated. … When risk of returns and statistical significance was considered, several strategies were included in the risk-efficient set for risk-averse and risk-neutral attitudes at each location. However, the glyphosate-resistant cultivar, the 50% herbicide rate, and weed control at four-leaf stage were more frequent in the risk-efficient IWM strategy set.

To summarise, Roundup Ready canola consistently provided some of the best economic returns.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 6 February 2006 10:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it safe: "inflammation research is not the only research...why are you defaming the research I mention": To discard a wrong hypothesis is good scientific method. The SandG review is the latest research with a new theory on the mechanism of EMS with a comprehensive review of all previous work. To state factually that your information is out of date and doesn’t cover the same ground as SandG was merelysupplying the logic for discarding a failed hypothesis.

Russian Studies: see-post-d, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 10:05:45 PM

Julie Newman:
QUOTE-FROM-SandG[Refs 311, 312] "We conducted a pharmacoepidemiological survey in Canada where access to L-Tryptophan is limited. Of 6423 patients assessed, 19 'definite' and 25 'possible' EMS cases were identified. Information from physicians did not suggest use of L-T in patients with definite or possible EMS. It was considered that the cases found an underestimate of the incidence of EMS. Its continuing occurrence in Canada brings causal interpretations of earlier studies into question.(Ref-numbers GMOPpunditwebsite). THUS EMS OCCURS WITHOUT TRYPTOPHAN SUPPLEMENTS.

It is totally misleading to continue saying, as you still do"It was only the GM L-Tryptophan that caused the problem."---this is refuted by SandGs paper, my previously posted quote about the MERCK pharmaceutical, and the fact that EMS is not a new disease but occurs widely without tryptophan being used.

It is misleading to describe SmithandGarrett2005 as pro-GM; to imply that adrenal malfunction is the sole contrary factor, and to obscure completely SandG2005 by not bothering to explain clearly what they discovered about a complex disease:----that tryptophan is a hazard, and whether or not it was made using GM is irrelevant. Non-GM sourced tryptophan can cause EMS and EMS can occur without tryptophan. EMS is quite frequent in the community and early stages of EMS may have INDUCED depressed people to try tryptophan; merely brief mention of contrary evidence to Jeffrey Smith's hypothesis on your NCF site is not good enough to accurately inform the public if you also completely misrepresent and obscure the scope and substance of the contrary case.
Posted by d, Monday, 6 February 2006 11:48:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have only asked about funding twice Agronomist (Bill Crabtree) and you ignored the first question and avoided answering it properly next. I am presuming that by your answer you are funded by Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto to take these tours. How much are you paid, expenses only or a fee on top of that? I’m not saying you shouldn’t be, I am just asking for the same transparency you demanded of me.

Bill, it was you who incorrectly said the GM plant was not patented. In the case of Roundup Ready GM crops, there is not only a patent for the GM trait but there is the PBR over the plant that the GM trait was added to. The patent is over the genes added to allow resistance to roundup. While Percy Schmeisser established that Canadian rules did not require him to pay a user fee unless he used Roundup on the crop.

What will Australian law establish? Will an Australian farmer need to pay the exhorbitant fees to challenge Monsanto in court to find out? We don’t want this patented product on our land but we can't stop it trespassing. If Monsanto own the patent and it is trespassing, they should be liable for removing it from our land. But no… the non-GM farmers are expected to remove it at our cost even though it can't be removed without removing the whole crop!

Its no fairy tale that non-GM farmers are expected to subsidise the GM industry and that is what my debate is about. Non-GM farmers will not accept liability for a product we don't want, can't control and will cause us economic loss.

Bills summary regarding RoundupReady and economic returns is misleading (again).
The best economic returns are not only based on weed control. Costs such as technology fee, segregation, volunteer control, quality assurance, resistance management plans, contractual obligations, lower price for commodity and insurance against liability all need to be deducted. Monsanto will not even reveal technology costs so how can we calculate economic return?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 6 February 2006 12:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d, it is not my role to inform the public of every claim and counterclaim ever made on every facet of the GM debate. I volunteer my time and pay the costs to have a website to explain the concerns regarding GM. In many cases, including the one concerned now, I have alternative viewpoints or the pro-GM debate which is showing more courtesy than I have been shown. Unless you are planning to arrange for my debate to be put on every pro-GM site, I shouldn't be expected to put all the pro-GM debates on my website. I currently have over 2,600 stories on my site www.non-gm-farmers.com and you have objected to one. Not bad really.

Scientists working in this field have concerns about the technique used, I'm no expert at the GM technique and don't pretend to be. Invading genes into DNA in such an imprecise fashion could have dire consequences and it needs to be taken more seriously. The technique is not precise and scientists do not know exactly what they are doing. The success rate is extremely low and while the visual mutations are weeded out, what of the mutations that show no visual abnormalities? GM is a hit-and-miss-affair.

And now there is a global push to release GURTS (Genetic use restriction technology or the Terminator Technology). It was designed to make more money for the chemical companies by ensuring the majority of the offspring of GM traits is sterile so that farmers need to buy new seed every year and can’t dodge the patent fee. This means that contamination of non-GM crops results in less yield for us because the sterile gene can contaminate. This means that chemical companies can design plants where a chemical application can switch a trait on or off, even the progression of normal plant stages. No wonder chemical companies are so interested in GM technology!

Why exactly would consumers or farmers be happy with this one
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 6 February 2006 2:13:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, you and others have been repeatedly hounding non-GM farmer about Greenpeace when it is obvious they have not funded her. Why shouldn't she ask you about your funding?

What is scary is that GM when inserted into the DNA, not only are the inserted genes rearranged, but the plant’s own genomes also get scrambled around the insertion site. Genetic engineers have no control over where their foreign DNA constructs will be inserted into the host cell’s DNA. Research has revealed that the insertions often occur inside or near genes, which can be turned on or off by the invading foreign DNA. This can have serious consequences. More information can be located at www.commonground.ca/iss/0512173/cg173_gmo.shtml You are saying that its natural to change DNA but what about the stress on the plant DNA itself and the stresses associated with being bombarded with foreign DNA. All animals and plants get stressed as has been proven countless times, so the viral promoter that GM uses is possible potential to reactivate dormant viruses, which exist in the genomes of all higher organisms, including plants and animals. Cancer cells could be one of these reactivated cells. There is also a danger of the creation of new viruses by recombination. This is a potential disaster waiting to happen. The problem that scientists have is that unless they know what they are looking for in the DNA they will not notice changes occurring. They should therefore be doing tests for long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity before being given to the consumer. These safety criteria must be met for all drugs so the magnitude of harm caused by toxic food could well be much greater than that from any single drug.

No doubt there is just as much debate that Smith’s hypothesis in incorrect. Give me the direct site and not your pundit site so that I can read their full research papers so they can be analysed by myself and others without referencing your site.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 6 February 2006 2:41:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non GM farmer: If, Julie, you use misinformation to bring about events that potentially harm others economically and otherwise, there is every reason to question what you say in the public arena. And you say so much that wrong its difficult to keep up with all this misinformation.

For instance You've just mentioned plant sterility systems and how they supposedly can contaminate. How can sterile plants produce seed that or pollen that contaminates, if they are sterile. Its a contradiction. Sterile men don't leave children.

If Julie has every right to protect her interests as she sees them, others too, affected by Julie's activities, or concerned as I am for there effects on others, have the right to question misinformation.

Is it safe: I bought for US$30 , Smith and Garrett's article itself using a credit card, out of my personal funds over the internet. The citation is at my site (or can be found via Pubmed , Medline or other intenet literature services http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) if you want to avoid my site. Visit the original paper, it will only cost you as much as I paid. Or share the cost with Julie.

I regard doing homework like that as standard practice if one engages in public discussion. I have also read the key papers they cite.
Posted by d, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d, (David Tribe), Just who is trying to mislead who?
We are told we will be "left behind" that GM canola yields up to 40% better and that we need GM to compete on the world market. What outright lies!

We are told that there are no market premiums, when GM-growing Canada has dropped from an average premium over Australian non-GM canola of $US32.68/tonne to a penalty of $US30/tonne.

We are told that segregation is possible and our choice will not be denied but the plan is that rather than the GM growers containing the GM product, non-GM growers need to take every step to avoid contamination and accept the liability if they fail.

We are told coexistence is possible when everybody knows it will be impossible and price prohibitive to the non-GM grower.

We are told that the OGTR has taken rigorous steps to ensure the safety of GM foods when they are reliant on the data supplied by the GM company and tests don’t address the concerns of the consumers.

We are told to trust scientists when scientists are manipulating facts and misrepresenting research to push through a GM product that they are reliant on lucrative funding from.

It is the norm for pro-GMers to attack by making a statement along the lines of "everyone is telling lies" when in reality, the pro-GMers want people to be more complacent and accept the lies that are told to us. No David, if you want to see who is misleading who, you need to look further than your narrow field of expertise.

You want the latest example?

You misunderstand GURTs yet you immediately presume I am lying. I'm not talking about sterile people, GURTs doesn’t have sterile pollen. It would not be of commercial value for the GM industry if the plant did not produce offspring ie. plant the canola seed and it will not produce seed to harvest.
No, the idea is that the offspring are rendered sterile. ie. plant the canola seed, harvest it and that seed is sterile requiring the purchase of new seed every year.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GMFarmer. No you are no expert on GM Techniques and it shows. Just about every comment you have made about them is wrong.

You also have little understanding of breeding techniques, otherwise you would be aware of ho new traits are introduced. Two ways I will briefly describe.

One is from wide breeding. If you want a new rust resistance trait in wheat you might go looking for it in a distant relative, say jointed goatgrass. You make the cross, but only one in a hundred crosses are successful. The plants produced are deformed. They are all male sterile and female fertility is of the order of a few percent. You cross back to wheat and after 5 or 6 generations of crosses have restored fertility and along the way have thrown out thousands of deformed plants. You have a successful breeding program, but who knows what other non-visual traits have come from the weed? Atrazine-resistant canola was bred in this way.

The second is mutation breeding. Most of our crops have been through this. The idea is to treat seed with a mutagen at a rate that kills half the seed. You then plant the seed out and many of the seedlings have deformities, so you discard those. You find the ones with the new trait you want. You continue to breed from it, discarding any plants with obvious deformities. You have a successful breeding program, but who knows what other non-visual traits have been created by the mutagen? Clearfield canola was bred in this way.

As for GM, one of the reasons why so many events are discarded is because of the expense of bringing them to market. It is cheap to make events, but expensive in regulation costs. You only keep the very best. Also with GM it is possible to find out where the gene has gone and what genes are around it. You can actually test whether these have been disrupted.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 9 February 2006 6:35:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), you have neglected to answer my question regarding funding by Bayer Cropscience and/or Monsanto.

The consumer rejection is not about non-GM techniques, it is about GM techniques. What is the success rate? I was told (and you were at that meeting) that about one in a million GM attempts are succesful. Not great odds and certainly not anywhere near the failure rate of conventional breeding.

Why would you possibly want to deny consumer health testing when that is the key to consumer acceptance? Why not admit this is the biggest PR disaster in history and face trying to resolve it rather than trying to ignore it?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 9 February 2006 9:03:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie Newman,
Julie Newman,
I don't presume you are lying. I realise there are a variety of GURTS not just the ones I was thinking of and possibly you and I are talking at cross purposes.
This is the aspect of GURTs (=TPS) I think will not suffer from the problems you are concerned about:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/tps/?pf=1#how

Limiting the spread of genes

A concern has often been expressed that transgenes might escape from genetically modified plants into wild populations. One of the main purposes for the development of TPS was to offer a way in which the risk could be restricted or completely eliminated.

Cotton plants containing the activated TPS genes are evolutionary “dead ends.” They cannot reproduce nor can their pollen create a new generation when fertilizing a non-TPS plant. The activated TPS plant produces non-germinating seed and pollen. If pollen fertilizes a non-TPS plant, the seed produced cannot germinate. This renders the activated TPS plant self limiting.

The current TPS was designed for use in self-pollinating crops where pollen spread to neighboring fields is not significant. In crops that spread pollen over wide areas this TPS is not suitable, since the spread of activated TPS pollen would be detrimental to neighboring crops.

Research is currently underway to modify the TPS so that pollen will not contain any transgenes (neither TPS nor the inserted gene of economic importance). Pollen from such modified TPS plants would be completely normal.
Posted by d, Thursday, 9 February 2006 9:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer. You must be mistaken. I have never heard that the GM success rate is 1 in a million. In fact, I can’t think of anyone who would make a million transgenic plants for the purposes of selecting one. Where would they put them all? I recently saw some transgenic drought tolerant wheat plants. The number of transformations they had conducted was in the tens (and for two different constructs as well). Out of that, they had a number of events of which they were taking 6 forward for further testing. What I do know is that a lot of successful transformants are not pursued to commercialization because each event needs to separately regulated. The cost of regulation is so high that only the best events go forward.

Non-GM Farmer – you neglect to answer my questions. I thought we had already established that it didn’t matter whether you or I had travel support from Bayer? If it doesn’t matter, why do you want to know? You full disclosure argument doesn’t wash. You could run the same argument to demand that I tell you what color underwear I have on. So, until you can tell me why it matters whether I have had travel support from Bayer and why those reasons do not apply to you, I don’t see that it is necessary to answer your question.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:09:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), I'm not in the slightest bit interested in what colour underwear you have on.

Why not be transparent about funding when you have demanded it of me? Considering the constant drilling I had about funding sources etc earlier in this thread, I think it only fair that you answer my questions regarding your funding. Is the reason why you refuse to reveal the answer that you receive a significant amount of funding and don't want it made public?

The difference is that due to demands, I have disclosed any funding or assistance I have received and you have not. Bayer paid only my flight to attend a meeting in Canberra that they arranged but I paid for my time, my accommodation, for driving to Perth (880km round trip), airport parking fees etc which came to far more than the flight. They arranged a meeting with the Harvesters Association prior to this and then came out in the media saying that the Harvesters Assn problems had been resolved which was not true. That is why we insisted on a joint press communique on the completion of our meeting.

Again, you presume I "must be mistaken" when Ms Foley from CSIRO said this at a meeting in Lake Grace which you arranged while taking your Canadian mate Mr Day on a pro-GM tour (the same tour that claimed that non-GM Clearfield was GM). She was mainly referring to how many genes were isolated and how many actually resulted in a final product. The technique is very hit and miss with the hope that at least one in a million of the genes would stick to the DNA and actually work without producing deformities. You are only talking about mutations after the major achievement of getting the gene construct into the DNA.

d, (David Tribe) Your own quote counters your claim that our crops will not suffer a detrimental effect from GURTS.
"In crops that spread pollen over wide areas this TPS is not suitable, since the spread of activated TPS pollen would be detrimental to neighboring crops."
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 11 February 2006 12:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and for Rick Roush re organics:
In the latest Agnet from Leon Graves, President, Green Mountain Federation of Dairy Farm Cooperatives

"The USDA National Organic Standards clearly state that if organic growers follow the "organic process" for growing crops, the crops are considered organic. In fact, organic growers are not required to test their produce to prove that they meet the organic standards mandated by USDA."

The system required is a rigorous identity preservation system and closed loop marketing system that is already present in organic production.

The conventional farmer (not organic) that wants to continue to market unhindered and without GM contamination does not want to go to this expense. It should not be up to the non-GM grower to keep GM out of our produce, it should be up to the GM industry to keep it contained and compensate us if their lack of containment causes us economic loss.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 11 February 2006 1:41:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, I don't want to know what colour your underwear is either, but I do want to know if you have or are being funded by Bayer Cropscience or Monsanto.

Concerning damning evidence against the safety of GM food and feed:

*Pregnant female rats fed GM soya gave birth to severely stunted progeny and others in the litters that died within three weeks

*GM-soya affected cells in the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice

*Rats fed a Monsanto GM maize developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities

*Villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto GM maize hybrid came into flower; antibodies to the Bt protein in the GM maize were found in the villagers, and there have been five unexplained deaths

*Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues found young rats fed GM potatoes damaged in every organ system including an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to twice that in controls

*Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed another GM potato

*The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach

*Chickens fed Aventis' glufosinate-tolerant GM maize were twice as likely to die compared with controls

*New research demonstrated that a harmless protein in bean when transferred to pea caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked reactions to other proteins in the diet ("Transgenic pea that made mice ill"...)

This is why I am concerned that GM is unsafe and I still believe that it is a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 11 February 2006 2:50:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill, you constantly appear to not want to know the truth and when you hear it you twist it around to suit yourself while claiming I am lying. That of course is what was recommended by the "how to deal with activists" PR person that you earlier denied any involvement in. I was told you attended the WA meeting.

On 27.11.05 David Tribe re "...who funds each of our research." said "However, I think it is proper that those who attempt silence others using this argument should be transparent themselves."
An excellent comment David and very relevent now as Bill and particularly Rebel (Ian Edwards) have been most insistent regarding details of any funding I have had but have not been transparent themselves.

Agronomist (Bill Crabtree) 1.12.05 falsely claimed that I knew I had a website created by Greenpeace which was absolute fiction and then tried to imply I was changing my story. Bill finished "Are you, or were you, trying to conceal something?"

Bill even accused me of bullying when I revealed Jennifer Marohasy was funded by the GM industry to counter NGO anti-GM sentiment which is true. Why so frightened of revealing funding links, are you trying to conceal something Bill?

I have been truthful about my funding (or lack of funding) and pro-GM activists have managed to blow a minute involvement of Greenpeace (handling a cheque in and out only) into a major funding issue when it appears the major supporters of GM have a potential for real lucrative funding.

Rebel (Ian Edwards) has a huge vested interest in GM and has a real problem not accepting that I am not funded by Greenpeace demanding more specific details constantly. He seemed fixated on ignoring how George Kailis paid for my website with a $3,500 "keep the change" cheque via Greenpeace. He accused me of hiding information when the time lag between when I knew to when I answered the media was less than two minutes and he has not stopped the accusations. Rebel has disappeared since I guessed his identity.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 12 February 2006 1:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. Indeed you are mistaken. To my knowledge, I have never met a Ms. Foley of CSIRO. I have also never been to Lake Grace. If your 1 in a million is a reference to the number of cells in the explants that are treated, it is laughable. There is no intention to make every cell transgenic, you only need one (It is like accusing a man who gets his wife pregnant on the first encounter of inefficiency because he used a million sperm for the job). As selection is imposed, the cells that do not pick up the DNA are killed, hence your deformed cells.

I do know Scott Day, he is a farmer in south-western Manitoba. The last time I heard from Scott he was telling me that over 85% of canola in Manitoba is either Roundup Ready or Liberty Link. You must forgive Scott the confusion over the status of Clearfield canola. In Canada, Clearfield is considered a plant with a novel trait and regulated in the same way as Roundup Ready crops are. To a farmer, they all look the same. By the way, Scott also mentioned that despite growing GM canola, he grows and sells wheat into a premium EU market.

Funding. I have looked back through the posts and I have made only one comment about NCF funding (December 1st). I did not claim that the NCF website was created by Greenpeace as I had read your two posts about how the website had come about. It was clear Greenpeace was involved, if only as a broker. Instead I asked why you felt you needed to change your story about the assistance the NCF had from Greenpeace in the matter of your website. You did not answer me.

You have still not said why it is important for you to know whether I have had travel funding support from Bayer. Indeed, I am trying to conceal something, my identity. So far on this forum you have made widely inaccurate statements about Bill Crabtree and Rick Roush. I don’t want to be the next.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 13 February 2006 7:53:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you saying you are not Bill Crabtree Agronomist? Funny you have not denied this up until it gets too hot about the funding.

Re the 1/1,000,000, you would expect this in nature but it would be a big failure if you were using the more precise lab techniques. Why say GM is precise when its not?

You now state "I did not claim that the NCF website was created by Greenpeace."

Your comment on 1.12.05 "Before that all you knew you had was a website created by Greenpeace. How is this not support from Greenpeace?"

As I explained and as you no doubt know as you read the article I wrote, I did not at any time now or before presume "I had a website created by Greenpeace". Why would I, Greenpeace had nothing to do with the website, they only paid the account for George using Georges money.

But you ignored the truth and ranted on saying... "Now you tell a different story. Which are we to believe? Why does the story change all the time? Are you, or were you, trying to conceal something?"

Considering you were so demanding regarding funding, I think I have the right to ask you about your funding.

What widely inaccurate statements about Bill and Rick? I repeated what an agronomist had told me about you (or Bill if you claim you are not Bill) and I immediately apologised when I was corrected off forum. Rick was upset that he was on a list without a comment so quoted the comment for others. You sure hiding your identity is not more to do with not wanting the same treatment as I have received? I revealed my identity and funding as soon as I was asked, what are you so frightened of?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 13 February 2006 9:08:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to declare that I have never had funding from Bayer Cropscience or Monsanto or Greenpeace but if anyone would like to fund me, please feel free to do so.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 13 February 2006 9:49:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

Oh, what a tangled web you weave! For someone who is so keen to claim that others are going after the man not the ball, you have a deep interest in the man or woman behind some posts. How about going back to the ideas and questions?

I am not Ian Edwards, whom I don’t know. I don’t have any GM funding, nor have I even touched a GM or herbicide tolerant plant in years. I have taken the last month off, during which I wasn’t demanding any details at all. It looks like we have a lot to catch up on, because even with all that time, you have still left a lot of my questions unanswered.
Posted by Rebel, Monday, 13 February 2006 4:59:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Rebel, welcome back.
After all your persistent demands of such detail of funding, I think it totally unreasonable that you are objecting to simple demands of funding of others. Why is it that I am expected to comply with these demands and answer these questions when you don't?
I seemed to be non-stop answering your questions, what do you still have a problem with?
Why don't you answer the questions I have asked of you?
Lets deal with what my debate is centred on. Non-GM farmers should not be expected to try to keep GM out of our produce and should not be expected to market as GM. How do you see coexistence working? Saying something like "it just needs cooperation between neighbours" is just ignoring the problem. Do you expect us to market as GM and face the market penalties associated with this? Or do you expect us to go through an expensive identity preservation closed loop system that is worse than what an organic grower must go through? Why should we accept being adversely impacted?
Take your time as I will be away in Perth from tomorrow.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 13 February 2006 5:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGM Farmer. As usual you take my words out of context. I don’t really care whether you did or didn’t have funding from Greenpeace and haven’t demanded that you tell me. It doesn’t make you more right or less wrong. What I did find interesting was the need you felt to change your story about who knew what when with regard to the role of Greenpeace in your website construction.

You reported wildly inaccurate hearsay about Bill Crabtree as fact without checking. You did the same by linking to GMWatch’s inaccurate profile of Rick Roush. He had to correct that. This seems to have become a habit of yours. You say things without checking their truth.

Why would it matter whether I am or am not Bill Crabtree? So you can have a target to go after?

I can see co-existence working just fine. It already does so in North America with specialty oil crops. It simply relies on those who want special conditions with their product being willing to pay for the identity preservation. When Canada introduced GM canola, nobody was that interested in paying extra for non-GM canola so segregation was not introduced. Now that they have some specialty oil markets in Europe, a small number of growers that access those make sure that GM presence is below 0.9%. Because there is a premium on specialty oils, they can easily afford the cost. If you find it too hard and don’t want to put in the effort, you just produce bulk commodities. What is so hard about that?
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 8:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is so much evidence from scientists that GM is hazardous so why are the hazards not taken into account and human studies performed correctly before GM is even allowed to be used for food?

This is unacceptable as the implications for disastrous side effects from GM is now becoming apparent and more so as more independent research is done. GM should be stopped at the gate of Australia until these researchers have thoroughly tested for long term effects on humans including offspring.

Why isn’t this being done? For example a series of laboratory tests on humans confirmed that the GM soybeans did provoke Brazil-nut allergy in humans. They could not feed the genetically modified soybeans to people for fear of killing them, but through scratch tests, they confirmed unequivocally that people allergic to Brazil nuts were allergic to the modified soybeans. In discussing their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers pointed out that tests on laboratory animals will not necessarily discover allergic reactions to genetically modified organisms. Only tests on humans will suffice.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only requires testing for allergic reactions if a gene is being taken from a source that is already known to cause allergic reactions in humans. Many genes are being taken now from bacteria and other life-forms whose allergenicity is entirely unknown, so federal regulations require no allergy testing in these cases. This reduces regulatory costs for the corporations, but leaves the public unprotected.

Crops are being genetically modified chiefly as a way to sell more pesticides. In some cases, the modified crops change the pesticides themselves, giving them new toxicity. The herbicide bromoxynil falls into this category.Bromoxynil is already recognized by U.S. EPA as a possible carcinogen and as a teratogen (i.e., it causes birth defects). Calgene (now owned by Monsanto) developed a strain of cotton plants that can withstand direct spraying with bromoxynil. Unfortunately, the bromoxynil-resistant gene in cotton modifies the bromoxynil, turning it into a chemical byproduct called DBHA, which is at as toxic as bromoxynil itself
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 16 February 2006 8:06:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it really safe? Your list of harms comes from a collection made by GMWatch. They will place anything on their website, regardless of accuracy, provided it is critical of GM products. The collection you listed comprises items that are mainly accurate, but of little or no consequences, items that have been taken out of context, items that have been debunked and internet hoaxes. In 350 words, I can't deal with all of them so I will just pick two to demonstrate how a bit of checking can sort the chaff from the grain.

Villagers in the Philippines and mystery illness on Bt. This was first exposed by Terge Traavik at a conference organised by an anti-GM organisation 2 years ago. A group of international scientists wrote Traavik an open letter requesting he post or publish his data given the severity of the event. Traavik refused to post his data and in the two years has not published it. Traavik has also not made his data available to regulatory authorities. The conclusion that scientists that I know are drawing from this is: that the data Traavik has is not strong enough to support the conclusions he has drawn.

Pregnant rats and GM soy. This was first exposed by Irina Ermakova at a conference organised by an anti-GM organisation last October. Stephen Strauss has written about this and you should read his comment http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20060203.html. Strauss makes the telling point that if this research were correct, then it should have been noticed among the vast number of animals being fed GM soy worldwide. Ermakova’s explanation is that some sort of giant conspiracy orchestrated by Monsanto has been occurring. A conspiracy involving millions of farmers in North America, South America, Australia, Asia and Europe? This is clearly a hoax.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 17 February 2006 7:04:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Previous reported miscommunication of your pro GM reporter (Stephen Strauss) his June 7, 2002 report “The privilege would allow farmers to collect and use seeds harvested from patented plants and to breed patented animals – for their own use only”. However, specifically states that, under the proposed amendments to the Act, the patent holder would still have the right to license their inventions and the terms of the licence could preclude a farmer from exercising this privilege. Accordingly, patent holders would restrict the use of their products through contractual agreement, not legislation. Current law does not restrict “farmers’ privilege” our report recommends that it not be proscribed in future legislation, either. Arnold Naimark (Chairman, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee).

I refuse to accept this report from a pro GM supporter. I want the facts and I am not going to take into account this person saying that a scientist that used to be a brain surgeon possibly became interested in the effects of GM and did a research on the possible harmful effects, found that there were major flaws in GM. This was a major problem but she had run out of money for her research. He is not even remotely looking at her submission of a larger study and final project that would be given to peer reviewed publications by saying “it is the worst of all scientific results and a bogus one”. She was concerned obviously of potential biohazard of GM and wanted the world to know. What is your problem with that?

Bt cotton in the Phillipines, the person was concerned about his safety as two thugs on motorbikes with no number plates came searching for him in his village. Are you bullying so many scientists out of giving their true results with your tactics that they are afraid to speak out? This has to stop. As consumers, we have the right to know what you are trying to force feed us and we definitely do not want to be the guinea pigs of your very costly experiment with human life just so you can make a buck.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 17 February 2006 3:20:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

I noticed an announcement today for the Joint International GM Opposition Day and note that you are quoted as “Julie Newman, of the Australian Network of Concerned Farmers”. The implication is that you and the Network of Concerned Farmers have joined the JIGMOD and allied yourselves with others who are quoted, such as Brian Tokar of the US-based Institute for Social Ecology. Is that right? Has your Network agreed to this? Was there a vote of the members or something like that?

I also note that from the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/16/1140064205088.html)
a story entitled

“Call for ban on GM crops to end”

“A FULL-SCALE review of Australian farm policies has called on Victoria and other states to end their ban on production of genetically modified crops, warning that Australia is being left behind by new technologies used overseas.”

A taskforce of 11 farm and food industry leaders was involved, chaired by National Farmers Federation president Peter Corish.

“in a world of expanding competition from lower-cost countries, the only way Australian agriculture can remain competitive is by increasing useof new technology and research and development.”

“Mr Corish said the most important recommendation of the study was that states should lift their bans on commercial use of gene technology, so that Australian farmers could catch up with the rest of the world, where genetically engineered crops are spreading rapidly.

“The report points out that while Australia, Argentina, Canada and the US all began using gene technology in 1996, Australia has now fallen far behind because Queensland is the only state allowing commercial use.”

“Argentina now has 65 times as much land producing genetically modified crops as Australia has. Canada has 21 times as much, the US almost 200 times as much, and even Brazil, which only started in 2003, now has 20 times as much GM crop land as Australia.”

Isn’t it time to stand aside and let all farmers the freedom to farm as they see fit? Or are you opposed to choice for the majority of farmers, represented by elected representatives from a known membership?
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 17 February 2006 5:30:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM farmer has said before that Australia is not falling behind in the race for technology. She is rather looking at what the technology is. I think you need to read her posts on the following dates to understand why. 26/1, 24/1 18/1 3/2 & 2/2 and more
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 18 February 2006 9:57:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again you pro-GM activists are deliberately ignoring the questions that matter and are sticking to the line of claiming I am misleading simply to cover your misleading comments.
Agronomist (BillCrabtree), I repeated what I was told about you Bill which you could have immediately corrected. Would you really like a public explanation of more detail on that issue? Rick just deliberately misinterpreted my comment as he linked himself with my comments about others.
Your comment "I can see co-existence working just fine" is typical of the pro-GM activists who choose to ignore the problem.
Non GM growers do not want to be adversely impacted yet our choices will be limited:
1. We market as GM and accept the associated market losses or
2. We go through a stringent identity preservation system estimated to cost around $35/tonne.
Neither is suitable to non-GM growers and therefore coexistence will not work "just fine" under this arrangement. It can only work when a plan is in place to ensure the non-GM farmers will not be adversely impacted.
Contrary to your comments, segregation was attempted in Canada but failed. We can learn by their mistakes and integrate a workable coexistence plan.
NCF has always debated GM and its impact on non-GM farmers at an international level. We represent the non-GM farmers, others represent other specialist angles of the debate.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 19 February 2006 12:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. Where do you get your information about the Canadian canola industry from? It is frequently wrong. The Canadian canola industry decided from day 1 that it would not try to segregate GM canola from non-GM canola as there was no financial incentive to do so. Subsequently there was, and is, some segregation for some specialty oil products. Canola seed sales to Europe were 7,600 tonnes in 2003/2004 that all had to be segregated.

You have been talking about significant premiums for Australian non-GM canola on this forum. If such premiums are real, you should not worry about the introduction of GM canola into Australia as the premiums will only get better and you as a non-GM farmer will stand to benefit. As the market for non-GM canola contracts, the price will go up and it will be well worth while segregating to capture the higher prices. If the premiums are not there, you are diddling yourselves of the agronomic benefits of these crops. Either way you are losing by opposing the introduction of GM canola into Australia.

Do you always publicly repeat malicious gossip you hear about people without checking it out first? If so, how many friends do you have?
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 19 February 2006 12:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You’ve missed the point Agronomist, there are no benefits but additional costs for non-GM farmers.
Rebel, I am opposed to someones choice adversely impacting on others without fair legal recourse. There is no way I and other farmers will "stand aside" and let that happen no matter how much you bully and coerce.
Almost all farm lobby groups have some clause in their policy to ensure non-GM farmers are not adversely impacted.
I am also involved in WAFarmers Federation and we have just set our annual policy. I am pleased that more farmers understand the issues now and part of that policy is to ensure there is adequate liability redress for non-GM farmers. One of my amendments was approved to encourage trials up to 10ha in order to assess agronomics. The president explained that he doubted if the companies would do that as they are concerned their varieties would not be able to outperform the varieties we have. Pretty obvious that we will not be left behind!
I was asked about Crabtree (Agronomist) and I responded. I could repeat far worse comments but refrained and will save the explanation from the agronomist concerned if media ever ask for it. I'm well aware I have few friends in the pro-GM activist camps but this is because I am refusing to accept bulldust and liability responsibility.
The Canadian Farmers Union will verify the initial attempts to segregate. While GM farmers may have decided not to segregate, the non-GM farmers did not. Canola sold to EU is sold for fuel. Non-GM farmers will not benefit by introducing higher costs or selling as GM
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 19 February 2006 1:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. I am assuming you have never seen GM canola crops growing in the field or talked to farmers that grow these crops. Have you ever been to Canada and seen these crops and talked to the farmers that grow them? Or is your knowledge solely the result of believing people like Percy Schmeiser that Greenpeace chooses to bring to Australia? And this makes you an expert on GM canola? Let us be clear, the vast majority of canola growers in Canada benefit financially from growing GM canola. Go over to Canada and have one of the agronomists introduce you to their farmers and find out. With the vast amount of money you are making from premiums on your non-GM canola, you should be able to afford it. Like every endeavour, there are some Luddites who refuse to accept progress. These get trotted out while the vast majority of Canadian farmers go about their normal business.

I assume you mean the National Farmer’s Union? They are an organisation that represents a small number of farms, mostly smaller farmers. They have rather left-wing views. They want an increase in subsidies paid to farmers by the Government, compulsory set aside of farm land to inflate produce prices, compulsory marketing of produce through commodity monopolies, banning corporate ownership of land and livestock and a reduction in Canadian commodity exports. The National Farmer’s Union has made some noise recently about segregation of non-GM canola, mostly because they have an anti-corporate agenda. The NFU is not a commodity group and didn’t have the ability to provide segregation. There was never any real attempt made to segregate GM from non-GM canola in the early days simply because there was not a sufficiently large market to make it worthwhile.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 20 February 2006 7:54:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When are people going to understand how dangerous GM food is? In Norway, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsso's Institute of Genetic Ecology, just published a study in European Food Research Technology (Jan 2006, p. 185) demonstrating an element of the genetic structures used to modify a plant, catalyst 35S CaMV, canprovoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants." The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells

It's long been known that the CaMV promoter, which is used in virtually all varietes of GE plants, has a tendency to combine its DNA with that of infecting viruses so as to generate new viruses that in some cases have been observed to be more virulent and less species specific than the original viruses. This risk is recognised by Monsanto and by the US Department of Agriculture.

Research at John Innes Resarch Institue discovered that the CaMV promoter used in GE crops contains a "recombination hotspot" that considerably enhances the risk of generation of new viruses (1). "It has been noted in experiments involving CaMV, that the frequency of recombination is much higher than for other viruses (2). While recombinant CCMV was recovered from 3% of transgenic N. benthamiana containing CCMV sequences, recombinant CaMV was recovered from 36% of transgenic N. bigelovii. " (3).

In addition, the CaMV Promoter is of such a nature that there is a risk for recombination with many different plant viruses (3). A wide range of recombination possibilities adds considerably to the risk for new viruses to occur in GE crops.

The gigantic numbers of CaMV promoters now released on American fields, makes it justified to regard the US GE crop as a huge "experimental ground" for generation of new viruses with unpredictable and potentially hazardous outcomes.

The question is therefore most probably not if, but when, a new virus will be discovered that is clearly derived from CaMV promoter recombination in GE crops. It cannot yet be excluded that the Maize Necrotic Streak Virus is one
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 20 February 2006 8:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it safe.
The problem of your comments about genetics is that you seem to be completely out of touch with what actually goes on in nature. You seem unaware that the fears you have apply even more so with natural events.Why you dont worry about cabbage loaded with natral plant CaMV is beyond me. Your worries could cause you to starve by avoiding all genetic novelty.

For instance
http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~lal/Heredity.pdf
NON_PUNDIT

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/natural-gmos-part-11-ground-control-to.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/natural-gmos-part-7-nanobot-genetic.html

Gene duplication and exon shuffling by helitron-like transposons generate intraspecies diversity in maize.

We report a whole-genome comparison of gene content in allelic BAC contigs from two maize inbred lines. Genic content polymorphisms involve as many as 10,000 sequences and are mainly generated by DNA insertions. The termini of eight of the nine genic insertions that we analyzed shared the structural hallmarks of helitron rolling-circle transposons. DNA segments defined by helitron termini contained multiple gene-derived fragments and had a structure typical of nonautonomous helitron-like transposons. Closely related insertions were found in multiple genomic locations. Some of these produced transcripts containing segments of different genes, supporting the idea that these transposition events have a role in exon shuffling and the evolution of new proteins. We identified putative autonomous helitron elements and found evidence for their transcription. Helitrons in maize seem to continually produce new nonautonomous elements responsible for the duplicative insertion of gene segments into new locations and for the unprecedented genic diversity. The maize genome is in constant flux, as transposable elements continue to change both the genic and nongenic fractions of the genome, profoundly affecting genetic diversity.

Nat Genet. 2005 Sep;37(9):997-1002.
Morgante M, Brunner S, Pea G, Fengler K, Zuccolo A, Rafalski A.
NON_PUNDIT
I know you don't want to go to the GMO Pundit site for some reason, so I include non Pundit refs just for you.
Posted by d, Monday, 20 February 2006 11:44:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is no wonder that scientists like yourself have no success in allaying consumer fears. Firstly you need to talk plain English so we know what you are talking about and it’s got to be related to the subject we are talking about. It appears neither have applied here.

My previous post was because non-GM farmer was concerned about mutating and using live viruses such as 35S CaMV and this was denied by agronomist and yet it appears to be true. This should be thoroughly tested as we the consumer, have a right to know if what we are eating will cause adverse effects to our health.

Any scientific test should not be denied being tested because of the bullying of GM supporters and corporations. All scientists should be allowed to give their findings to the world. Are you denying this? Are the GM companies so worried that their scientific experiment of GM may be flawed and really is a biohazard that they will do anything including defaming a scientist, to keep the truth from the consumer?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 20 February 2006 12:25:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it safe:
I'll spell it out.

We face the same hazards every day as the ones that worry you.
The sources you rely on are people who do not understand modern genetics and who are misleading you. In everyday terms they are nutters.

DNA itself is a minuscule food risk. Most of our existing food DNA offers the same risks you worry about but at a much high intensity because there is buckets of it. Non food DNA risks such as viruses and bacteria that invade the body are a much greater risk too than the hazards you worry about, but it's still trivial. These various tiny DNA risks have been around though for billions of years.

There are much more important risks - like death from poverty in Africa- to worry about that those that you are preoccupied about, and GM technology helps address those.

Your worries seem very self-indulgent to me. I wonder why don't you get real and start dealing with more important problems?
Posted by d, Monday, 20 February 2006 1:02:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well d(David Tribe) with the attitude that everybody against GM are nutters and implying that people like isitreallysafe are stupid is certainly not going to gain the trust of consumers. You may think so but there are many very intelligent scientists, consumers and farmers that have serious well founded concerns and what you think is of little importance to them.
No Bill (Agronomist), I don't need to go to Canada but have spoken to many Canadians regarding this issue. For example, I met up with a busload of very pro-GM group of farmers at Grains Council of Australia and after chatting with them about the pros and cons they understood why it would not be such a good deal for Australian farmers.
They agree that there is no yield advantage, it is more a weed control tool.
When you explain our different growing season (ie no weeds and 2-3 month shorter growing season) and weeds (ie massive ryegrass problem to be controlled pre-emergent and the fact that neither glufosinate ammonium or glyphosate is effective on radish which is a problem for us and not Canada), they can understand why it would not benefit us as much as it has benefitted them.
They agree that segregation would be too expensive and too difficult to achieve.
They were concerned that statistics show they have lost their average US$32.68/tonne premium over Australian prices (1990-2000 ABARE statistics). They are now getting up to US$30/tonne less for their canola compared to Australian canola (Graincorp market report re China).
Australia is the biggest supplier of non-GM canola in the world and if we adopt GM and all sell as GM, there will be considerable economic loss experienced by all farmers.
Non-GM farmers are not prepared to accept this economic loss - why should we?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

Can you answer my simple question of a few days ago? Have you and the Network of Concerned Farmers joined the JIGMOD? Was there a vote of your members or something like that? I can’t understand how I am in a position to bully anyone, as you keep saying, but this is a simple question. Could you answer please? Have you been quoted without permission by JIGMOD?

Also, the Age in Melbourne has turned against you, even though they still incorrectly believe that there is any problem with “contamination” of crops overseas. Can you cite any such problems? Where farmers have actually lost money?

Here is what the Age said (in part, to stay within our space limits).

Fear of the unknown no longer justifies GM crop bans

February 20, 2006
Page 1 of 2

Edtorial, The Age, Melbourne, February 20, 2006.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/fear-of-the-unknown-no-longer-justifies-gm-crop-bans/2006/02/19/1140283944554.html

Genetic engineering is one of the great scientific innovations, one that still seems new and mysterious for many people. GM foods are regarded with deep suspicion in Australia, as well as Europe and Japan. It may come as a surprise, then, that 18 years have passed since the world's first release of a GM organism - a bacterium released in Australia to control crown gall disease in stone fruit and other crops - and to realise how pervasive imported GM food is, particularly as public resistance has prevented further local releases since GM cotton was introduced 10 years ago. GM cotton comprises about 90 per cent of the national crop and is the source of about a third of the vegetable oil consumed in Australia.

Yet cotton is the exception to GM policy. GM canola won federal approval but commercial use has been blocked until 2008 by all states except Queensland. Why are cotton and canola treated differently? A report by a federal taskforce that reviewed farming policies has recommended an end to the moratoriums. Two years ago, The Age made the same call.

The fact is, arguments that we do not have enough information to assess risks grow weaker by the year
Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 11:52:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tens of billions of meals with GM foods have been eaten. This real-world experiment….. has had no documented ill effects on human health.

Critics of GM crops seized on the abandonment last year of a CSIRO trial of peas that were made weevil-proof, and thus 30 per cent more productive, by the insertion of bean DNA, because of ill-health in mice that were fed the peas. But researchers know what went wrong. The gene is safe to eat in beans, but insertion altered its shape, which triggered an immune response. What this illustrates is that every GM crop must be rigorously assessed.

Despite the need to monitor identified concerns such as genetic drift and impacts on wild populations, the worst fears for the environment have also not been borne out, while proven benefits include lower water and pesticide use (the latest cotton varieties cut spraying by more than 80 per cent).

It is the economic benefits that have driven the adoption of GM crops such as canola, corn and soy in the US, Brazil, Canada, Argentina and China (which is releasing the first GM cultivars of rice, the world's most important food crop). US agriculture authorities say this increased farmers' annual revenue by $2.3 billion; ABARE warns Australia's failure to grow GM crops will cost it $3 billion by 2015….

….The numbers and crop areas are likely to double by 2010, because there is little more arable land and few countries have the luxury of being able to reject high-yield, pest-resistant crops. Feeding their people and alleviating poverty depends on the GM crops already being grown by more than 8 million farmers - 90 per cent of whom are resource-poor. This is not a reason to abandon all caution, but Australians do need to be aware of the broader global picture. With a population set to increase from 6 billion to 8 billion by 2050, how else does the world feed itself? More immediately, how are Australian farmers to compete with overseas growers of more productive GM crops? These are not questions Australia can continue to ignore.

Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 11:55:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Rebel, I have not been misquoted by JIGMOD, as I explained, we are united at an international level and are united in different areas in opposition to GM. While I am not responsible for other organisations quotes, I am more than happy to be quoted at an international level of the injustice proposed for non-GM farmers.
Only 18% of the worlds canola is GM and almost all of that is grown in Canada. Canada has lost their average premium of US$32.68/tonne over Australian non-GM canola and are now accepting up to US$30/tonne less than ours. That is a clear indication of a significant loss experienced by those farmers that don't grow GM and yet are expected to market as GM.
Why would you think the Age has turned against us? It is just a standard pro-GM article of which there are many scattered around. They have just missed the point of what the debate is about.
The "feed the world" rubbish is a laugh. We are currently experiencing a global food glut causing some countries to heavily subsidise farmers to limit production.
Claiming GM crops are more productive is just plain wrong as GM canola does not benefit farmers any more than non-GM chemical resistant or hybrid canolas.
We can only be "left behind" if benefits outweigh risks and it is clear that risks far exceed even the claimed benefits.
If you want GM canola to be grown, work on ensuring the non-GM farmer is not faced with the liability for the losses it will cause.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 1:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excuse me d, I am not stupid. You have it wrong with DNA which is the genetic material of nearly all living organisms. Changes in the DNA cause mutations and the DNA molecule can make exact copies of itself by the process of replication thereby passing on the genetic information to the daughter cells when the cell divides. This structure should be a very important issue and is not, I repeat not a miniscule food risk as you are playing with DNA structures and mutating food that I am expected to eat.

The DNA that has escaped from your tampering into the human gut is a major concern. I want more tests that show me without doubt that your tampering with DNA does not cause any issues with my health. You have not done this so far and I disagree with your implications that I am an idiot. Stop throwing stones and get to the real issues here as you are acting like a spoilt child. Yelling "nutters" and "misleading" or that we are stupid won't make us eat it.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 2:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(2006) Jumping Genes Cross Plant Species Boundaries. PLoS Biol 4(1): e35
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040035
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/02/survey-of-recent-studies-on-mutator.html
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040005

In the early 1950s, legendary plant geneticist Barbara McClintock found the first evidence that genetic material can jump from one place to another within the genome. The variegated kernels of her maize plants, she determined, resulted from mobile elements that had inserted themselves into pigment-coding genes, changing their expression. McClintock's mobile elements, or transposons, moved over generations within a single species. More recently, another form of genetic mobility has been discovered—genetic information can sometimes be transferred between species, a process called horizontal gene transfer. While horizontal genetic transfer occurs most commonly in bacteria, it has been detected in animals as well. Most transfers between higher animals involve the movement of transposons. Horizontal transfer can also occur between the mitochondrial DNA of different plant species. Until now, however, no one had found evidence for horizontal transfer in the nuclear DNA of plants.

In a new report, Xianmin Diao, Michael Freeling, and Damon Lisch studied the genomes of millet and rice, two distantly related grasses that diverged 30–60 million years ago. While the two grasses show significant genetic divergence from accumulating millions of years of mutations, they carry some natural mutaion causing genes (Mule transposons) segments that are surprisingly similar. The authors conclude that these sequences were transferred horizontally between the two plants long after they went their separate ways.

A survey of recent science about these Mutator mobile genes (Mules) that move around between species such as maize, millet, rice diverse angiosperms, yeast Yarrowia lipolytica, Petunia, flatworm Caenorhabditis,sugarcane, fungus Fusarium oxysporum, fruitfly Drosophila, and grasses, scramble and delete genes, are genetically unstable, and which are common in nature and completely NATURAL.

Question to IS it safe: Why do you eat ANY food if (according to your worries) is is so full of dangerous natural DNA (see above) that can move into our genes ( like natural soy genes do) and cause so much havoc including cancer?
Posted by d, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 8:08:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You obviously didn’t expect me to read the reports you gave me as going through them, I have found a few flaws with your argument of transgene transfers. You are saying that it is detected in animals. Mmm. Try looking at the research as it was detected in fruit fly but that was because Genes were injected into the fruit fly to see if it could be transgenic. I will not be getting GM injected into my body just to check that it’s safe will I? The research done on the plants (please note that it is not cross-kingdom but plant to plant only) was done on two plants that had originated from the same species 35-60 million years ago when they diversed. This would make the DNA structure able to accept a distant relative surely.

The researchers on the experiment were amazed that the results were not more common. And I quote “Plants are far more likely to undergo interspecific crosses than are animals, plants do not sequester their germ line”. Now back to your debate. How can humans breed with rice to get the human liver genes that GM is now producing? The mind boggles!
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 9:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is It Safe:

I have answered your questions and I expect you to answer mine. When you say I am unclear I try again to get my message over. Your response here is confused and seems to avoid the question. If you dont want to discuss evidence that bears on the issues you raise, or dont want to read science that disagrees with your judgements, thats ok with me, but don't then expect readers here to take you seriously.

The argument I am putting to you as a question is using your argument applied to a natural DNA where the evidence of possible harm is much stronger than that you speculate about, and it is testing you for consistency in your logic. Its your logic I'm testing with this question. I personally have a different argument from these facts than you have.

If you want to discuss how DNA moves in the natural world, lets talk about actual science that looks at this question. The amount of evidence is actually huge - I've just given a snippet here.
Posted by d, Thursday, 23 February 2006 9:37:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On 22/2 you gave 3 reference sites, I looked at two research papers. I found the scientific tests in plain speak only looked at transgene in plants only and the other research was done on a fruit fly. Scientists use fruit flies because they breed quickly and are easily dissected and genes checked as there are minimal organs. The fruit fly was injected with transgene components. Then they checked the results. They found there were minute traces but the fly was injected not force fed. This would be the same as a fly eating something that an Aids person has touched which would show nothing and yet if the aids virus was injected into the fly then yes it would infect the fly. On the plants research, it was done on plant to plant of two plants that millions of years ago were the same. I am saying that would influence the transgene acceptance. This is natural transgene.

You are saying let’s look at the evidence and the actual science and when I do look at what you quoted you say that I should be looking at actual science and there is huge evidence? This doesn’t make sense. Yes I know that the science says that natural transgene occurs OK so it happens. But what GM is doing is doing transgene cross-kingdom with no understanding of the true implications of this bombardment. I am worried about this so you find me research that has been done to show that there is natural cross-kingdom from plant to animal and back again and then give me that evidence. And do not give me bacterial as that’s in its own field. Don’t send me on a wild goose chase to say that transgene across plant to plant is the same as cross-kingdom transgene because that is an outright lie.

What questions have I not answered? Have you given me questions other than would I eat GM? I have answered that before and said yes, but it would need to be thoroughly tested. Until then, to me GM is a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 23 February 2006 12:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it Safe
It seems that the point I am trying to make is being missed.

I am asking you about your assessment of the risks to humans of exposure to mutator MULE genes currently present in food plants that are proven to be active in scrambling and mutating target DNA.

Are they Safe?

You first raised worries of risks from exposure to Cauliflower MV promoter in GM constructs. AS I understand it, in mentioning CAMV promoter you you are talking the risks of plant DNA containing this CauMV promoter being transferred from the gut to human (liver) cells, I am thus asking why you are not even more concerned about MULE DNA following the same route you mention of transfer between plant food and human cells.

On the other points

"You obviously didn’t expect me to read the reports you gave me"
No, I genuinely hope you will read them all, and I'm happy to discuss any of them, not just selected points.

"On the plants research, it was done on plant to plant of two plants that millions of years ago were the same. I am saying that would influence the transgene acceptance. This is natural transgene."

The words "It was done" implies you think this transfer was done in the lab (it wasn't) , or that this transgene only moves between plants when the list of natural transfer it has taken part in is broader: maize, yeast Yarrowia lipolytica, flatworm Caenorhabditis,sugarcane, fungus Fusarium oxysporum, fruitfly Drosophila. Other mobile DNAs such as Mariner , even more so.
Posted by d, Friday, 24 February 2006 6:53:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julie:

I hope you can join us in congratulating Bill Crabtree for being recognized by the GRDC, a large organization with elected officers (article trimmed to fit this space):

GRDC Seed of Light to 'No-till Bill' (22 February 2006)

Agronomist Bill Crabtree received the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Seed of Light Award at the GRDC-supported 2006 Agribusiness Crop Updates at the Burswood Entertainment Complex last week.

Presenting the award for excellence in communication, Western Panel Chairman Dale Baker said Mr Crabtree was affectionately known as 'No-Till Bill', courtesy of more than a decade vigorously promoting no-tillage.

A Life Member of the WA No Till Farmers' Association (WANTFA), he worked for them for more than five years and edited their newsletter for 10 years.

"While best known for his promotion of no-till, Bill has in the past couple of years, outside of his full-time business of Crabtree Agricultural Consulting, promoted the potential benefits of biotechnology, especially GM canola, in WA cropping systems," Mr Baker said.

Last year Mr Crabtree conducted, with GRDC support, a series of GM workshops around WA, which attracted big numbers of farmers thirsty for information on the benefits of GM technology.

In July and August, he will host, with GRDC support, WA growers on an educational tour of Canada, looking at GM canola production systems, bio-diesel and no-till.

Mr Crabtree said he felt honoured to receive the Seed of Light, noting that he had been alerted by his own travel and consistent observations that GM crops made farmers that WA competed with more profit and less pesticide dependant than WA growers.

"I hope politics will give way to good science and the moratoria will soon be lifted," he said.

Mr Baker said the GRDC believed growers should be exposed to cutting edge agronomic information on important issues such as no-till and GM and believed Mr Crabtree had been tireless in his efforts to advance the debate and adoption of both.

"For this reason, the GRDC believes he is a very worthy recipient of the prestigious Seed of Light award for excellence in communication."
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 24 February 2006 11:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dont want to divert IsItSafe from my Question but here stuff on mobile MARINAR type genes in plant insects and animals
Bmmar6, a second mori subfamily mariner transposon from the silkworm moth
Bombyx mori.Insect Mol Biol. 2003 Apr;12(2):167-71.

Localization of mariner DNA transposons in the human genome by PRINS.
Genome Res. 1999 Sep;9(9):839-43.

Molecular evolution of an ancient mariner transposon, Hsmar1, in the human
genome. Gene. 1997 Dec 31;205(1-2):203-17.

Mutant Mos1 mariner transposons are hyperactive in Aedes aegypti.
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Oct;35(10):1199-207.

DNA-binding specificity of rice mariner-like transposases and interactions with
Stowaway MITEs.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Apr 14;33(7):2153-65. Print 2005.

Molecular characterization of Vulmar1, a complete mariner transposon of sugar
beet and diversity of mariner- and En/Spm-like sequences in the genus Beta.
Genome. 2004 Dec;47(6):1192-201.

Identification and chromosomal localization of mariner-like elements in the
cabbage moth Mamestra brassicae (Lepidoptera).
Chromosome Res. 2003;11(4):319-22.

Aberrant transposition of a Tc1-mariner element, impala, in the fungus Fusarium
oxysporum.
Mol Genet Genomics. 2002 Mar;267(1):79-87. Epub 2002 Feb 9.

Xie H, Brines ML, de Lanerolle NC.
Transcripts of the transposon mariner are present in epileptic brain.
Epilepsy Res. 1998 Sep;32(1-2):140-53.

Characterization of Soymar1, a mariner element in soybean.
Genetics. 1998 Jul;149(3):1569-74.

Horizontal escape of the novel Tc1-like lepidopteran transposon TCp3.2 into
Cydia pomonella granulovirus.
J Mol Evol. 1998 Feb;46(2):215-24.

mle-1, a mariner-like transposable element in the nematode Trichostrongylus
colubriformis.
Gene. 1997 Apr 1;188(2):235-7.

Molecular and cytological analysis of a mariner transposon from Hessian fly.
J Hered. 1997 Jan-Feb;88(1):72-6.

Primary sequence, copy number, and distribution of mariner transposons in the
honey bee.
Insect Mol Biol. 1995 May;4(2):69-78.
Posted by d, Saturday, 25 February 2006 9:53:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebel, as a farmer I object to our compulsory GRDC levies being used to promote GM including pro-GM awards and tours that have no balance, no mention of resolving the serious issues associated with GM crops with the sole aim to promote the adoption of GM despite the major risk to non-GM farmers. I also object to GRDC funding $100,000/yr to Agrifood Awareness (mainly funded by the GM industry) to promote GM.

Compulsory levies from farmers should not be regarded as a money pool for anyone with a vested interest to dip into to promote something that will cause economic loss to farmers.
I am well aware GRDC receives Federal funding (as it is capped, it is considerably less than the farmer funding proportion) and the Federal government has agreed to "provide a pathway to market for GM".
However, the Ministerial direction for GRDC research priorities included a requirement for GRDC to carry out research and development that achieves "an increase in trade and market access", "a whole-of-industry approach to production, processing and marketing to ensure the chain works to its best advantage", "development of biotechnology, with sensitive handling to accommodate consumer concerns", "maintenance and enhancement of our clean, green image" and "addressing food safety concerns of consumers".

Well excuse me for stating the bleeding obvious but that is not achieved by blindly promoting commercial release with no risk management which will decrease market access, ignores industry coexistance problems, is not sensitive to accomodate consumer concerns, destroys our clean green image and does not address food safety concerns of consumers.
GRDC's mission is "to invest in research and development for the greatest benefit to its stakeholders - graingrowers and the Commonwealth". Graingrowers are not the beneficiaries of GM crops.

d-David Tribe, when human liver was mentioned, I think isitreallysafe was referring to the Japanese rice with the human liver gene insert (via GM) which was designed to give multiple chemical resistance. As he/she rightly mentioned, there is no way that you could ever get a natural cross kingdom breeding between a human and a rice plant.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 25 February 2006 10:22:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With everything that you have send me d, I have gone through so far the web addresses of scientific reports that I as a non-scientist could understand and I have found flaws in them. Now you bombard me with a whole different variety of scientific gobbledeegoog that is very indirectly related to what my concerns are and the misinformation from you I have learned is making me even more skeptical and determined that something is wrong in the GM health debate. You are throwing me a whole heap of reports. Don’t lead me down a path that I am not interested in. Cross kingdom breeding is not natural. Admit it.

What is your problem with doing independent health tests if there is nothing to hide? You appear to be hiding behind your mountains of scientific gobbledeegoog. I have known many people with degrees that don’t have any common sense. Are you one of these?

Are you saying that the levy to GDC is compulsory GM-farmer? How ridiculous and they spend it on giving an awards and trips to pro-GM activist. Non-GM farmer has serious well founded concerns. How much money is spent on managing and addressing these concerns? Are they just saying to bring it in and ignore these concerns of the farmer? Good grief, I’m glad I’m not a farmer!
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 25 February 2006 11:47:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Cross kingdom breeding is not natural. Admit it."
Since the point of these scientific reports and others is that trans-kingdom gene movement definitely does occur in nature and has been documented, it would be unethical for me to agree.You challenged me to produce evidence, and then refuse to discuss it when I do!

Clearly horizontal gene movement is not frequent-per-generation-per-organism, but on the other hand there are huge natural populations in which it occurs and it's occurrence in documented by the many reports that you don't want to read and many more. As for mechanisms-one report I cited shows one caught in the act - a gene moving on an insect virus.

Quite bizarrely, the concerns you raise about possible gene movement causing harm are based on assuming the actual low frequency occurrence, plant to human, of the events that you ask me to admit as being "not natural". And I do agree they are possible as I've (just ) re-read the papers by Doerfler eg AnnNYAcadSci 945(1)276 documenting them.

DIRECT_QUOTE"...the food-consuming public can be reassured by the realization that all kinds of foreign genes in almost limitless combinations have been part of the food chain throughout the evolution of the species Homo sapiens and other species as well. For millennia, these genes and their breakdown products with high recombinatorial capacities have been constant partners in our gastrointestinal inner milieu and that of other species."

I assume since you choose not to answer my question about Mules you accept that the risks you are worrying about are part of the natural very low background of DNA risks we already face in food, and have faced for millions of years.

As far as human genes being placed in food, I contend that the reasons why this is obnoxious to many people are cultural and not objective evidence of hazard. For a long time I have refused to buy X brand of Aussie pies because they have cow serum in them - I have a cultural aversion to blood products. The objections you have are probably similar in nature
Posted by d, Saturday, 25 February 2006 1:24:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer

We have been through this before. There are two advantages to GM canola in Canada. The first is through being able to use post-emergent rather than pre-emergent herbicides for weed control. This allows earlier planting of the crop and hence higher yields. The second advantage is for those growers who use InVigor canola. This canola has a GM hybrid system that works better than the chloroplastic male sterility used in non-GM canola. The InVigor hybrids consistently have the highest yields of all varieties in the Prairie Canola Variety Trials. Clearfield canola acreage is going down in Canada. In part this is because of the lack of hybrids with this trait. So it is not all about weed control.

I might add that the Atrazine-resistant canola that you grow used to be known as yield-resistant canola in Canada because of its poor performance compared to conventional varieties. It was dropped immediately Pursuit Smart canola was introduced.

