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 > Dependent on Monsanto for our food? > Comments

Dependent on Monsanto for our food? : Comments

By Susan Hawthorne, published 12/6/2007

Australia’s food security is under threat if we end the moratorium on GM crops.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Jennifer

Perhaps I'm behind the times. You claim that Australia may not be able to sell its canola due to its high trans fat content.

I understood that the origins of trans fats were from the beef and dairy industry. Plants do not contain trans fats.

The only way canola would contain trans fat is by manufacturers hydrogenating the oil.

The natural canola plant prior to any interference should be trans fat free.

Please elaborate further on your claim that the conventionally grown canola plant in Australia contains trans fats.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 14 June 2007 1:05:17 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
There is a document that looks at the safety of GM crops and food. It is from the largest group of scientific organizations in the world. They represent over 150 scientific and academic organizations.
here is the link. They looked at over 50 review papers on the this topic. The conclusions truely represent the worlds scientific community on this issue.
http://www.icsu.org/2_resourcecentre/INIT_GMOrep_1.php4

Cheers
Posted by Rob from Canada, Thursday, 14 June 2007 3:55:32 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
This argument is only partly a scientific one. It is mostly an economic one. Companies promoting GM foods want to make money from them. There is no demonstrable food shortage in this world, the problem is in growing or transporting it to places where it is needed. If there is a shortage, then why are US and EU farmers paid to NOT produce?
Until we solve the economics of food growth and distribution, there is no need for GM crops. Except to make money for someone. And, if they are sold to the poor countries in Africa, then that is less money that those countries have for other development.
And, if you wnat to tell me that GM crops will provide better yields or grow in poorer soil, then I suggest that you concentrate on restoring soil and weather patterns in those countries first - they used to be able to feed themselves, they could do it again. Aid is about self-help, not sale of seed from somewhere else. Local farmers have developed local races of their seed crops - the most effective way to help them is to assist them to grow these.
Posted by The Pin, Thursday, 14 June 2007 1:51:19 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
People seem to be arguing an either/or proposition for GM crops. Either they are good or they are bad.

As long proper safeguards and regulation is in place (as it is with GM cotton in Australia) then each modification should be debated on its individual merits.
Posted by Sparky, Thursday, 14 June 2007 3:09:26 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
Katherine Wilson, these are merely opinions. Where is the evidence to support them?

The fact of the matter is that the 12th year of GM canola has been planted in Canada. It has not led to the demise of the Canadian canola industry, nor to any serious loss of markets. It has not affected trade of any other commodity from Canada. Last year were record years for the export of canola seed and canola oil from Canada. There was also 246 thousand tonnes of Canadian GM canola oil bought by Europe. Where is the evidence that GM canola oil is unsafe?

Sparky is correct, GM crops should be examined on a case-by-case basis, but these crops have already been approved as safe to the environment and health by the Australian Government regulator, one of the toughest regulatory agencies in the World. I suggest it is about time to let Australian farmers take a look at them. If they are as bad as you say, the farmers won't want to use them and that will be the end of that.

And of course, you won't be dependent on Monsanto for your food as farmers will have choice. They could choose not to grow Monsanto's canola and grow Bayer's instead, or they could choose neither and use the old fashioned Atrazine-resistant stuff they grow now. Consumers can have choice too if they like. They could simply buy organic canola oil and avoid all the herbicide tolerant types altogether. Actually, introducing GM canola might be good for the organic industry by creating a market for a product that hardly has a market at all at the moment. But my guess is most consumers will vote with their wallets.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 14 June 2007 8:19:39 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
Reading the Susan Hawthorne article and Katherine Wilsons comments I appose their views on the grower implications of GM crops. In fact I wonder whether they have much to do with the practical side of agriculture at all. There are real economic issues facing broadacre agriculture. Farmers operate on extremely tight budgets and genetic advances are a major way growers can fight off the cost/price squeeze. Any advances in the efficiency that breeders can bring wanted traits into varieties (ie GM) will be supported by the farmers. All recent (last 12 months) surveys of broadacre growers in Western Australia show overwhelming support for GM crop research. By the shear volume of GM grain being produced by overseas growers you can see that at the grower level it is economic. They are out-competing other non GM countries in terms of yield and quality of grain and yes, they are still selling their grain to eager graintraders. GM growers are exposing the community to less pesticides in general and what pesticides they are using are often less toxic. That to me is an agriculture I want to be involved in.

I am sure that Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and Nufarm are likely to make significant revenues from GM technology, just like when Microsoft invaded the world with their new idea. Remember also that both companies invested significant funds to get their “new idea” off the ground. But rather than fearing that they will take over the world I see GM breeding companies as keeping agriculture alive from this point on.

Agronomists are the people who growers go to for advice and the vast majority of agronomists that I know are in favour of GM technology. I read the comments of “Agronomist” and can’t help but to agree with his arguments. Maybe all agronomists have had the Monsanto chip inserted into their heads. Or maybe we truly understand the ramifications of the technology (first hand) for growers. Of all I have read I am skeptical of the scare campaign which envelops GM crops on the consumer side
Posted by Independent WA Agronomist/Consultant, Friday, 15 June 2007 4:48:03 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy