The outcome of this report is not unlike an outsider trying to glean information from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) about applicants and their 'research' findings which are deemed 'Commercial in Confidence'.

Regarding the IHER's alleged incapacity to conduct long-term animal studies, as I understand so far, no precedent has been set for such an activity as none - anywhwere in the world- have actually been carried out! However, there continues to be claims of 'absolute safety' about genetically engineered food products as they are 'virtually the same as the existing gene-stock'.

Only two weeks ago, a report was presented to the Federal Minister for 'Health' with the alarming facts that more children are being dfiagnosed with food sensitivies and allergies. When.... oh when.... will the penny drop as to the links between the quality of food we eat and the subsequent illnesses! The more food is messed around with, the more likely the chances of allergic reactions.......

The levels of 'health' are declining every year with the budget being increased annually to deal with the growing litany of diseases and preventable illnesses. The Departments ought to be re-named the Departments of Illness and Accident as that is what they actually deal with. A state of health is an absence of disease, not a set of compromised definitions.

We are what we eat and the more simple the foods we consume, the less likely we are to develop reactions to them. Stuffing around with our foods is already creating multi-million dollar opportunities for pharmaceutical companies..... when will the links between them, agrichemical companies, the orthodox medical model and complicit and unwitting governments be recognised?

Thank you Kim Chance for having the courage to take another path on this important issue and perhaps a move to WA may be on the books so I can live in a state which is a leader in preventing yet more 'civilised' diseases!

Yours in simple, unadulterated and proper foods,

bush goddess

I am a geneticist and have read the Gene Technology Act 2000. I serve on an Institutional Biosafety Committee that regulates activities according to the Act. Unfortunatetly, the following statement is misleading:

"Australia has one of the most rigorous and transparent gene technology regulation Acts in the world, and is achieving its objective in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment."

A major problem with the Act that the government is not interested in addressing (probably due to pressure from the GM industry) is that farmers not wishing to grow GM crops (and hence reap the financial benefits of selling their crops at a premium as "GM-fee") are not protected. The GM crops available are able to cross-contaminate non GM crops by cross-pollination or seed dispersal. When GM crops are introduced to an area, all the farmers must, effectively, go GM due to this contamination and because their area will no longer be recognised as GM-free. It is a takeover of the industry by stealth by the GM companies and we will wind up with a few large multinationals controlling our food supply.

Since the current interpretation of the Act does not regard non-GM farms as part of the "environment" they are not protected under the current regulatory regime. The WA government may be trying to protect these farmers using food regulations instead.

I wonder what $92000 buys you? As already admitted, pretty much stuff all, except maybe a preliminary project that doesn't answer anything. A technician (not a PhD scientist) costs more than $60,000 for 1 year, without lab equipment or supplies. Where will they publish? I guess we will have to wait and see, I for one would love to see what they've come up with.

And bush goddess, Your post sounds more like a rant against potato chips and red cordial than GM. In fact they have far more additives and chemical adulterations and are in fact res[ponsible for more health problems than any GM food. There is NO data on allergies (or sensitivities) and GM, that's just wishful thinking.

Michael, if you are indeed a geneticist, then you would understand why there is no actual public health threat from GM crops. The argument that farmers may no be able to exact a premium can be worked out by them, but I haven't seen this in the marketplace. Organic farmers can claim premiums, sure, but area-wide non-certification has not been mentioned in any industry meetings that I have heard of. There was a time when certification for separation of cereal grains was worried about because it would add more cost to the bulk handling of such grains. There are other crops, other markets and the same genotypes that existed previously will still be there. farmers can save seed and grow what they want, if that gets them better premiums, then all power to them. If it doesn't, then why would that be the case? The idea that biotech companies will control our food supply is ridiculous and you should know better.

The issues raised by Ian Edwards are valid. Similar issues are to be found across the board. For instance in fields as diverse as nuclear technology; ante-natal testing for genetic or congenital abnormality; therapeutic cloning and stem cell research; so-called organic farming; the scary scenarios advanced by climate change believers.

In all these examples with perhaps the partial exception of climate change we find a discrepancy between the opinion of scientific bodies and the views of otherwise reputable scientists, against that of advocacy groups.

By reputable I mean those who have published papers over many years in peer reviewed, and prestigious journals. Another definition of reputable would be those holding senior positions in universities, industry or government. Individual who have been selected over and over again by competitive job criteria, for numerous junior and middle level posts, before attaining seniority. In other words one only obtains a reputation in science by dint of hard work and dedication to a scientific discipline.

On the other hand the advocacy groups are composed of individuals with “strong” convictions based on a medley of out dated ideas. In the biological field there are romantic concepts such as eighteenth century vitalism, magic and perhaps some theological reasoning. These arguments are dressed up in pseudo scientific jargon. There are in these groups, some with university degrees even up to PhD level. These individuals have, in my view forsaken science in order to pursue a particular obsession.

It is also interesting how the advocacy groups are able to call anything associated with industry and wealth production as somehow bad and dishonest. [Unfortunately, they can always find examples to support this view such as the tobacco industry]. However, the fact is that the vast majority of scientists and others working in industry are honest and conscientious workers. This to me is a given.

The problem is to how to counter the advocacy propaganda and “post modernism”? How to educate the public to the scientific way of thinking?

Mr, Chance like his boss Alan Carpenter is no help at all.

Gee, surprise surprise - someone who already had an opinion got appointed. Do we ever see anything other than that in Australian public life? Look at almost every enquiry into matters like nuclear technology (Ziggy Z), water fluoridation, and other potentially toxic technologies. 99% of the time Federal government, and often state governments appoint someone likely to give the outcome they want. It is the rule not the exception.

As a public health professional, the area I have most often seen these rigged reviews is water fluoridation. With European countries all quitting and even banning fluoridation, and alarming studies coming out of the US on fluoride & bone cancer, fluoride & other bone disease, fluoride & endocrine disruption, we still have enquiries into fluoridation here routinely headed up by avowedly pro-fluoridation spokespeople. And ho-hum ho-hum, guess what conclusions they come up with?

Actually it seems quite refreshing to hear of an enquiry headed by someone who might have a leaning toward the non-multinational position, and more inclined toward pubic safety.