Certainly, the growing season is short for canola in Canada. Sowing takes place in May and harvest by October. However, as the days during the growing season are very long, I am not sure how much difference that makes. Your comment about no weeds is certianly wrong. GM canola is consistently put in the weediest fields to clean them up. There are weeds that overwinter under the snow, but more importantly weeds that germinate immediately the snow melts and compete with the canola. Wild radish is also an important weed of canola in Eastern Canada. GM canola manages wild radish just fine.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 26 February 2006 8:00:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IsITsafe:
If you want to claim that my evidence is misleading you should say more clearly which evidence and argument you are referring to.

I can only deduce that the reason you assume (wrongly) that I have provided misleading evidence is this: you don't understand it.

You seem not realise that the DNA sequence of the mobile DNA is a FLAG that tells us where it has moved previously in nature between different species. By giving long lists of different species where the FLAG is found I show where the genes have moved to-and-fro at some stage in evolution. You seem to have ignored the long list, including trans-kingdom movements, that I have supplied. I make these arguments to provide context as to whether natural mutator DNAs in our diet presents a tangible hazard.

Your comments about fruit fly laboratory experiments are irrelevant to my point about natural gene movement. I am surprised you are making them because they do not refute gene movement in nature and I don't use them as such either.

I'm also pleased that the topic of "practicality " was raised because all the comments I have made about mobile genes relate to a practical issue - is DNA in the gut dangerous to humans. The practical interpretation I have is very similar to that of Doerfler that I quoted "that all kinds of foreign genes in almost limitless combinations have been part of the food chain throughout the evolution of the species Homo sapiens and other species as well. For millennia, these genes and their breakdown products with high [DNA shuffling] capacities have been constant partners in our gastrointestinal inner milieu and that of other species". I.e. we have always been exposed to this.

My numerous paper quotations merely document that the DNA shuffling capabilities of genes such as Mules are potentially active in human cells as they work in numerous species and have transferred repeatedly in nature. All of this argument is to support Doerfler and my practical judgement that the risks you talk about are commonplace already, and are tiny hazards
Posted by d, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:20:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You want an example of misleading information. I gave you an answer to your research papers on the fruit fly saying that it was not natural as the fruit fly was injected and now you say “it is irrevelant to my point”. It was not evidence of a natural transgene as you claim as the fruit fly was injected.

Now we have the transgene contamination across kingdoms discussed,
Tell me how you will stop mutations and damage of the host DNA from forcing genes into the existing DNA structure. From this transfer, will it damage, delete or mutate the existing DNA remembering that Downes Sydrome is only caused by one bent gene in a human DNA so it is significant.

I don’t discuss the experiments that you allocate your breath to anymore because when I check them and ask about the flaws in the experiments there are no answers. So far no experiment that you have given has had any tests on humans or pigs. They have been done on ducks, rats, mice, flys and even bees. As I have said before I am not closely related to any of these and I as a consumer, demand to know with the diverse range of food we eat of these potential GM crops that you are trying to force onto us, how will it affect my health? So far the evidence that you have sent trying to persuade me to eat your product has flaws. I want independent scientific reports as mentioned before by me, so no part of the experiments that are performed are hidden.

You call me obnoxious but in reality I am a consumer questioning your research and you don’t like that at all. I am questioning if GM is a biohazard and you just want me to “shut up and eat”. You are the obnoxious righteous scientist that I don’t trust because you have not given unequivocal proof that GM is not a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:49:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), there are serious flaws in your debate:
You say "There are two advantages to GM canola in Canada. The first is through being able to use post-emergent rather than pre-emergent herbicides for weed control. This allows earlier planting of the crop and hence higher yields."
Well pardon me for stating the bleeding obvious again but most of our canola grown in Australia is chemical resistant and therefore we use both pre and post emergent. Unlike Canada where they have limited weed competition at emergence because they are planting directly after the snow thaws, Australian farmers will still be required to use pre emergent chemicals. The biggest yield penalty is associated with poor weed control at emergence so ignoring pre-emergent spraying will radically slash yields.
Your "second advantage" is regarding a hyrid and we have non-GM hybrids available in Australia now. The Invigor hybrid has 20% less vigour than a non-GM hybrid. We will soon have non-GM traizine resistant hybrid canola available and they are claiming a 38% yield advantage.
Australian non-GM canola yields are improving every year and if we want to clear up the misconceptions about yield, we need independent performance trials. Why then are the companies refusing to participate? What are they frightened of?
Cont…
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 26 February 2006 12:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You again misquoted me regarding "no weeds" , If pre emergent chemicals are not used, Canada has comparatively very clean paddocks when compared to what an Australian farmer would have. Farmers here have already been spraying for weeks because we had a summer rain and if we left those weeds they would be huge and would have depleted any nutrients in the soil. There would be no way you could sow a canola crop in Australia without pre-emergent chemicals unless you had no rain until you were ready to sow. That is extemely rare but was experienced in some eastern states last year and it would be very misleading to claim that pre-emergent chemicals are not needed in a normal season.
Your comment "GM canola manages wild radish just fine" is not true. If you are referring to the Invigor variety you are promoting, and you are not using a preemergent as you suggest, your post emergent control would be glufosinate ammonium and your normal post emergent selective chemicals. Glufosinate ammonium does not control radish (triazine used on non-GM triazine tolerant canola does). I am not aware of any post emergent chemical that gives good control of radish.
If farmers are not applying any pre-emergent or any post emergent that controls radish, how exactly will radish be controlled?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 26 February 2006 12:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IsItSafe
I can see you are finding natural transgenesis hard to swallow. Before I respond to your latest comments, consider what happens when DNA from dead foreign cells gets on sperm, and tell me if you think genes do not have plausible routes to move in nature against your rules.

Sperm-mediated gene transfer: applications and implications
Smith and Spadafora
BioEssays27:551–562_2005.

In 1989, two independent reports made the claim that sperm cells could associate with non sperm DNA molecules (transgenes) and transfer these molecules during fertilization, resulting in genetically modified (transgenic) offspring This represented an important rediscovery of what in retrospect can now be viewed as a groundbreaking discovery: the spontaneous ability of spermcells to bind DNA. Most of these reports provide evidence of postfertilization transfer and maintenance of transgenes, and several of the studies also report the subsequent generation of viable F0 animals, the cells of which contain exogenous DNA sequences.

Recent developments in studies of sperm-mediated gene transfer (SMGT) now provide solid ground for the notion that sperm cells can act as vectors for exogenous genetic sequences.Asubstantive body of evidence indicates that SMGT is potentially useable in animal transgenesis...
...The appearance of SMGT-derived modified offspring on the one hand and, on the other hand, the rarity of actual modification of the genome, suggest inheritance as extrachromosomal structures.
The possibility that sperm cells under these conditions carry genetic sequences affecting the integrity or identity of the host genome should be critically considered. These considerations further suggest the possibility that SMGT events may occasionally take place in nature, with profound implications for evolutionary processes.
... Accordingly, in spite of the controversy that accompanied its first appearance, SMGT has gradually been perceived as a potentially promising method. SMGT may be able to provide efficient, rapid and low-cost protocols for animal transgenesis and, more futuristically, human germline gene therapy. Moreover, if spermcells can act as vectors for foreign genetic sequences, it follows that the genome of sexually reproducing animals—including humans —may be exposed to alteration by exogenous genetic sequences carried by sperm cells, with important implications for evolutionary processes and for human health.
Posted by d, Monday, 27 February 2006 5:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good grief! I am not interested in talking in depth about sperm. I am a consumer that wants rigorous health testing on any GM food as it is a very different invasive technique. Why are you opposing independent health testing as at the moment in my eyes, you are the last person that I trust to say my food is safe? You can play with your sperm report because I’m not interested.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 27 February 2006 7:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Traavik’s work on the 35S promoter (Myhre et al. European Food Research and Technology 222, 185-193 2006) involved the genetic modification of a human cell line Caco-2 with constructs consisting of reporter genes (luciferase and green fluorescent protein) driven by the 35S promoter of CaMV. These experiments showed that when you genetically modified human cells using a process called transient transfection where the introduced DNA does not have to be incorporated into the cell chromosomes. The results were that a small amount of expression of the reporter gene was detected in the transfected Caco-2 cells. For CaMV 35S, the amount of activity was 0.8% of that of cells transfected with a construct driven by a mammalian virus promoter. Luciferase activity could be detected even when cells were transfected with a construct without a promoter. Activity was about 10% of that when CaMV 35S promoter was used.

So it is possible to get transient expression driven by plant viral promoters in some animal tissues. Does this matter? As a general rule, obviously not. We as humans have been eating plant viruses for millennia. It is possible at low frequencies for small amounts of DNA were to survive intact in the gut. Likewise, there is a remote probability that such DNA could be picked up by cells of the gut lining. Lastly, if it were picked up, there is a small probability the proteins would be expressed transiently in the cells. In the exceptionally rare event this were to happen, what would be the consequence? Would it matter if a few of your gut cells expressed a protein that makes them resistant to glyphosate or caterpillars? Would it matter if a few of your gut cells expressed a coal protein for a plant virus?
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 7:44:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So NonGMFarmer, I misquoted you about “no weeds”. I would have thought “no weeds” meant, … well, … no weeds? Apparently not. Apparently “no weeds” can mean plenty of weeds if that is what you want it to mean. Shades of the White Rabbit here.

Let me see your argument then. Because you get rain in the summer, you need to use pre-emergent herbicides to grow canola. Have you not heard of glyphosate, which can be used to control weed growth just before planting the crop?

Are we talking about the same pre-emergent herbicides? In conventional canola crops in Canada, pre-emergent herbicides are required to stop weeds emerging after the crop has been sown. In HT canola crops in Canada, growers can now use herbicides to control those weeds after the crop has been sown. If they want to, they can also apply glyphosate to control any plant growth before the crop is sown.

Most of your canola is Atrazine-resistant. This was given away in Canada in the 1990s because it was also yield resistant and there were, and are, concerns about atrazine in groundwater.

If canola yields in Australia are increasing every year, how come they are not at the level they were in 1996?
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 8:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly! Would these changes matter?
Rather than doing the health testing that consumers want that will check if these changes matter, GM crops are commercially released for humans to be the unmonitored guinea pigs.

What if it does matter? How will we know and how will we recall the product?
Thats the point of consumer rejection. Consumers that don't want to be the guinea pigs don't want to eat the product until they are satisfied with extensive testing related to human consumption.
In order to give concerned consumers the choice and an option to return to a GM-free status if required, we need radical changes in "coexistence principles" so that the GM industry is responsible for containing their product.

Interesting Reuters article on Agnet today regarding 90 Texas farmers suing Monsanto, Bayer Cropscience and Delta & Pine Land -"The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas, seeks an injunction against what it calls a "longstanding campaign of deception," and asks the court to award both actual and punitive damages."
"farmers suffered widespread crop losses because Monsanto failed to warn them of a defect in its genetically altered cotton product."
"The farmers' essential claim is that Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" cotton did not tolerate applications of Monsanto's Roundup weed killer as it has been genetically altered to do."
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 9:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You want example misleading information..It was not evidence of a natural transgene as you claim as the fruit fly was injected."

I did not make this claim. My respose to it is briefy. The transgene you are talking about was FIRST discovered in nature to move around to different chromosomes. Thats why it is NOW being used in the lab. Just because they do LAB experiments with it does make the findings that it has moved repeatedly during natural evolution invalid. In fact, the lab experiment is a DIRECT VERIFICATION of its abilitily to shuffle DNA.

"Tell me how you will stop mutations and damage of the host DNA from forcing genes into the existing DNA structure. "

A vast amount of gene rearrangements occur in nature: and they dont just cause damage, they are the main source of evolutionary change.We cannot and shouldnt stop it. To take the position you is rather like trying to stop rainfall because people get wet and catch colds.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/shocking-scandal-grand-scale-theft-of.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/natural-gmos-part-11-ground-control-to.html

I repeat, that the purpose of my comments is to explain that the hazard you are concerned about is far less than that to which we are already naturally exposed. This is not my personal opinion only, I gave you direct quotes of Doerfler making that point. You might like to think how it is that Doerfler, myself and many other geneticists have come to the same conclusion, even though have never talked to one-another.

If you dont want to accept this argument, fine with me. But it remains the core reason why your opinions about so-called CaMV DNA are misgiuded.

"You call me obnoxious but in reality I am a consumer questioning your research and you don’t like that at all. "
No part of this statement is true except the fact you are a consumer. I don't think you are or call you obnoxious, I don't do this research, and I'm happy to go on pointing any errors of fact or logic I can see in comments you care to make.

The Sperm paper IS ABOUT THE TRANSGENIC ISSUE YOU RAISED!
Posted by d, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 9:36:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stop yelling at me and going on about sperm research as I am not a scientist and don’t know why sperm would have something to do with what I may possibly eat. I have no expertise in the scientific jargon that you are throwing at me, so I would prefer this finer detail to be debated by the many scientists that have expressed concerns. I have no piece of paper that says “I’m wonderful sitting here with my degree and I can speak in a different language and I will make it hard for any person without a degree to challenge me”. Meanwhile, I as a consumer will choose not to eat GM and support farmers growing non-GM and independent scientists doing health tests which you have refused to say why you don’t want this. Give me the direct link to the scientific papers or none at all.

The EPA of America is finally opening up research for food allergies (closes March2006) which should have been done way before GM was ever put into the food supply http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2005/2005_star_biotech.html This is disgraceful that it was not done first by independent research outside of the GM companies. Now, if there is a problem with allergies what will we do? Let’s try and take all American grains and GM off the market and see if we can. And you say this doesn’t matter. Who are you kidding?

Why would I want to eat produce from a pesticide producing plant? What will I morph into? A Mortein can?

You’ve said “what would it matter” and I believe it will be life threatening for some. One small drop of cucumber is enough to send me into anaphylactic shock and sent to hospital in an ambulance. Researchers would not put a warning that it has possible cucumber allergens in my food. While I enjoy a joke from time to time, don’t trivialise the seriousness of this issue. This would be life threatening when we as consumers and people with allergies, could be killed by your product and because there is no monitoring, nobody would know
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 2:00:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you have a good point isitreallysafe. You have concerns and they are being ignored and you reserve your right to avoid GM products but if GM is forced in without fair risk management, your choice will be denied. I also think we should avoid the capitals which is the indication that the comment is yelled.
d(David Tribe) Are you against independent health testing?

Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), Pre-emergents are not only restricted to post-planting pre-emergent. Preemergent control includes any knockdowns as it is not a post emergent control. Pre = before emergence (including before planting) and post = after emergence.

How can you possibly recommend no spraying prior to emergence?

You have sent me a photo of Canadian weeds prior to planting previously - melting snow and lovely small and easy to control weeds with large gaps of soil in between. Even the light tillage of planting could be enough to control weeds.

Compare that to Australian weed burden after a rain. A thick blanket of ryegrass that you can't poke your finger through never mind trying to get a canola plant to emerge. Within weeks we see massive capeweeds and melons that you can almost see growing. Now unless that rain waits until you are ready to plant, you have got little chance of controlling the weeds without chemicals.

Of course we use glyphosate as a preemergent and we are applying it when Canadian weeds are covered in snow so Canadians don't need to use glyphosate as a preemergent. The snow melts and they plant their crop.
Australia has a serious problem with the evolving resistance problems that we have with overuse of glyphosate but using it post emergent too will only speed up the resistance problems
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 3:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The chances of DNA surviving in the human gut are small. Equally the chances of a piece of intact DNA being taken up whole by a gut lining cell are very small. I would argue that this might happen in one in a billion meals. We could make it one in a million, but it will hardly matter. The chances of that DNA carrying a CaMV 35S promoter is smaller again. In a GM food, the promoter might represent 1 millionth of all the DNA. The chances that the promoter would then work in the human cell would be 1 in 125 (from Traavik’s work). This is giving a chance of at most 1 in 125,000,000,000,000 that a protein attached to a CaMV 35S promoter would be expressed in a gut lining cell. Are the proteins introduced into GM crops dangerous? No. So, even if the protein were expressed there would be no foreseeable harm. There are currently about 6 billion people in the world. If they each ate 3 meals a day, consisting entirely of GM food, that makes 6,250,000,000,000 meals a year. Therefore, on average there would be protein expressed in the gut lining of one person every 20 years.

So are we worrying about something that might happen to one person every 20 years where the possible harm is at most unforeseeable and at least entirely absent? In contrast, cucumbers create a known harm at frequencies of at least 1 in 6 billion. I say we should ban cucumbers.

By the way NonGMFarmer, you must be mistaken again. I don’t ever remember sending you a photo of anything. Canola growers in Canada can now sow canola before applying herbicides because they have highly effective post-emergent herbicides like glyphosate that control the weeds after the crop goes in. If your weed problems are so bad that you can’t get the crop in the ground, I suggest you are not managing your weeds properly. Roundup Ready canola could help you do this.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 8:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again you are deliberately missing the point Agronomist (Bill Crabtree - who sent me the photo). My point is that if we did not spray as you suggest, there would be no way that we could sow a crop into the weed burden.
We have an excellent weed control system. It involves pasture manipulation or good weed control in crop the year before, it involves summer weed spraying, it involves another knockdown as sowing nears, it involves a pre-emergent when sowing - then that takes us to where Canada starts their spraying system. Wow! Imagine having the easy weed control system of snow.
The biggest yield drag on canola occurs at emergence due to weed competition.
If we ignored weed control in Australia and sowed directly into the dirt, the canola crop could not compete against the weeds.
I suggest we include your theory of no pre-emergent weed control necessary when designing the trials to compare GM with non-GM. To be fair though we shouldn't have all GM plots grown in uncontrolled weeds.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 9:56:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since GM inception into the food of England, there has been a double fold of allergies. This sort of research needs to be looked at. Don’t you agree?

Other allergic reactions to GM: http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health says “Bhopal | November 23, 2005 Genetically-modified Bt Cotton, used for farming in Madhya Pradesh's Nimad region, is causing allergic ailments among people even as cattle have reportedly perished after consuming its seeds.

The disturbing fact surfaced recently at a public hearing organised by Dhar district's Krishi Upaj Mandi. As per a scientist's report, presented during the hearing, at least 14 milch animals perished and several cultivators fell ill. It was alleged that use of the seeds led to a rise in cases of skin diseases”.

Of course natural gene rearrangements occur in nature as they are the main source of evolutionary change. The problem is thinking that scientists know better than nature.

Read your post on 25/2 and tell me that you were not insinuating that I was obnoxious.

Why are you against independent health testing? What have you got to hide?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 12:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GM soy increases allergies comes from an article in the Daily Express in the UK (see http://www.soyinfo.com/haz/allergy.shtml). An allergy testing laboratory observed an increase in soy allergies in 1998 and people were quick to blame GM soy. However, the amount of GM soy in the UK would have been miniscule in 1998 compared to now. Given this alert came out in 1999, surely it would have been followed up and if the connection held even more allergies would have been noticed? The testing laboratory does not even see fit to mention this information on their website (http://www.yorktest.com/). There have been 7 years to see additional effects and nobody in the medical health area is interested. There is probably nothing in it.

Bt allergies. Bt cotton has been grown in the US and Australia since 1996 and in South Africa since 1998. In none of those countries, despite millions of acres grown in the US, has any hint of an allergy to Bt come to light. Yet here we have an activist with no medical training claiming large numbers of farmers in India are affected. Surely if the allergy involved Bt, it would have been noticed in the US where the area of Bt cotton is much larger?

Bt cotton kills cattle. “Cattle have reportedly perished after eating its seeds” This is simply hearsay. Again this comes from an activist with no veterinary training. There is no evidence provided. Given that cottonseed is part of the diet of dairy cattle in both the US and Australia and they have been eating Bt cottonseed for some time, what are the chances of such deaths going unnoticed in Australia and the US, but being seen in India, where a much lower proportion of the cotton grown is Bt? You may not be aware that cottonseed contains gossypol, a natural product, which can cause toxicity in cattle at high concentrations.

If I were to suddenly claim with no evidence that Atrazine-resistant canola seed was killing cattle, NonGMFarmer would quickly accuse me of lying. Yet you and NonGMFarmer repeat these reports like they are true.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 2 March 2006 8:37:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recently scientific tests are coming out against GM and I want these test results given to the public so they can make up their own mind. You are so quick to debunk any finding against GM and attack consumers that are concerned giving them a myriad of useless information that they can’t understand. I want to see reports that are easily understood with correct testing that shows that GM is safe. To me it is still a biohazard and should not be let into Australia.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/lemonde021706.cfm “In Norway, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsso's Institute of Genetic Ecology, just published a study in European Food Research and Technology (January 2006, p. 185): he demonstrates that an element of the genetic structures used to modify a plant, the catalyst 35S CaMV, can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants.

The increase in these experiments led the FAO (the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization) to organize a seminar on the safety of transgenic food in October 2005, bringing together the best specialists on the question. "What came out of it was that we have to pay attention to this type of study," said FAO seminar coordinator Ezzedine Boutrif. "In several cases, GMOs have been put on the market when the safety issues were not very clear."

The researchers involved in these recent studies declare their neutrality. "I had no preconceived idea about GMOs when I began my research in 2000," says Manuela Malatesta. "I thought they weren't dangerous because we had been eating them for a long time. But there was virtually no scientific literature on the subject. Consequently, we thought it was useful to undertake some studies." For Terje Traavik, the initial motivation was different: "I was doing cancer research using transgenesis. My colleagues and I knew that it would pose a problem if it left the laboratory. That concern convinced us that we needed to study this type of risk."
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 2 March 2006 9:21:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It has certainly been interesting thrashing this debate out.
But lets recap:

GM farmers are expected to support GM crops but can't get independent details of comparitive performance as the companies are refusing independent performance trials. GM companies and are denying cost or contract details. Farmers are expected to believe in so called benefits relating to Canadian conditions that are not actually applicable to Australian conditions.

Non-GM farmers are expected to accept the liability for any economic loss caused by GM crops and expected to believe that there will be no economic loss when there is more than enough evidence to disprove this.

Consumers are expected to eat GM and accept the scientific sectors interpretation of the tests done by the GM companies and independent health testing is not acceptable by those pushing GM even if it could have the potential to allay consumer concerns. It is a shame there is noone with professional expertise debating the consumer angle on this site.

I find the debate for GM crops extremely weak.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 3 March 2006 3:12:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because I had no scientific know how on what the GM’ers have been saying of late, I asked for Arpad Pusztei (a world renowned scientist) his opinion of only the latest post from the GM’ers. And he replied, and I quote:-

“This is sophism. True, the chances of DNA survival in the gut is small but not negligible. In the only human clinical trial in Newcastle in six ileostomy patients out of seven (the seventh could not be evaluated for a technical mishap) measurable quantities of fully functional (I repeat fully functional) transgene construct survived and were taken up by the bacteria in the ileostomy bag. In most published animal feeding studies the survival of DNA (and its protein products) in various parts of the animal has been unquestionably established. True, we don't know what their effects will be in most instances (except with Bt toxin). Also consider: most pharmaceutical companies are developing plant (potatoes, bananas) based human and animal DNA oral vaccines. Do you think that they are all wasting their time and money? The calculations you refer to are ridiculous and have no proper scientific basis. Even the reference to Traavik's work is misquoted.

No, GM food is not safe because it has not been tested properly, independently and inclusively. With something as important as food we cannot take chances”.

I would like to know that all the scientific testing that has been given to me, how much of this testing has been filtered by Monsanto themselves because they funded it. Give me the full details and full reports so that I can see their disclaimers that they are not part of the Monsanto Corporation and their research is not hindered or altered by the GM companies at all. Give me evidence that their research is a truly scientific research not some cut and paste job with only the parts of the report that GM companies want, reproduced in their articles. Then the same research done through an independent company with no affiliations with Monsanto to show the results are true.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 3 March 2006 5:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sophistry is the creation of clever, but specious arguments. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of teachers of rhetoric in ancient Greece, who were often criticised for being able to support either side of the argument from the same factual material.

Let us review my argument. The absorption of intact DNA by stomach cells is likely to be an exceptionally rare event. Even if it did happen, you don’t just need any piece of DNA, but a piece large enough to contain the full promoter and gene. Again, for your argument about the danger of this, you would need not just any promoter and gene, but the CaMV 35S promoter and the Roundup Ready gene. Once this occurs, the protein needs to be expressed. For this to be dangerous, the protein itself needs to be dangerous.

In essence, Each of the events described above is likely to be rare. To satisfy them all has an extremely low probability. Even if they all did happen, the outcome is not dangerous.

What evidence did Arpad provide that convinced you the argument was specious?

The Roundup Ready protein is dangerous? We know that is not so.

The protein is expressed in all cells in which the DNA is taken up? The data from et al. shows that it is expressed in about 0.8% of cells compared to a mammalian promoter.

The CaMV 35S promoter and gene make up a much larger percentage of the soybean genome. The soybean genome is about 1,150,000,000 base pairs. The piece of DNA containing the promoter and gene is of the order of several thousand base pairs. Also what are your chances of randomly cutting up the soybean genome into pieces several thousand base pairs long and getting a whole gene and promoter? Pretty remote. What are the chances of a cell naturally taking up a piece of DNA more than a hundred thousand bp long (you would need this to significantly increase you chances of getting an intact gene and promoter)?

To Be Continued
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 4 March 2006 11:31:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is he arguing that the laws of probability are different in this case?

Or the absorption of intact DNA by gut cells is a common event?

This last seems to be the gist of Arpad’s argument, given the comments you report. Arpad would like to leave the impression that DNA is taken up often in the intestine.

If this were very common, we would know about it because we would be able to see the consequences. The food you eat is full of promoters from animals, bacteria, viruses, insects and plants. Most of the foods you eat contain some proteins that are dangerous. If it was a common event to have transient expression of these dangerous proteins in high enough quantities, people would be getting sick all the time from eating food. This is clearly not happening. Therefore, Arpad would have us believe that the consequences are not dangerous, with the exceptions of the Roundup Ready and Bt genes. However, we know these proteins are not dangerous. You eat bacteria containing these proteins and their genes all the time. So Arpad would have us believe that these proteins only become dangerous when the gene is coupled to the CaMV 35S promoter. Viral genes coupled to the CaMV 35S promoter are not dangerous, just these genes. Now that is sophistry.

By the way, you might also like to ask Arpad how I misquoted Myhre et al‘s paper. Myhre et al. conducted two relevant experiments. They transfected cells with the luciferase gene attached to a variety of promoters. They quantified expression and found it was 100% when driven by a mammalian promoter 0.8% when driven by CaMV 35S and 0.08% with no promoter. They did the same with the GFP. This protein glows green when you shine certain light on it. Fluorescensce was not quantified, but it was stated that many fewer cells expressed the protein when driven by the CaMV 35S promoter. From this I would conclude that only about 1 in 125 (0.8%) cells that were transfected expressed the protein. Perhaps Arpad has some sort of other conclusion?
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 4 March 2006 11:37:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done isitreallysafe, Arpad Pusztai is indeed an internationally reputable scientist and the source of the most compelling reason for why I do not trust GM foods. As such a reputable scientist, he was chosen for a government grant to undertake GM food testing (to prove that GM food was safe) but only 6 months into his 3 year term he was so concerned of the results, he went public warning consumers. His project was immediately canned and it was found that 140,000 pounds was paid by Monsanto into Rowett University at the same time he was dismissed. Apparently there was also significant US pressure on the UK government to sweep the problem under the carpet.

It is extremely reckless of those pushing GM to permanently contaminate the worlds food supply with a product that has not been tested thoroughly to address the concerns of reputable scientists such as Arpad Pusztai.

Agronomist and d(David Tribe), if you genuinely believed what you were saying, you would be supporting wholeheartedly independent health testing to dispel these fears.

If the patent was removed from GM technology, the drive to force GM on a reluctant population would disappear.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 4 March 2006 2:01:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have to see what Arpad says about your comment but I would like to address sophism:- The modern usage of sophism according to the wikidpedia dictionary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist “The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered “true” or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favourable treatment for one’s side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.

The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and claims that since it was traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived at by naked pandering to the judges’ prejudices – or even by bribery.

Critics would argue that this claim relies on a straw man caricature of logical discourse and is, in fact, a self-justifying act of sophistry.

So if this is how you arranged your “truth” by bribery, pandering to judges” then yes I would believe that you could classify yourself as a sophist
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 4 March 2006 3:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I also got some opinions by someone experienced in the human health angle:
For agronomist:
DNA can survive digestion and be incorporated into tissues of the body, including tissues of the immune system. There is good experimental scientific evidence for this. Perhaps "agronomist" isn't aware of this because he is an agronomist and therefore has no training or experience in human health? In particular, agronomist believes that the whole promoter sequence and the RR sequence would have to survive digestion to cause ill- health. This is rubbish. All he does is show his ignorance. Animals and people suffer from a great number of ill-health effects. For most of these, we still don't know the cause. We have only recently begun to look at how DNA can survive digestion and where it goes, and as the area progresses and we get further experimental information, we may find that this constant, low-grade foreign DNA assault on our bodies may cause or be a contributing factor to many diseases such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. For example, if this foreign, ingested DNA enters the tissues of the body at the site of an oncogene, then it is possible that it may cause cancer. Just because agronomist doesn't believe that it could happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that it will not have consequences for health. But this is for "ordinary" DNA. GM DNA has an extra problem. It is designed to jump species. In particular, the CaMV promoter sequence has a reputation for being a recombinant "hot spot". It may therefore be more likely to jump into the human or animal genome and do some damage. This argument is strengthened by the fact that a human trial of gene therapy, where GM DNA was put into people to try and correct ill-health, was stopped because so many of the trial participants got leukaemia. The GM DNA had entered an oncogene to cause leukaemia.
(cont...)
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 2:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...cont)
Agronomist says (2 March) that the amount of soy in the UK would have been miniscule before 1998. Is he nuts? Soy has been in bread and processed foods for a very long time. Soy milk has been on supermarket shelves for decades. Almost the whole UK population would have been getting almost daily exposure to it pre 1998. You wouldn't be expecting to see much allergy in the US compared to places like India for Bt cotton. Cotton is picked and processed largely by machine in the US, and largely by hand in India. So, if there were allergies to be found from Bt cotton, you would expect to find them in India and not necessarily much in the US.

From Agronomist 1 March: The chances of that DNA carrying a CaMV 35S promoter is smaller again. In a GM food, the promoter might represent 1 millionth of all the DNA. The chances that the promoter would then work in the human cell would be 1 in 125 (from Traavik’s work). This is giving a chance of at most 1 in 125,000,000,000,000 that a protein attached to a CaMV 35S promoter would be expressed in a gut lining cell

Pity that agronomist can't do simple multiplication. From my calculations, this would be 1 in 125,000,000 or 1 in 125 million that the CaMV promoter virus sequence would be expressed in gut cells. Even if agronomist's calculatuions are correct, he ignores the fact that over the life span of a human, with the many millions of cells cells lining the gut being replaced about every three days, many billions of cells will be exposed to the CaMV promotor sequence. So the chances that a gut cell will take-up and express the sequence becomes a certainty by probability alone, based on his calculations. And of course the concern is that it may enter an oncogene in the gut cell and create stomach or bowel cancer. He's better hope that his own gut wall is unusually resistant to it.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 2:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You might find that 1 in a million times 1 in a million times 1 in 125 comes up with the probability I mentioned.

We have been eating the CaMV 35S promoter for 10s of thousands of years. If it were to do all these things you are suggesting at a near certainty, why hasn’t it done so by now? Why is it only when attached to the Roundup Ready gene is the CaMV promoter likely to be dangerous? Why are not other promoters in things that we eat?

Did your expert tell you that CaMV promoter sequence might turn on oncogenes? Or was that something you made up? The viral family that is responsible for oncogene-based cancers are the retroviruses. These are RNA viruses, not DNA viruses. You might like to look at the links http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/cellcycle/cellcycl3.htm, http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/cellcycle/cellcycl5.htm and http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/diagram.html to get an idea of how this works. Then you might be able to tell a dumb agronomist like me how a DNA sequence can do this.

“if this foreign, ingested DNA enters the tissues of the body at the site of an oncogene, then it is possible that it may cause cancer.” Who made this up? All human cells contain oncogene sequences. They are in our DNA and provide important functions. DNA entering into the cell is unlikely to enter the chromosomal DNA unless there is a sequence that matches so recombination can occur. As there are no matches to plant viral sequences or the Roundup Ready sequence, how could this happen?

GM DNA is designed to jump species? Is this also the opinion of your expert? Perhaps you can explain how GM DNA jumps species in a way that “ordinary” DNA does not.

Lastly, I would like to give you a primer on evolution, but unfortunately I don’t have the space. Suffice to say that if low grade foreign DNA was constantly causing us to get sick, individuals who were able to tolerate the low grade foreign DNA would have been selected millennia ago.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:34:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Agronomists assertion that "the viral family that is responsible for oncogene-based cancers are the retroviruses.. that.. [contain] RNA". and "Then you might be able to tell a dumb agronomist like me how a DNA sequence can do this"
Agronomist is completely wrong. For example, the human papilloma virus that causes cervical cancer is a DNA virus. And there is no debate about whether this virus causes cancer of not. The association has been so well studied and established that we now have a vaccine against this virus and the Australian responsible for it has won a swathe of awards for its development. Perhaps this "dumb agronomist" would like to read the medical and scientific literature on the subject?

Re cancer claim: Agronomist is right (and this is exactly the problem regarding the possibility of causing cancer) - human cells contain oncogene sequences, and these cells have the ability to be transformed into cancerous cells.

Re DNA jumping species: GM DNA has already jumped species. The whole process of making GM crops is that of making genes jump species. Of making DNA from viruses, bacteria, plants and animals go into the genome of crops and other organisms where they would never normally be found.

Re DNA matches and "if this was strictly correct, then GM plants wouldn't exist".
The process of genetic engineering is that of putting DNA sequences into plants and other organisms without needing these matching sequences in the recipient DNA..

Re comments about low grade foreign DNA - That's like saying that those who were able to tolerate tobacco, asbestos, arsenic, UV light exposure (skin cancers), malaria, tuberculosis etc would have also been selected millennia ago. In some cases, there has been some selection pressure. But these things still kill millions every year. You should also note that selection pressures only work if there is selection before the age that people reproduce. Most cancers hit after people have reproduced.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 9 March 2006 5:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re the questions around: "Why is it only when attached to the Roundup Ready gene is the CaMV promoter likely to be dangerous?"
There are two overlapping issues here. The first is the total level of exposure to the viral promotor sequence. The second is the nature of that exposure. For the first issue, cauliflower mosaic virus infects only certain plants naturally, humans don't eat these plants as a large proportion of their diet (compared say to wheat) and these plants become diseased and unpleasant to eat. Diseased plants are unlikely to make it onto supermarket shelves in significant numbers. Therefore, humans naturally have a low exposure to the virus. In contrast, in GM crops, the promotor sequence is present in every cell of the plant and in a great number of different types of crops that are much more regularly eaten, making the total exposure to the promotor sequence much greater than ever before. The second issue is the nature of that exposure. In nature, the cauliflower mosaic virus rarely if ever infects the DNA of the plant. It remains attached to its other normal viral genes and, if it is not in the nucleus, is encased in a viral protein coat that is resistant to digestion (see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/eatingcamv-pr.php). In contrast, in GM crops, the promotor seqence has been removed from its normal companion genes and from its protein coat and placed directly into the genome of the plant next to DNA that would normally be foreign to it. There is good evidence that in this form, the CaMV promotor sequence acts as a recombination "hot spot" with the ability to move around the genome and take other bits of DNA with it.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 9 March 2006 5:58:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few issues to consider.

1. The human papilloma virus carries its own oncogenes, two of them in fact. The proteins produced bind to genes that manage cell growth and repair cell damage. The mechanism is very different to retroviral-induced oncogenesis. The CaMV 35S promoter has no oncogenes. http://www.medinstitute.org/includes/downloads/hpv_report.pdf?PHPSESSID=fa5c3fc5e02a01bf6790353aab9a253a

2. Recombination. Detail the evidence that CaMV acts as a recombinant hotspot. Who says so? What have they compared it with? What experiments were conducted? What was the increased frequency of recombination? There was nothing in the article you pointed to on this. In fact the article seemed to suggest that the evidence so far indicated the CaMV 35S promoter was not a major hotspot. I quote: “Wintermantel and Schoelz (1996) found that recombination was observable in every plant when virus invaded transgenic plants with CaMV genes inserted on plant chromosome. They believed that most observed recombination occurred in the cytoplasm during reverse transcription and that there was little chance for recombination between invading virus and CaMV transgenes on the chromosome.”

3. Making GM crops. When Agrobacterium infection is used to transfer genes, a plasmid is involved. This is a bit of circular DNA containing the construct to be introduced and special flanking regions. These special flanking regions in effect trick the plant into incorporating DNA into its chromosome when it would not normally do so. The flanking regions are lost in the process. Transposons use a similar process http://waynesword.palomar.edu/transpos.htm. As the flanking regions are lost, the only way the genetic material can be incorporated into another genome is via recombination with similar sequences.

4. Before the 20th Century we didn’t have supermarkets. For the best part of 10,000 years before that we were eating vegetables that were infected with CaMV. Each cell infected with CaMV might have thousands of viral genomes and hence thousands of copies of the 35S promoter. There are 191 known host plants in 40 families (http://www.grodan.dk/sw18601.asp, http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/descr267.htm) including tomato, pepper, cucumber, melons, squash, spinach, celery, beets, and petunia. Granted we don’t normally eat petunias, but the rest are common parts of our diet.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 10 March 2006 8:20:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last posts from me were direct quotes from an expert in this field and I will post their response when they get back to me.
My comment to the health debate from both sides is ...
Consumers aren't interested in the scientific details or theories, they just want to know it is safe for them and for their offspring.
Why not support the independent health tests to prove if GM food is safe or unsafe?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:16:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comment from Charles Benbrook on how precise GM is
http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/benbrook_interview.060304.htm

In fact it's fundamentally more imprecise, in that the techniques that are used to move the trans-gene into the crop are no more precise than a shotgun. They shoot into the cells thousands of particles that have the trans-gene coating and hope that one penetrates into the inside of the cell and gets picked up and stably expressed. They hope that it's only one, and that it gets expressed properly. But they have no way of knowing whether it does, and in fact they do know that it's likely that more than one of those particles actually leads to some expression, and some may lead to some partial expression.

So they have no control over where in that cell or where in that plant's genome the new genetic material gets lodged and expressed. Because they don't have control over that, they have absolutely no basis to predict how that trans-gene, the new genetic material, is going to behave in the future as that plant deals with stresses in its environment, whether it's drought, too much water, pest pressures, imbalances in the soil, or any other source of stress. They just don't know how it's going to behave. They don't know how stable that expression is going to be, or whether the third generation of the plant is going to behave just like other generations. They don't know whether the promoter gene, which has been moved into the plant to turn on the new piece of genetic material, will influence some other biosynthetic pathway that's in the plant, turning on some natural process of the plant when it shouldn't be turned on, or turning it off too soon. There are all sorts of things that they don't know.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 13 March 2006 9:24:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Charles Benbrook is your expert. Charles Benbrook is an agricultural economist, former agricultural policy lobbyist and PR consultant to the organic industry http://www.organic-center.org/about.staff.php?action=detail&bios_id=43.

Which of his various positions makes him an expert on the insertion of genes by genetic engineering? His position as cheif scientist for the Organic Centre I suppose?

It is interesting the way that you refuse to believe anything anybody with even the remotest links with the biotechnology industry has to say, but you swallow hook, line and sinker everything the organic lobby has to say. The organic lobby is using the GM debate as a way of falsely frigthening people about their food so they will buy more organic produce, thereby lining the pockets of those in the organic industry. Yet you hold these people up as paragons of virtue and scientists from organisations like CSIRO - who only draw their salary and most have nothing to personally gain from their research - as paraiahs. It is a strange world you live in.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:05:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I may die from what you are trying to put into my food and yet you don’t see this. In answer to “Before the 20th Century we didn’t have supermarkets. For the best part of 10,000 years before that we were eating vegetables that were infected with CaMV”. This is your best excuse that we should be eating a CaMV virus? Have you actually noticed that there are no longer major problems with food poisoning now-a-days but prior to supermarkets and health and hygiene improvements there were deaths from eating food? This is because of hygiene and knowing that we are not eating viruses, bacteria and other life threatening food problems. And yet you are wanting us to go back to the ice age of people possibly dying from something the chemical companies say is safe to eat? I don’t think so.

As I have said before I am seriously allergic to cucumber and you will be possibly putting a cucumber virus into my food. I don’t want the chance that this will kill me. How are you going to stop that? As I have said before cucumber is not a common part of my diet, neither is melons, squash or zucchini because they are the same family of cucumber and I have slight problems with the family. Do you understand where I am coming from or are you so caught up in “some people may die but the strong will survive” attitude and your underlying dollar value that you are so caught up in. If I die from your virus that you are wanting to put into my food, I will come back and haunt you for as long as I can.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:14:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Agronomist, how shallow you are.
The main debate counter you have is attacking the people who say anything against GM and bringing up their potential conflict of interest, yet you expect us to swallow hook line and sinker everything you say while refusing to reveal your name or your funding.
Benbrook is dead right, the pro-GM activists shout that GM is precise but common sense tells you it is not.
Pro-GM activists like yourself shout that it is going to be an economic benefit for farmers yet common sense and simple maths tells you it is not.
You are apparently an agronomist but you feel that you have the expertise to try to convince consumers there are no health issues. You are ignoring the fact that consumers have the power to manipulate supply chains to reject this product which will dominoe down the line to cause both GM and non-GM farmers economic loss if governments neglect their duty of care and accept GM in under proposed management plans.
The only way forward is to do the independent health tests that consumers want. Why on earth are pro-GM activists against this?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 13 March 2006 3:04:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further input from Arpad Pusztai who would prefer to discuss this directly with scientist rather than through a proxy:

"1. I have never said the CaMV 35S has oncogenes.

2. I am sure, your source has heard of the JIC, Joh Innes Centre, the Sainsbury lab in Norwich. All staff 1OO% copper bottom pro-GM scientists, such as Paul Christou, Kohli, Dale ,etc. If your source wants to find "who says so" he should read their publications and annual reports that I am not going to detail here. Can find these from their webpage.

3. As I said before if foreign genetic material cannot get incorporated into another genome then all pharma companies are wasting their money and time to try to develop edible vaccines in plants See adjuvant development studies, such as:

Forsman, A., Ushameckis, D., Bindra, A., Yun, Z., Blomberg, J., 2003. Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract. Mol. Gen. Genomics, 270, 362-368. Jones, D.H., Partidos, C.D., Steward, M.W., Farrar, G.H., 1997. Oral delivery of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) encapsulated vaccines. Behring. Inst. Mitt., 220-

4. This argument I must have heard thousands of times before. The (infection binding) specificity of a virus for cruciferous plants is determined by its protein coat. In GM crops the CaMV 35S promoter is naked (no protein coat). With this when we eat GM crops the naked CaMV 35S DNA will not be eliminated by our immune defence. See your other scientist's references to an experiment in Tromso showing that in cell culture (Caco2 cells in a closed in vitro system) that the CaMV 35S promoter can drive the expression of reporter genes (other similar references quoted in the paper). True, it's activity is less than 1% of a very active promoter, such as the cytomegalovirus promoter but in an in vivo system such as the gut the extent of the reaction efficiency is mainly determined by the flux and the availability of the binding transcription regulatory elements and these can vary a great deal in different cells in vivo."
cont...
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:36:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I never said that all DNA in general is taken up very frequently. However, in science the words such as little or common have very little meaning taken out of context. Very small amounts of biologically active chemicals may have disproportionally large effects in a given dynamic biological system in vivo. It is therefore the duty of the scientist to make sure by direct experimentation that the effect is not going to harm us. Please, understand and do not deliberately give words into my mouth to the contrary: I don't try to exaggerate. The observations of DNA uptake in the gut are there and established but apart from very rare instances (like edible vaccines etc.) we have no idea what the consequences will be. Theoretical calculations in a closed system have very little meaning and are useless, particularly when the effect could be established by direct experimentation.

Does your expert know the number of papers on Bt toxins showing that they can be strongly immunogenic and have immune adjuvant effects amplifying the immune efficiency of poor antigens. Does he want references?

"No biologist worth its salt would take calculations of uptake efficiency in a cell culture system with one type of transformed cell line as a serious representation of what can happen in an open in vivo system. What Traavik and his colleagues wanted to show once for all that the CaMV 35S promoter did work even in an animal (human) cell culture system (contrary to what had been asserted by the biotechnology industry experts before) because the two reporter genes' expression was significantly exceeded that of the CaMV 35-less controls. The misrepresentation was that the O.8% was taken out of its biological context and, I am sure, your expert does really know this."

Arpad has suggested you can take up any discussions with him directly.

Are you against independent research that shows that all GM in its many forms and mixed with other GM produce is not going to harm me? I am even more convinced that GM is a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admit isitsafe, I always thought the "biohazard" you mention was a little over the top but you may be interested in this quote:

The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation by Jonathan R. Latham, Allison K.Wilson, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology Volume 2006, Pages 1–7

“We conclude that much remains to be discovered about genome-wide and insertion-site mutations. In particular, lack of information, especially for crop plants and particle bombardment, means that plant transformation may be even more damaging than is apparent from this review. Even with the limited information currently available it is clear that plant transformation is rarely, if ever, precise and that this lack of precision may cause many of the frequent unexpected phenotypes that characterise plant transformation and that pose a significant biosafety risk.”
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 16 March 2006 8:17:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FYI

GM rethink as Stanhope sees biotech future for Canberra
Andree Stephens
Thursday, 16 March 2006

Canberra could play a leading role in the development of bio-defence and other commercial biotechnology, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said last night.
In a speech which also signalled renewed consideration on ACT's moratorium on genetically modified crops, Mr Stanhope told a two-day biotechnology summit that the science was "insinuating itself into our daily life in ways none of us can ignore".
"Biotech is not just about medical miracles. It is about breeding bacteria that can eat oil slicks and building tiny bio-sensors for environmental monitoring," he said.
Mr Stanhope was addressing the Bio-technology in Canberra and Region Summit at Old Parliament House.
Biotechnology is the use of biology in industrial processes such as agriculture, brewing and drug development. It also refers to the production of genetically modified organisms and the manufacture of products from them, and the more recent activity of modifying genetic material of living things - that is, genetic engineering.
Mr Stanhope said Canberra was a town designed for research and much of the biotech activity was being driven by the science facilities here. The challenge now was to "take the science from the lab and create products" to sell at the market...
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 17 March 2006 4:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Biotechnology is a huge field and GM is only a very small part of it. ACT is a political boundary or "a town designed for research" in a pretty formidable rocky area, certainly not known for its huge crop growing area!

This weeks story about "medical miracles"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1731919,00.html

"Investigators began an urgent inquiry yesterday into the clinical trial that has left six healthy volunteers in intensive care, as scientists voiced fears the disaster could prove a major setback to developing cures for life-threatening diseases."

"The girlfriend of one of the men, Myfanwy Marshall, said her 28-year-old boyfriend had swollen beyond recognition. She said his doctors had told her: "He needs a miracle; those were their words, he needs a miracle.""

"It is increasingly likely that the drug itself, given at the right dose, was to blame - an explanation that could have very serious consequences for research into the biological drugs called monoclonal antibodies which are the bright hope for better treatments in the future."

"The trial drug is not a chemical but a biological product, a genetically engineered "humanised" protein. Unlike the old chemical entities, these monoclonal antibodies are designed to be accepted by the human body, which experts say makes it difficult to work out by animal testing what dose would be toxic to humans."

"The volunteers took the drug on Monday - the first time that humans had been exposed to it. Within hours they were critically ill. Yet the MHRA and the regulatory authorities in Germany, where the biotech company TeGenero is based, had both examined the data from the animal tests and allowed the human trial to proceed."

"When drugs are first tested on humans, doctors do not expect any response at all. But the six men who had taken the drug suffered a massive inflammatory reaction. Scientists are concerned that the incident may deter people from volunteering to take part in clinical trials."

Who wants to be a human guinea pig for a GM experiment?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 17 March 2006 4:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This atrocity is exactly why I don’t want GM in my food or medicines. How dare they play with peoples lives like this! As was shown, the animal trials did not show up this catastrophic allergic reaction in animals, only humans so animal testing appeared pointless. Who would ever want to volunteer to be a human guinea pig again? If they can't test it on humans, will they just release it anyway?

Do you see now how much GM is a biohazard?

If this biohazard is let loose to contaminate our food through crops, how and are you going to recall the product? If the scientific tests come out that all GM is hazardous to peoples health, you will have destroyed most farmers livelihoods with your stupidity and possibly injured or killed others. I hope that all the GM companies get sued to the maximum degree for this ignorance and injustice to mankind
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 17 March 2006 5:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
W. Doerfler's studies shows that natural plant DNA presents the same issues as GM DNA in plants. Doerfler has published a good overall review which put worries about food DNA into a realistic context:

"The results on the fate of food-ingested foreign DNA in the mammalian organism have been discussed among specialists concerned about food in general and about genetically modified organisms in the food chain in particular. Although it will be mandatory to consider this problem case by case, the food-consuming public can be reassured by the realization that all kinds of foreign genes in almost limitless combinations have been part of the food chain throughout the evolution of the species Homo sapiens and other species as well. For millennia, these genes and their breakdown products with high recombinatorial capacities have been constant partners in our gastrointestinal inner milieu and that of other species."

Doerfler W, Hohlweg U, Muller K, Remus R, Heller H, Hertz J. Foreign DNA integration--perturbations of the genome--oncogenesis.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Sep;945:276-88. Review.

Mutagenic natural DNAs: In a recent genome-wide analysis of rice, the sequences of virtually all Stowaway MITEs (mutagenic natural DNAs)and Mariner-like elements (called Osmars) were identified and compared.

More than 22 000 Stowaway MITEs were classified into 36 families, while 34 different Osmars were found. Comparative analysis led to the formulation of a model for Stowaway amplification whereby Stowaway MITEs were mobilized by Osmar's transposases encoded by seemingly, distantly related elements.

Clearly natural plant DNA movement is common and rivals or exeeds human genetic engineering of plants. Omar's already made 22000 gene insertions in rice, and man the plant breeder has barely started. And we've yet to properly count the activities of Helitron and Polinton, nDart and numerous other natural mutagenic.
There no evidence though, that CaMV has this activity.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/friendly-uncle-osmar-mariner-helped.html
Posted by d, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 6:01:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d, surely you aren't surprised with the research paper at www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0077b.pdf as it has been prepared by Monsanto Co. Feb 2003.

Consumers are quite capable of making up their own minds but independent health testing has the potential to alleviate concerns. The main debate for consumers is that they are not confident in the health testing but hopefully Judy Carman will allay fears. But if health testing shows a serious problem, farmers will need to recall GM crops and we will certainly be glad no GM canola is grown commercially.

Interesting info given by US specialists at Grains Week a few days ago.
The 3 main GM crops grown in US are corn, soy and cotton...
The 3 top subsidised crops (accounting for 80% of US subsidies) were corn, soy and cotton.
It is unlikely that a GM grower in US could remain viable if they were not subsidised.

And of course Argentina is a top GM grower but they refuse to pay royalties after evicting Monsanto.

Australia will not be able to avoid royalties and will not pay farmers subsidies so how exactly will GM be a benefit for farmers?

Also, Bayer Cropscience think the statistics calculations are wrong.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 10 April 2006 9:53:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
D, you obviously don’t care that you are trying to force your biohazard onto a public that does not want it. So far all the so called “amazing scientific testing” that you have mentioned, have major flaws and nearly all the scientist papers have said “more scientific testing needs to be done”.

They are not independent scientific tests and do not show me if analysis is done on quantitative or qualitative results. Even the cross-contamination research that you hold close to your chest shows that it was done in Germany with only bees pollinating, the wind speed is not given and the 2nd year showed that there was a reduction in seeds sown. This is only one sample of what I have found to be scientific manipulation on the part of the major chemical companies paying for this research.

It doesn’t matter to me that you or any pro-GM’s say that it is safe as so far you have not proven to me without a doubt that your GM is positively 100% safe, in fact it has been the opposite. Until the independent test results come back, especially Judy Carman’s as she will have no bias, then I will always think of GM as a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 10 April 2006 2:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fron The Canberra Times:

Australia's fear of GM crops is hampering our competitiveness

9th April 2006

...Economic modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics shows that, for low-income developing
countries, the lower production costs of GM crops could lead to increased margins for farmers. Australian opponents of GM
crops often cite Europe's unease as cause for stymieing GM production here, but the latest developments at the WTO cast doubt
on how long Europe's doors will be closed. With GM moratoriums in all states except Queensland, Australian farmers are currently
denied access to all GM crops other than cotton and carnations.

Despite scientific assessment and subsequent approval of a number of GM crop varieties by the federal Office of the Gene
Technology Regulator, the states maintain GM moratoriums.

These are not only damaging Australia's international competitiveness, but in a debate that has been characterised by
misinformation, they also reaffirm the widespread suspicion among Australia's metropolitan community that there is something
unduly ''risky'' about GM crops.

It will probably come as a surprise to many that GM crops have been endorsed by some of the most eminent health and
agricultural organisations in the world.

Last year the World Health Organisation issued a report acknowledging the potential of GM crops to enhance human health and
development. The report found that GM foods were not likely, nor had been shown, to present risks for human health...

Last year more than 8 million farmers in 21 countries planted more than 90million hectares to GM crops.

Since the first commercial plantings a decade ago, adoption of GM has increased by double-digit growth rates every year. Many
of the farmers growing these crops are from developing countries. Because GM crops reduce the need for pesticides and tillage
(and therefore fuel) they are being embraced by farmers in areas where such inputs are prohibitively costly.

With the WTO decision raising the potential for increased access to European markets, fears among growers of trade barriers are
starting to dissipate, and even higher adoption rates are likely to ensue.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 8:58:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can you tell me what page this is meant to be on in the Canberra Times as I cannot find it? Is the date right? Who wrote it? Where did they get their information from? Was it a report from a pro-GM lobby group that the writer just happened to find or was it a direct quote from ABARE?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 13 April 2006 9:25:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ABARE estimated Australia is missing out on GM crops by many millions of dollars and the main crop making up that sum was wheat. ABARE multiplied wheat by 5% to come up with a figure and ignored the AWB policy explaining that none of our pool customers want GM wheat.
GM wheat can not be a benefit if there is no market for it and it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate it!
ABARE is following the Federal government mandate to "provide a path to market for GM crops". It's disgusting that professionals are willing to put out such appalling economic reports to support the Federal mandate.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on the WTO findings. Out of the dozen or more complaints, only one complaint "undue delay" was considered an issue. It is highly unlikely that EU will be growing GM crops when almost every EUsupermarket chain has a GM-free policy and the majority of consumers do not want it.

Federal only has mandate over health and the environment, State governments have authority over economics.

GM canola does not reduce the need for pesticides and tillage! It is the same pesticide/tillage use as any other non-GM chemical resistant canola.

Why is the area of GM growing?
By far the majority of GM crops are grown in US and these GM crops account for 80% of the subsidies paid by the US government to farmers. Canadian farmers too are heavily subsidised. It is unlikely that GM farmers could remain viable without these subsidies. A report from Canada last years showed technology providers gain 144% of the benefits gained from adoption of the new technology. That means the technology user (the farmer) pays 44% more than the benefits gained.
Farmers in Argentina and Brazil are apparently not paying the royalties to Monsanto.
For Australian farmers that are expected to pay royalties but not expected to get government subsidies, it is unlikely that we can afford GM crops.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 13 April 2006 9:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arpad Pusztai to testing http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html#learnmore

"When food-crops are genetically modified, ("genetically modified" food is a misnomer!) one or more genes are incorporated into the crop's genome using a vector containing several other genes, including as a minimum, viral promoters, transcription terminators, antibiotic resistance marker genes and reporter genes. Data on safety of these are scarce even though they can affect the safety of the GM crop. For example:

DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract.3,4 Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids5 and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance.

Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, since some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crop's own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, which we cannot analyze for and seriously limiting the selection criteria".

Therefore you have tested on hamsters and rats/mice on this report you are holding close to your chest and saying “this is what matters” but in reality it does not show me that GM is safe in fact the report has so many holes in it that it could be used as a sieve. Where are the true testings outside of your GM corporations that are not paid for to pro GM scientists? This Russian report is not a true scientific paper because there is nowhere where the evidence has been fully reported. There are no data analysis and no answers to if this research was qualititive or quantitive? What method did they use? What facts were retested by other scientists? Where is the structure within the dissertation? Who where the independent research scientists that retested this theory or were they just given a report and told to “accept this”. This report as far as I am concerned just shows that the GM companies have a firm hold on the scientific industry and are paying scientists out as the detriment to the consumer
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 13 April 2006 2:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ABC NEWS

Opposition claims GM ban delaying anti-frost crops

The Victorian Opposition says the State Government's stance on genetically modified (GM) crops could prevent Victorian farmers
from using new anti-frost technology.

The Government has imposed a moratorium on the wide-scale trial and use of GM crops.

The Liberals' agriculture spokesman, Denis Napthine, says it is delaying the introduction of anti-frost crops in Victoria.

He says it is ridiculous that Victorian scientists are being forced to trial their scientific breakthroughs in Queensland.

"You've got to do the trials in Victoria, in the fields in Victoria, to test whether these crops are really effective, and that's important
that it's done by Victorian farmers, under Victorian scientific supervision," he said.
"And that is banned under the Bracks Government's bans of GM trials, and GM technology."
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 14 April 2006 11:18:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your article shows how little the Libs know about GM and plant breeding in general.
Labour responded with a release "Liberal Party out of touch on GM canola moratorium".
Firstly, the moratorium is not about restricting research, only commercial release.
Secondly, the frost gene can be introduced to wheat by non-GM means and the identification of the gene has the ability to fastrack non-GM plant breeding by 5-7 years.
The difference between adopting GM and non-GM methods of introducing frost tolerance to wheat would be:
1. AWB has stated in their policy that none of the pool customers want GM wheat so we have a serious economic problem that will result in the GM wheat being restricted from commercial release by moratoria.
2. If for some reason, there is a radical shift in consumer opinions regarding GM and GM is accepted, GM wheat will probably be manipulated by GM means to require an application of chemicals to activate the trait. No doubt the additional cost of the seed, the user fee, the additional chemicals will exceed the value of the benefit gained.
3. Using non-GM means, the wheat can be introduced without restrictions and royalty fees can be recovered through end point royalties with the farmer having the ability to replant their own seeds.
Congratulations to Victoria for this research. I look forward to growing the non-GM frost tolerant wheat.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 14 April 2006 12:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am still waiting for the Canberra Times reference that you quoted as even the editing Department could not find it on the date that you mentioned. Please explain. I would be interested in your response.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 16 April 2006 1:41:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies, got the date wrong. Thy Page 6 on the 10th April.

Here is another article.

COUNTRYMAN (Western Australia)

Nationals off the GM fence

Paul Jarvis

April 6, 2006

National Party MPs will table a pro-GM policy to their lay party in coming weeks which would see it withdraw their support for the moratorium on the growing of GM crops in WA.

In his address to the WA Farmer's Federation conference in Perth last week, National Party leader Brendon Grylls announced that while the National's party room had supported the moratorium up until now, the time had come to make the tough decisions.

"Our party room has discussed this at length and we believe that the time has come to get off the fence and make a move on this issue," he said. "The party room has made a decision that it wants to put forward a policy to our lay party members about removing the moratorium in WA and we will be working that up over the next month or so."

The announcement comes in the wake of Opposition Liberal leader Paul Omodei's comments that he believed WA was being left behind in the development and implementation of GM crop trials.

Mr Omodei's announcement that the Liberal Party would support the introduction of significant GM trials, and now the Nationals announcement of GM support, signals the end of the unanimous political support Agriculture Minister Kim Chance had garnered for his decision to impose a moratorium. Mr Grylls said the Nationals would be taking the policy to industry groups such as the WA Farmers Federation and the PGA in an attempt to win broad industry support for their position.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 16 April 2006 4:48:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Nationals are going to ignore all the problems associated with GM then there is no way that this (obviously their only policy) is going to get them voted in.

If that's the only opinion (as most political quotes are opinions) that you are quoting to say to us consumers that we should "Take GM into our diet" then I'm sorry but this just makes me more disgusted and more determined to ensure that I maintain a choice.

I've heard that the Nationals are dead anyway so this may well be their death knoll. They are not interested in doing research into the implications of what GM could do as a potential biohazard and ignoring facts.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 16 April 2006 5:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does not matter if the Nationals
"... wants to put forward a policy to our lay party members about removing the moratorium in WA..."
because the Nationals have nothing to do with the WA moratorium.
The decision rests with Kim Chance, the Minister for Agriculture and he has made a firm committment to maintain the moratorium.

Paul Omodei's comments "that he believed WA was being left behind in the development and implementation of GM crop trials." indicates how little he knows about the GM moratorium. GM crop trials ARE allowed and are being grown (for example, the GM wheat trials in Corrigin). The moratorium is not stopping trials, only commercial release.

The 5,000ha proposed trials are not "trials" at all, they are a backdoor commercial release and will not be accepted. These "trials" are little more than a deliberate attempt to remove our GM-free status while the non-GM grower is liable for the consequences.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 17 April 2006 12:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WEEKLY TIMES
April 19, 2006

Time to end GM moratorium

It is great to see the benefits of gene technology for Victorian agriculture attracting more attention in the media.

The most encouraging development is the comment made by Premier Bracks, at the opening of La Trobe University's new AgriBioscience centre last month.

Mr Bracks said: ''Biotechnology is emerging as one of the most important drivers of innovation and growth for 21st century Victoria.

''The yield, quality, pest and drought resistance of our agricultural industry will depend increasingly on our understanding of the genes behind these traits and our ability to select for these traits''.

At last, farmers wishing to grow herbicide-resistant, genetically-modified canola varieties may have some chance.

The companies behind these products have brought new technologies to our industry through new techniques that are faster and more accurate.

The outcomes of these developments are deployed over 90 million hectares by 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries.

The current moratorium on the planting of federally-approved GM canola varieties precludes farmers from increasing profitability in an environmentally friendly way.

If Mr Bracks is genuine about innovation and progress, an announcement that the moratorium will end, before this year's cropping season begins, would significantly improve the financial position of farmers and Victorians.

Chris Kelly,Woomelang
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 24 April 2006 10:03:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Mr Bracks is quite right, Biotechnology has the potential to improve crops and the best of biotechnology is non-GM. Our research is progressing well with the release of new varieties such as non-GM drought-tolerant wheat crops.
It is presumed by the writer that GM will increase profitability but there is no evidence of this. There is however far more evidence to show that GM will lower farmer profitability.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 9:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If farmers don't make money from GM crops, why do more and more farmers plant them?

Global Biotech Planting to Rise 10% This Year

- Rhea Sandique-Carlos, Dow Jones Newswires, April 25, 2006

The global land area used for genetically modified crops could rise by at least 10% this year from the previous year's total land area of 90 million hectares, due to growing adoption of biotech crops, the International Service For the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications or ISAAA said Tuesday.

The ISAAA is a not-for-profit organization that delivers the benefits of new agricultural biotechnology to developing countries. "We're optimistic it will be at least a double-digit improvement from last year," Randy Hautea, Manila-based global coordinator of ISAAA, told reporters on the sidelines of an international sugar forum in Manila.

"It will be safe and conservative to say biotech areas will increase by 10% this year," Hautea said, noting that areas planted with genetically modified crops improved by 11% to 90 million hectares in 2005, up from 81 million hectares in the previous year.

The growth will be driven mainly by expansion in genetically modified soybeans, cotton, corn and canola plantations, he said. Worldwide, areas planted with genetically altered soybeans account for 60% of total biotech areas, cotton accounts for 28%, canola with 15% and corn crops contribute 14%. In the Philippines, resistance to the commercial use of genetically modified corn has been steadily declining over the years since it was first introduced in 2003, Hautea said.

Areas planted with biotech corn totaled 70,000 hectares in 2005, a 34% improvement from the previous year, he said. In the past ten years, the use of genetically altered crops has resulted in global economic benefits of around $27 billion, and reduced more than 170 million kilograms of pesticide use, Hautea said
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 8:26:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ISAAA is a not-for profit organisation but who really invests in the Company? Who actually pays the Company to run? Not-for-profit means that they have to spend all their money and not invest it anywhere and should not be taken out of context.

We should not be looking at what Mr Bush is doing or saying as he has alternative agendas which are to bombard poor nations with US technology sold by Monsanto into these poorer countries to near on nothing and at a later date make them pay. This is outright insanity, but if the poorer countries have this subsidised seed, then they will plant them and we know that. In doing so, they will contaminate the crops that are non-GM.

Australia should not be looking at what US is doing as they have interest in contaminating the world’s food supply so they can sell their own crops. The US has their own religion of money and we should be aware of this. We should be doing our own independent research away from all profitable ventures. Then we will know the truth and we would have a distinct advantage if anything shows up (which seems to be coming to the surface now) that shows how GM is a biohazard”
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 7:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WEEKLY TIMES

GM a mystery to Government

April 26, 2006

Tragically, Victorian Agriculture Minister Bob Cameron has again demonstrated his rather alarming lack of understanding of genetic modification technology with his ill-informed comments (WT, April 19).

Mr Cameron is quoted as saying that Antarctic hairgrass is not in the canola family.

He therefore infers that the recent breakthrough discovery of frost-resistant genetic material in this plant will not be affected by the Victorian Government ban on GM crop trials.

However, Mr Cameron fails to understand even the basics of GM technology.

Scientists will seek to relocate the frost-resistant genetic material from the Antarctic hairgrass into productive crops like canola, wheat, barley and oats.

Therefore, any trials would involve commonly grown crop plants like canola.

But such trials are banned by the government legislation.

GM technology has a lot to offer Victorian farmers, our environment and the world, which is looking for more high quality food.

Is it any wonder the State Government makes completely unscientific and irrational decisions about GM technology when Mr Cameron clearly shows he simply does not understand the basics of these scientific advances?

Denis Napthine, Opposition spokesman on Agriculture, Forestry and Water

NonGMFarmer, looks like your knowledge is pretty similar if you think that antarctic hair grass can be crossed to wheat through conventional breeding. They are in different tribes of the Poaceae.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 8:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Denis Napthine has no idea what the moratoria entails. State moratoria will not prevent trials as this is a Federal mandate and the decision over trials prior to OGTR approval is under the OGTR and the Federal Gene Tech Act with a directive to assess health and the environment. The State only has a mandate to assess economics and markets after the OGTR approves the variety. Of course, the GM companies are not being cooperative in allowing the independent performance trials and giving details of costs or contracts to enable states to assess economics.

We do indeed need to look at why farmers plant GM crops. In US these farmers get subsidised to the hilt and in Canada they are increasing subsidies. In Argentina and Brazil they can dodge the royalties. In Australia, we are expected to pay the royalties but not expected to get subsidised. Thats why we need to assess economics carefully but the companies are not being cooperative.

I attended an excellent lecture at Grains Week in Brisbane last year by a Professor who explained how frost tolerance can be introduced by crossing an arctic grass with wheat and the pro's and con's of both GM and non-GM methods. I'm sure the professor knew what he was talking about.

"Not-for-profit" means ISAAA are being paid for the results. I know Monsanto funds around 25% of ISAAA because Mark Buckingham from Monsanto admitted it.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 27 April 2006 9:15:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…in Canada they are increasing subsidies”

This is news to me and also to the Canadian farmers I know. Perhaps you might enlighten us? Which crops are being subsidised in Canada? How are the subsidies provided? Are they price supports, like the subsidies US, or rebates on inputs like Australia? Or is this something else you have made up?

“I attended an excellent lecture at Grains Week in Brisbane last year by a Professor who explained how frost tolerance can be introduced by crossing an arctic grass with wheat and the pro's and con's of both GM and non-GM methods. I'm sure the professor knew what he was talking about.”

Which Professor? What was he a Professor of?

Either the Professor was wrong or you have misinterpreted what was said. Your track record on this forum suggests the latter is the correct interpretation.

A non-GM solution for moving the gene from Antarctic hair grass to most crop species is impossible.

Wheat is a member of the Triticeae Tribe of the Poaceae Family. Wheat can be crossed, often with some difficulty, to other members of the Triticeae Tribe, such as other Triticum spp. (such as Durums and Triticum tauchii), Aegilops cylindrica (goatgrass), Secale cereale (Rye), Agropyron spp. (quackgrass), and one or two others, but not outside the Triticeae. Antarctic hair grass (Deschampsia antarctica) is a member of the Aveneae Tribe. It is related to the oats and wild oats, not wheat.

In addition, the chromosome number of wheat is 42. Southern hemisphere Deschampsia species have a chromosome number of 26. A successful cross between the two is virtually impossible. A cross with barley (also in the Triticeae) is equally impossible. So is a cross to canola and a host of other plants.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 27 April 2006 8:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A typical rude misleading "attack and discredit" response from Agronomist!

The Canadian increase in subsidies is not something "made up" and just because you have not taken the time to do the research does not mean it is not true.

You can see the government press release on http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=n&s2=2005&page=n50329a

"Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Andy Mitchell today announced $1 billion in immediate federal assistance for cash-strapped Canadian farmers facing record low farm incomes as the first step in an aggressive all-out effort to restructure the national agriculture and agri-food industry and bring profitability back to one of Canada's most important sectors...
The Farm Income Payment Program will begin delivering the money in April as part of a two-part plan to ease immediate financial pressures on farmers and allow for a transformation of the industry that addresses the root causes of declining farm income."

I'll need to check my old notes when I have time but Tim Reeves was one of the speakers in the block that was discussing GM/non-GM alternatives. Canola itself was considered an "impossibility" by many but thanks to the researcher that developed it, they were proven wrong. Even triticale is apparently a cross that couldn't apparently happen.

When our markets do not want GM wheat, why would we want to grow GM wheat? It does not matter how well it grows, we need to grow crops that our markets want.

I'm certainly not saying any plant breeding for frost tolerance would be easy and quick. Hopefully by the time frost tolerant crops are developed, there will be a global shortage of food because if it is released with our current global glut of food, areas like Ukraine will be consistently producing massive amounts of grain on their very rich topsoils. Will Australia be able to compete?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 28 April 2006 9:24:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
p.s. As you yourself have explained, the specific arctic grass (hair grass) is of the oats family, therefore it would be possible to cross oats with this grass to get a conventional non-GM frost tolerant oat.
If an arctic grass was of the Triticeae family (same as wheat), it would be possible to cross that grass with wheat.
The gene identification would fastrack conventional plant breeding by around 5-7 years using marker assisted plant breeding.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 28 April 2006 10:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps Non-GMFarmer you should do your homework instead of telling me what to do. The CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) Program being widely introduced this year is an income insurance scheme. It works like this:

Farmers report on their farm-related income and expenditure for the last 5 years. The highest and lowest are dropped and the other 3 are averaged to produce a reference margin. The producer can then buy into a scheme that insures that margin. In the maximum protection program, if they make a lower margin this year, the Government pays the difference, if they make a higher margin they get nothing. It is possible for a farmer to have a poor yield, but if prices are good, they will get nothing. It is the low wheat prices that are really hurting farmers in western Canada.

The scheme was originally organised for beef producers following the BSE scare in Canada, but has been extended to all farmers this year.

“As you yourself have explained, the specific arctic grass (hair grass) is of the oats family, therefore it would be possible to cross oats with this grass to get a conventional non-GM frost tolerant oat. If an arctic grass was of the Triticeae family (same as wheat), it would be possible to cross that grass with wheat.”

Yes, there is some potential to cross it into oats, but are frost resistant oats that much use to you? There is only one species of grass in Antarctica, so you won’t find one from the Triticeae Tribe that you can cross with wheat. As the gene is not in wheat, otherwise they would already be frost resistant, no amount of marker-assisted breeding will help.

Triticale was from a cross between wheat and rye, both in the Triticeae Tribe – see my comments in the last post.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 28 April 2006 8:46:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am confused. What part of this Canadian government payment to farmers is not a subsidy?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 29 April 2006 12:43:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, if you make a misleading attack claiming mistruths you have to expect to be reminded to do your homework. In response to my comment “…in Canada they are increasing subsidies”, you asked "... is this something else you have made up?" Surely you can't still deny that Canada has increased subsidies?

"Through today's announcement of $755 million, together with the $439 million provided through the Farm Income Payment program earlier this year, the Government of Canada is making nearly $1.2 billion available to address the immediate needs of grains and oilseeds producers." (Note: Oilseeds mainly refers to canola)

You can learn more about the Canadian Farm Income Program at http://www.agr.gc.ca/cfip/about.html .

"The Canadian Farm Income Program (CFIP) provides funds to producers who have had a sudden and severe drop in income for reasons beyond their control such as flooding, disease, price collapse, or rapidly rising input costs."

The high costs and market rejection of GM would no doubt contribute to the "price collapse" and rapidly rising input costs".

Yes, a non-GM frost tolerant oat would be beneficial to us as we plant thousands of ha of oats and we do get frost damage.

However, GM wheat of any kind is of no benefit to us whatsoever because our customers do not want GM wheat. Consumers don't care if GM wheat prevents frost damage, consumers don't want to take the risk because they are not getting the benefit.

Yes, the triticale was a simple example of how an arctic grass could be crossed with oats... same family. I am confident researchers will find frost tolerant grasses in the same family as wheat - time will tell. It is of course a double edged sword as countries like Ukraine would benefit far more than countries like Australia and lead to an exacerbation of the market problems associated with the global glut of food we experience now.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 29 April 2006 9:31:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, NonGMFarmer, The CFIP finished in 2002.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 29 April 2006 8:22:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The initial subsidy was a 3 year run but the latest was 2005 - thats what the political announcement was about. The subsidy is continuing to roll over and if you read how farmers apply, they don't have to refill their initial application paperwork in as they can reuse this information from previous claims.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 30 April 2006 8:45:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CAIS is not a subsidy, but an insurance program. Farmers have to pay to get income protection. If their gross margin is higher this year than the protected margin, they get nothing. If they have not had a positive gross margin for the last 5 years they also get nothing. Farmers in the program need to ensure they are making changes to improve profitability, otherwise their protected margin will decrease with time.

If you want to call CAIS a subsidy, you will also need to call Australian programs like Exceptional Circumstance funding a subsidy http://www.daff.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D0C19333-3B03-4933-91BAE3D3975BE27C&contType=outputs. I understand that payments in this program have been increasing in Australia even though you don’t have GM crops.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 1 May 2006 9:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, once again you are being deliberately misleading.

I am not talking about the insurance program CAIS. I am talking about the direct financial subsidy, the Canadian Farm Income Program (CFIP). This is a subsidy program that was increased significantly last year. I will repeat part of the announcement for you so you can understand (although I am sure you do, you just don't want to admit you are wrong.)

"Through today's announcement of $755 million, together with the $439 million provided through the Farm Income Payment program earlier this year, the Government of Canada is making nearly $1.2 billion available to address the immediate needs of grains and oilseeds producers."

and the government press release on http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=n&s2=2005&page=n50329a

"The Farm Income Payment Program will begin delivering the money in April as part of a two-part plan to ease immediate financial pressures on farmers and allow for a transformation of the industry that addresses the root causes of declining farm income."

Australian Exceptional Circumstance funding is linked to frost, drought, flood etc not to loss of income from dropping commodity prices and increased costs that would be experienced with GM crop adoption.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 9:18:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer. The Canadian Farm Income Program no longer exists. It has been incorporated in CAIS, which opperates like an insurance scheme to protect income. It is you who insist on calling it a subsidy. Nobody else does.

As I have explained previously, the way the scheme operates is of no use to any farmer who has their income decreasing as over time, their protected margin will decrease. The scheme operates to smooth out some of the downs of farm income, so they are not so devastating. I imagine something the same is true of your exceptional circumstances program.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 11 May 2006 8:40:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you read the government releases on the subject, you are quite wrong.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:01:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps rather than misinterpreting the Government Press Releases, you should read the details of the scheme. They are readily available from the Federal and Provincial Governments.

Let's face it, this is another of your cherished misconceptions about Canada that is wrong.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 12 May 2006 7:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The exceptional circumstances payments in Australia are due to droughts or floods.
Canada had an excellent high yielding season in all commodities last year so it was not a seasonal problem.
The support was due to high costs and low commodity prices.
Just because you can't admit you are wrong Bill, doesn't mean you are right.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Friday, 12 May 2006 9:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For goodness sake Agronomist it's a Canadian subsidy. Read what the Canadian Government release said. It's a subsidy. Admit you're wrong and move on.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 12 May 2006 2:45:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGM Farmer, as usual you have totally mis-read this. On what other subjects would you prefer to get all you information from a Government Press Release rather than by reading the documentation? Even the Press Release does not support your claims this is a subsidy.

For farmers to access the CAIS, they must pay to insure their margin. Do Australian farmers need to pay to access the Exceptional Circumstances funding? Or is this just an impost on the taxpayer?

I should also point out that you seem to be the only one who considers this scheme a subsidy. Canada is, and remains, a member of the Cairns group along with Australia pressing for agricultural subsidies to be removed. Nobody in that Group, least of all Australia, has asked them to leave.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 13 May 2006 9:17:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m sure it’s all about percentages Agronomist. Canada does not subsidize at the rate that US does, so if Canada can get rid of the US subsidy then they would be better off and at a level playing field.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 15 May 2006 9:31:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't have to be too brilliant to read what has happened Agronomist.
Following farmer protests, the government released more money for subsidies with a plan to put this through the The Farm Income Payment Program but obviously the simplest method (and an avenue to avoid WTO pressure) was to amalgamate the FIPP scheme with the CAIS scheme.
A drop in costs for an insurance scheme from 22% to 0.45% is certainly a subsidy.
CAIS no longer works as it did previously as the deposit has been eliminated and the CAIS bank accounts are paid out and closed. Also "Producers who participated in CAIS in the 2003, 2004, or 2005 program years do not have to make a deposit or pay a fee for these program years." .

"Officials will continue to work toward putting the necessary authorities in place to improve negative margin coverage under the program and to establish a targeted advance which will proactively direct assistance to commodities or regions affected by a disaster." See http://www.agr.gc.ca/caisprogram/main.html
and from the fact sheet: http://www.agr.gc.ca/caisprogram/factsheets/faq_fee.html

Previously, producers had to set aside 22 per cent of the value of their reference margins in a CAIS account to have full protection under the program but thats been slashed to 0.45%.

eg: "Maximum Protection
If you had a $60,000 reference margin and you chose Maximum Protection (100%), your participation fee would be $270.00 ($60,000 x .45% x 100%). You will also need to pay the $55 Administrative Cost Share, for a total of $325.00."

A very cheap option for risk protection for commodity failure isn't it? These changes are certainly a government funded subsidy no matter how you dress it up. Considering Canadian farmers had such a good season, you wouldn't think they would need an additional $1.2billion would you?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 15 May 2006 10:05:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer, nice to see you have gone back to the sources at last. You have not got it right because you want to believe so hard that this is a subsidy.

Things you have missed:

The scheme prior to 2005 required funds to be set aside, not paid in. Part of the rationale, would be that growers would then have sufficient funds to restructure their business.

If your margins continue to decline, for whatever reason, your protected margin will decline. In fact after two years of payouts, the amount farmers will be eligible for will be much less.

The scheme protects against all sources of loss of margin - drought, hail, frost and low commodity prices. It is not effective to increase input costs over the long term as you will never get your full margin back that way. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had a significant impact on some input costs in 2005, that should level out this year.

Farmers only get a payout if their margin for 2005 was lower than the average margin for three out of the last five years (excluding the highest and lowest). Many Canadian crop growers are likely to get little or nothing from this scheme. Livestock enterprise generally stand to gain the most.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 8:55:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's no point changing the goal posts to suit yourself Bill.

Back to the source:

"Through today's announcement of $755 million, together with the $439 million provided through the Farm Income Payment program earlier this year, the Government of Canada is making nearly $1.2 billion available to address the immediate needs of grains and oilseeds producers."

and the government press release on http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=n&s2=2005&page=n50329a

"The Farm Income Payment Program will begin delivering the money in April as part of a two-part plan to ease immediate financial pressures on farmers and allow for a transformation of the industry that addresses the root causes of declining farm income."
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 1:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loss of margin is about higher costs and lower commodity price. Australia doesn't get these subsidies for loss of margin to compensate for high cost and low commodity prices for GM.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 3:32:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PNAS, vol. 103(20), pages 7571-7576

Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield

Manda G. Cattaneo, Christine Yafuso, Chris Schmidt, Cho-ying Huang, Magfurar Rahman, Carl Olson, Christa
Ellers-Kirk, Barron J. Orr, Stuart E. Marsh, Larry Antilla, Pierre Dutilleul, and Yves Carrière
May 16, 2006

Abstract:

Higher yields and reduced pesticide impacts are needed to mitigate the effects of agricultural intensification. A 2-year farm-scale
evaluation of 81 commercial fields in Arizona show that use of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton reduced insecticide use,
whereas transgenic cotton with Bt protein and herbicide resistance (BtHr) did not affect herbicide use. Transgenic cotton had
higher yield than nontransgenic cotton for any given number of insecticide applications. However, nontransgenic, Bt and BtHr
cotton had similar yields overall, largely because higher insecticide use with nontransgenic cotton improved control of key pests.
Unlike Bt and BtHr cotton, insecticides reduced the diversity of nontarget insects. Several other agronomic and ecological factors
also affected biodiversity. Nevertheless, pairwise comparisons of diversity of nontarget insects in cotton fields with diversity in
adjacent noncultivated sites revealed similar effects of cultivation of transgenic and nontransgenic cotton on biodiversity. The results
indicate that impacts of agricultural intensification can be reduced when replacement of broad-spectrum insecticides by
narrow-spectrum Bt crops does not reduce control of pests not affected by Bt crops.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 21 July 2006 7:25:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Agronomist,
GM Bt cotton produces its own Bt insecticide to kill caterpillars and there is a continuous supply of plant-produced Bt insecticide being released to kill specific caterpillars. The insecticide applied to kill non-target pests on cotton will not be reduced because the other insects are controlled with insecticide applications. If the Bt released by the plant was measured and included, it is likely that there would actually be an increase in chemical released to the environment.
Herbicide tolerant varieties encourage the use of specific herbicides, the myth that Ht crops reduce herbicide applications is wrong as this report indicates.
And of course this report confirms that there is no yield improvement with GM cotton.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Saturday, 22 July 2006 10:02:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bt MAIZE IN SPAIN FOUND TO IMPROVE PRODUCTION BY 7.3%

Scientists of the Institute and Agricultural Research and Technology (IRTA) of Catalonia report an average increase in Bt maize production of 7.3%, equivalent to 1,055 kilograms per hectare, when compared to non biotech varieties. In addition, the experts reported an increase in the quality of the grain, with an 83% decrease in the level of mycotoxins found in transgenic seeds, and increased grain moisture content during harvesting. The biotech varieties were also reported to have increase tolerance to fungal pathogens. More than 53,000 hectares of transgenic Bt maize were cultivated in Spain in 2005. The study also confirmed that a buffer zone of 15-20 m between Bt maize and conventional crop varieties is sufficient to insure coexistence and prevent the flow of the transgene.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 28 July 2006 6:43:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have tried now for a month to track down report of a 7.5% increase in productivity. I do not want a pundit site or Monsanto site. I want to check to see if all rules of science have been adhered to. In previous reports, I have found major issues that create the illusion of GM improvement over non-GM. An example:- "Outcrossing frequencies and distribution of transgenic oilseed rape in the nearest neighbourhood".

This 35 page report I found shows that the science is manipulated to make GM look acceptable and even fantastic to farmers. Experiment was done for two years (not long enough to show the full implications of cross-contamination), no wind speed given which would indicate that if it is in a valley there would be a reduction in contamination, decrease in flowering in second year of 14 days, the amount of plots allocated in second year of experiment was reduced to 1 GM plot due to labour and space limitations (was this on purpose).

"Another so far neglected factor for the establishment of specific rules concerning co-existence between GM and non-GM crops is the effective detection limit of analytical methods for quantitiative GMO diagnostics. This limit is caused by the amount of DNA that is introduced into the PCR reaction and depends on the genome size of the investigate species."

"Therefore our results cannot be transferred to conditions in large-scale experiments." also "Nevertheless, as shown in this study the effects of the pollination vectors wind and insects are often interacting especially at short distances and can therefore not be predicted completely by models. Therefore field trials providing real data are still necessary for the final determination of the gene dispersal of transgenic crops."

I want to know all the factors and so far all you've said is that is that there is an increase in GM over non-GM in Spain (by the way, wasn't GM meant to be 30% increase in productivity from brochures selling GM). There is a far cry from manipulation and reality when it comes to GM crops and their scientific methods it seems.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 13 August 2006 1:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If GM maize was as good as you say Agronomist, far more American farmers would be growing it... but they do not. American farmers are well aware that the increase in cost and the restricted market access does not outweigh the "benefits" which is why GM maize growers are a minority.
Most of the yield advantages in GM is because of the non-GM varieties the GM trait is added to, not the trait itself.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Sunday, 13 August 2006 1:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMFarmer, Insect-resistant corn has been adopted by farmers in the US. In 2006, 40% of the US corn acreage was sown to insect-resistant corn, up from 35% in 2005 (see: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2000s/2006/Acre-06-30-2006.pdf). The adoption rates are higher in some states that have greater pressure from earworm, rootworm or corn borer. Given that in 2005, only 23% of the corn acreage in the US received an insecticide application (see: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2006/AgriChemUsFC-05-17-2006.pdf) down from 30% in 1997, insect pests are not a major concern in corn growing in the US. Therefore, you would expect that adoption of insect-resistant corn would not be that high. The product is less widely used because there is not the need for it.

Just because the US corn growing has low insect pressure, does not mean everybody else has and insect-resistant corn can be more valuable in other areas.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:11:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear All:

I have not followed this list for several months now, but I see that Julie Newman, the NonGMFarmer, still has not read beyond the anti-GM disinformation campaign,

The insecticide applied to kill non-Lepidopterous pests on cotton has been reduced in many areas of the world because fewer insecticides are being applied that kill the natural enemies of pests like aphids and spider mites. Go visit Narrabri during the summer and learn. We use IPM and try not to control pests with other sprays.

Even if you wanted to count a protein like Bt as just another chemical, the amount of Bt in the plants is about the same as a single Bt spray, and weighs less than many chemical sprays. A cotton plant weighs on the order of a kg, and the average Cry1A expression is about 1 ppm. A plant only expresses a few mg of Cry1Ab. With 30,000-100,000 plants per ha, this about 100 g Cry1A/ha, about a single Bt spray.

Ht crops can reduce herbicide applications, but more importantly they replace more toxic herbicides, like your atrazine, with less toxic and less persistent materials.

Cattaneo et al clearly show that even in Arizona, where Bt cotton is only of modest benefit compared to Mississippi or Qld, Bt cotton increases yields without the need to slosh on chemicals. That’s what true Greenies like me want. If you don’t believe go look to the data from Australian cotton or ask for a tour in Narrabri. Why haven’t you anti-GM zealots made headway in the cotton region? Because they laugh you off the farm when you try to tell them that GM cotton provides no benefits. There must be something to induce a lot of smart farmers to adopt Bt on 80% plus of the region.
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 8:59:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear “Is it really safe” and Julie”:

Bt corn does in fact increase yields although it varies from year to year depending on insect attack. The yield benefits are real.

Two years is long enough, and cannot be affected by crossing (your cross-contamination). If you think otherwise, tell us how. Corn is planted from hybrid seed every year,

Agronomist knows his agronomy. Insects are not a big problem throughout the corn belt, but are more severe in places like Nebraska and North Carolina, where Bt corn adoption is highest.
Time to get out of your shell and face the facts.

By the way, how much longer can you hold back the tide on canola with more and more farmer groups coming out in favour of ending the moratoria?
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 9:03:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main thing that I am concerned about is the safety of GM. With the Spanish report you have not said how many years this experiment was. My guess is it is a lot less than a decent experiment that would show the contamination spread, say 10 years.

Where is this report by the way? Is it being held tightly to the bossum of the GM'ers because there may be more in it than they want to be said? Are they just getting sections out of it that they want to use? Is the 7.5% increase just one year out of a few that may have been decreases?

I really don't care how many people have been conned by the GM industry to decide to plant GM. All the more fool them if it is found to be a biohazard. How would they cope then? Consumers would not buy something that is hazardous to their health and they are the end product.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 11:14:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is some more news that shows the water use efficiency of GM Crops.

Insect-resistant cotton also water efficient

Preliminary results from CSIRO research in Narrabri have shown that
genetically modified insect-resistant cotton may also be more water
efficient.

Two years of field experiments by CSIRO Plant Industry's Mr Dirk Richards
and Mr Stephen Yeates, show that under normal full irrigation, Bollgard®
II cotton used ten per cent less water than an equivalent conventional
variety and had higher yields.

Bollgard® II makes up most of the Australian cotton crop and has reduced
pesticide use by up to 80 per cent.

Research is now optimising agronomic management of Bollgard® II as it
tends to produce bolls earlier than conventional cotton because insect
damage does not delay early crop growth.

Bollgard® II and conventional cotton extract soil water at a similar rate,
but Bollgard® II has a more compact growing season so uses less water
overall for the same or higher yields.
Bollgard® II had lower yields only when it was moisture stressed from peak
flowering to the end of flowering when boll filling started.

Soil moisture stress applied to conventional cotton at the same time did
not affect yield as much, due to later flowering and a better ability to
compensate later in the season.

This research is helping growers fine tune their water management
strategies for Bollgard® II.

This research is supported by the Cotton Research and Development
Corporation and the Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research
Centre.

www.pi.csiro.au/enewsletter/previousEditions/015story1.htm
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 28 September 2006 7:14:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another GM success story from:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/015200610151232.htm

THE HINDU

Area under Bt cotton Bollgard variety cultivation trebles

15 Oct 2006

Mumbai - The area under cultivation of Bt Cotton Bollgard variety in India has almost trebled to 8.6 million acres this year from 3.1 million acres in 2005, a growth that also helped multiply farmers' income too.

Farmers' income increased to Rs 7,026.5 crores up from Rs 2,100 crores last year as a result of the acreage going up, Bipin Solanki, Deputy Managing Director of Mahyco Monsanto Bollgard (MMB), which markets the hybrid seeds in India, said.

"The BT cotton technology has helped the year-on-year growth to increase by three times, thereby increasing the total yield by 400 kg to a farmer and has covered 8.6 million acres under cultivation this year. This in real terms has increased the per acre income by Rs 6,700 and generated an additional rural income of Rs 7,000 crore for farmers," said Solanki.

This year, around 2.1 million farmers have used Bollgard and Bollgard II hybrids, as it is technically called, out of which one million farmers have used this technology for the first time throughout the country. Last year, the total production was 775 kg which has gone up to 2,150 kg this year, he added.

"This technology helps the yield to resist the insect attack as it destroys the bollworms and as a result there is an increase in the yield," the company official said when asked about the debate on this technology.

Out of the one billion area under Bt Cotton cultivation the world over, 22 million acres are in India of which 14 million acres are under hybrid cultivation. Of this, 8.6 million acres are under Bollgard cultivation.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 8:26:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good grief Agronomist. Is that the best you can do. Quoting from the Deputy Managing Director of Mahyco Monsanto Bollarg (MMB) which markets the hybrid seeds in India.

I don't really care what this person says as he is the marketing manager of the company selling the seed. Got any proof that is independent?

You still will not give me proof of the safety of GM from independent and I mean independent scientists. Give me the full reports of 3 generations of major organs of rats that have been force fed GM on an easy to ready table and then I will take notice. I refuse to listen to a marketing manager that is selling a product saying how wonderful it is. No proof of scientific evidence is there?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 9:20:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The stats on the increased are planted were actually released by the Indian Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) – the regulatory authority for biotechnology crops in India – which recently announced that farmers increased the area planted with genetically modified (GM) insect-protected cotton to 8.1 million acres (3.2 million hectares) in 2006, up from 3.1 million acres (1.2 million hectares) in 2005.

And here’s more:

“India Business Insight - 10/16/06

Average yield of cotton in India increased by 50% to 467 kilograms per hectare

The average yield of cotton in India has increased by 50 percent to 467 kilograms per hectare. The average yield had stagnated at 300 kilograms per hectare for 10 years till 3 years ago. The Rs35,000-crore cotton economy of India provides livelihood to more than 50 million persons. ….

The yield per hectare in Gujarat has increased from 317 kilograms to 728 kilograms in the last 3 years.

Gujarat accounts for 23.6 percent of the total area under cotton in India.

In Punjab also, the yield per hectare has increased from 283 kilograms to 640 kilograms in the last 3 years. Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan together account 19 percent of the cotton crop and 18 percent of the area under cotton in India. The 2006-2007 cotton season is likely to yield 260 lakh bales and the yield is expected to be 490 kilograms per hectare.”

Too bad WA growers can’t access Bt cotton when Indian farmers can
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 5:59:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Safe:

Can you give me full reports of 3 generations of major organs of rats that have been force fed raw mushrooms (or anything else you eat) on an easy to read table?

Mushrooms have known carcinogens. So do spices. Peanuts are one of the most serious sources of allergens in our food.

What about kiwifruits, which were not part of the Australian diet even a few decades ago, and carry known allergens and are weedy in New Zealand?

If you are so concerned about food safety, why not demand that all of these be banned from the market, or even banned from being grown so they can’t get into your food accidentally?

For that matter, can you point to any risk assessments, much less feeding studies, for any conventional food that you eat?

At least this has been done for GM crops, and you can get the risk assessments from FSANZ.

No one can claim that any food is absolutely safe; what risk assessments show is that the GM foods that are registered are at least as safe as their conventional counterparts. No other food gets such scrutiny, despite no evidence of risk from GM crops used in foods.

How about demanding a risk assessment for organic foods grown with natural fertilizers? Based on the news coming out of the States, this may not be a pretty picture, and I’ll wager that organic farmers in Australia would not be happy with the same level of scrutiny applied to such organics as is applied now to GM!
Posted by Rick Roush, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 6:16:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference with GM is that it denies farmers and consumers a choice. Consumers can choose to eat or not to eat peanuts, kiwi fruit, cucumber or organics but because GM cannot be segregated consumers cannot avoid it. I want to avoid a possible biohazard so should not be denied my rights.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 30 October 2006 11:17:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is it really safe:

You have dodged the giving a response to Rousch. Following your own line of reasoning, he asked for any evidence you had that would hold the safety assessment of conventional foods to the same standards as GM. The omission in your reply of any such evidence for the safety of conventional foods constitutes an admission that GM is assessed to higher standards than foods you eat all the time.

Instead, you tried to shift the argument to consumer choice. Even there you are wrong. Look on most packets of biscuits and you’ll see a statement to the effect that “may contain nuts” (maybe also egg and other risky ingredients). You can choose not to eat nuts, or any of the allergens included in those statements, only by avoiding all foods with those labels. In contrast, all foods that may carry even more than a minimal level of GM ingredients must carry a label that states unambiguously that they have GM. “May contain GM” is not acceptable under regulation in Australia and New Zealand.

In short, current labeling regulations in Australia mandate that consumers have a choice on GM. In contrast to GM, where no human has ever been shown to have been harmed, the real health threat of nuts gets only “may contain”.

If you were serious about your rights to be protected from a biohazard, you’d campaign on unambiguous labeling and more careful supply and processing segregation for nuts and other allergens. I’m betting you won’t, in which case you’ll prove my point that this is all about an ideological scare campaign that is at odds with the facts that GM foods are extensively assessed for safety, and no health risks are proved or even plausible
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 2 November 2006 9:14:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason I don't answer RR is because I have answered that same question before. But I will repeat it. Mushroom, peanuts, certain spices even MSG is labelled accordingly and I can avoid it by checking the label. This takes time and I willing to do this for my health.

FSANZ when you look on their website to see how they check the safety aspects of GM is by studying the scientific evidence from the GM companies. I refuse that study. I don't care what scientist looks at a study done by GM companies as the reports from them can be falsified. They should have done their own research with their own results and then allowed that into the debate of GM.

I refuse to accept some scientific evidence based on other GM Company controlled scientific evidence.

GM in my eyes is uncontrollable when planted. If you label GM foods with "This product may contain GM products" then how do we know as consumers what gene has been inserted. For example if you GM'ers go and put in cucumber gene into the grains that only say that it may contain traces of "GM" how the heck do I know that it is cucumber which is what I am allergic to. No chance. I'm dead from anaphylactic shock because of the stupidity of the labelling. This is why I am angry that you GM'ers do not see the problem with this biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 2 November 2006 12:48:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Safe, you didn't really answer the question. My understanding is that products in Australia are labelled in the control GM material - so you can avoid it if you choose to do so. The rest of your statement clearly indicates you are opposed to GM crops for ideological reasons and want to force observance of your religion on me.

You are so strong on rights, what about my rights? Or is it a case that only your rights matter?
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 2 November 2006 7:10:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m with agronomist, Safe. Roush asked for any evidence you had that would hold the safety assessment of conventional foods to the same standards as GM. You’ve replied again with an assertion about labeling. Can you prove the safety of anything you eat, and how? Do you know that raw mushrooms are full of carcinogens called hydrazines? Have you ever seen a risk assessment on mushrooms? How do you know which foods to avoid?

If not the GM companies, who would you have pay for the safety assessments? The public? In fact, much of the data for submission to FSANZ is done by other private companies, paid for by the GM company.

The results could be falsified, but there are severe criminal and civil penalties for doing so. On the other hand, Greenpeace can make misleading claims to persuade you that GM is dangerous without any penalties at all.
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 3 November 2006 6:35:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am asking for my rights as a consumer to not eat your product. You are not giving me those rights and are forcing me to eat it due to contamination that the farmers cannot avoid and what about the rights of the farmers that would have to pay because of GM contamination. You are giving me no opportunity to stay alive and look after my health because I am a minority. You say that my non-GM status is a religion. Good grief someone pay me so that I can be called a religion.

You are bullying yet again. When I say show me the research as per my previous statements you say "We don't want to do that because normal food has not been put through these trials". Well neither was tobacco when it came in and it should have been. Show me in the stores, the products that do not have a form of grain in them then say that I will be safe. It's a lie. I cannot as a consumer avoid GM grain as it is mixed in too many things.

I hereby finish up with your bullying tactics so you go play with yourselves. I will always, due to this debate see GM as a biohazard until it is proven beyond doubt that it is safe and you mob have not proven anything, just the manipulation of the GM companies and their supposed research. It reminds of the whaling research of the Japanese as per recent documentaries. You have made me feel an idiot in your research and yet you fail to read the words "I am not a scientist just a consumer". You fail to answer my questions on the oil research from Monsanto which is the GM grains which I believe is money driven not health driven.

So I as a consumer deem your product unworthy to eat and a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 3 November 2006 4:05:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Safe:

Your opportunities to avoid foods from GM crops are already preserved by Australian labeling, buying organic produce, buying non processed foods, and for that matter, by buying anything other than with ingredients of cotton seed oil, canola, corn, and soy. You’d have a pretty rich diet even without these. Wheat, barley, oats, etc are grains for which there is still no GM crops anywhere.

Where and who are these farmers who have to pay because of GM contamination, and why/how do they have to pay? Julie Newman couldn’t offer any documented examples.

We are asking you to defend your views (and even to show how the are not essentially spiritual), but that hardly constitutes bullying. Julie Newman and friends threaten to sue people who have the temerity to raise inconvenient facts or statements from others; that’s bullying and suppression of free speech.

Tobacco is an interesting example. Completely natural, used for at least 400 years, still very unsafe, but it took modern scientific research in the last century to prove it. Given that history, even for a powerful carcinogen and cardiopulmonary poison, how do you know that anything you eat every day is “safe”? Our point is that safety is relative, not absolute (nothing can be proved without a doubt to be safe), and GM is far more rigorously assessed than conventional food. So why do you assume that it is more risky?

I am sorry if you feel an idiot, but you are making judgments that require an extensive knowledge of science, even quoting supposed research, and then defend your opinions when challenged on the grounds that you are “not a scientist just a consumer". You have the right to remain ignorant, but not to create your own facts or science.
Posted by Rebel, Saturday, 4 November 2006 6:50:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 73
  7. 74
  8. 75
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy