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 > Food safety Western Australia style > Comments

Food safety Western Australia style : Comments

By Ian Edwards, published 2/7/2007

Western Australia’s Minister for Agriculture has funded a secret study by a known anti-GM activist under the preposterous claim it is 'independent'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. All
If there is still so much we don’t know about the safety of GM crops, if there is still so much to be debated and tested, then we should not be leaping into using this technology. Why the rush if motives don’t involve putting profits before public safety?

I also believe FSANZ is not as scrupulous or strict in their regulation of GM crops as Ian would have us believe. What about their approval of the MON863 GE corn variety in 2003, even though they had access to data which showed abnormal developments in rats fed with the corn - smaller kidneys, liver toxicity and variations in blood composition. A later peer reviewed study confirming this was published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. FSANZ instead relied on the data provided by Monsanto to make their decision.
Again the genetically engineered GT73 canola variety was approved by FSANZ even though lab studies by Monsanto showed serious damage to laboratory animals, like increases in liver weight. ANZFA’s assessment relied exclusively on Monsanto's data which was nt peer reviewed.

Did they have the public’s best interests at heart here??

I just think that there is a need for more studies to be carried out, and I see no problem with debate about this issue, or further independent studies being carried out.
Posted by NatM, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 10:24:52 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, what a rant. It is funny how you seem to accuse others of using your own modus operandi. You should come to Canada and see the benefits of GM canola for yourself. Farmers there will tell you that it saves them money, increases yields, allows earlier planting, allows more stable rotations in the drier areas, helps no-till, cleans up weedy paddocks and saves fuel. In Canada farmers benefit and the environment benefits.

michael_in_adelaide, might I remind you that glyphosate resistant weeds were first found in Australia where no Roundup Ready crops were grown. Resistance occurs because the same herbicide is used over. In Canada, there are choices, farmers can follow glyphosate with glufosinate and there has yet to be a single glyphosate or glufosinate resistant weed in Canada, despite 11 years of GM canola. It is all about how you use the herbicides, not what crop you grow.

NatM, this is what FSANZ had to say on the canola: “Based on the data submitted, the slight increase in liver weight was possibly attributable to a slightly higher level of glucosinolates in the GM canola meal. Glucosinolate is well known to cause liver enlargement (Hayes, Principles and Methods of Toxicology, 3rd Edition). Equally, and perhaps more likely, the slight increases in liver weight were due to chance. FSANZ scientists, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research, the South Australian Department of Human Services, regulators in Japan, the UK and Canada, and members of FSANZ’s panel of independent experts were satisfied with this evaluation.” http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Amended%20Judy%20Carmen%20FSANZ%20RESPONSE%20TO%20ARTICLE%20April%202003v1.pdf Note that bit about peer-review.

The maize: “In conclusion, the observed differences are consistent with normal physiologic variation and are not related to the consumption of MON863 corn. The observed histopathological changes are similarly unremarkable for rats of this strain and age. Therefore, the results of this study do not indicate adverse effects from the consumption of MON 863 corn.” http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Assessment%20MON863%20feeding%20study.pdf
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 2:06:06 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
What floors me about comments such as those from Agronomist is the arrogance that assumes that farmers who do not want to grow GM crops (for whatever reason - founded in science, superstition or otherwise) should just move over for those that do. Yield and profit are not the only drivers in agriculture (and are not necessarily coupled in any case).

The onus must be on those who want to grow GM crops to ensure that they do not contaminate the crops (and disrupt the businesses) of those who do not want to. I have nothing against GMOs per se - as a geneticist I generate them myself in my work. But GM crops that cannot be contained are obviously a faulty product - and it is distressing to see how their use forces farmers who do not want to go GM into the hands of the GM companies.

Also Agronomist - Canadian farmers may be of superior intelligence in their use of alternating herbicide resistance but that does not change the basic facts on the ground as cited by the article from the American journal Science. If only we could all be Canadian what a perfect world it would be!
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 3:25:40 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, explain how comparing non-GM chemical resistant canola and our normal farming practices, with GM canola that is genetically modified to be resistant to a specific chemical (either glufosinate-ammonium or glyphosate)can possibly result in the claim that GM can do everything from saving fuel to earlier planting? The GM bit only gives chemical resistance. Bayers does not even control radish but costs a whopping $62/ha and the seed is $16,000/tonne! Monsanto (now Nufarm) will not give costs or contract details and their best trial yields on their website was 17% below the national average.
If Canadian farmers profited, they would not need to be reliant on their new subsidies that counter higher costs and lower commodity prices. In 2005, 7,000 Canadian farmers protested and subsidies were introduced to help prop up Canadian canola growers despite good seasons leading to their highest canola yields ever.
What are farmers really missing?
Commercial Traits: 68% herbicide tolerant, 19% Bt (plant produces its own insecticide) and 13% both. What a surprise, only failed promises since release 12 years ago. The most popular (80%) is glyphosate resistance which is an unwanted trait occurring in our weeds so it would be very easy to produce by non-GM means.

GM crops: 57% soy, 25% corn, 13% cotton and 5% canola. Soy, corn and cotton is not widely grown in Australia. Almost all of the GM canola is grown in Canada. Australia mostly grows cheaper non-GM herbicide tolerant canola.

GM Benefit?: USA and Canada are now heavily subsidising their GM crops. Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay governments do not recognise the patent, farmers plant pirated seed. Monsanto is trying to collect royalties from buyers and even governments. The rest India, China, South Africa and Australia, only grow GM cotton and our current debate is not about cotton.

No, Australian farmers are not missing out on anything other than higher costs and lower commodity prices.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 4:16:18 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
Judy Carmans profile can be accessed at http://www.iher.org.au/ . Dr Judy Carman has a Bachelor of Science, an Honours Degree in Organic Chemistry, a Ph.D. in Medicine in the field of nutritional biochemistry and metabolic regulation, and a Master of Public Health specialising in epidemiology and biostatistics. Very impressive qualifications and not deserving of the radical ravings of the pro-GM sector who specialise in attacking anybody that dares to voice an alternative voice against GM that may interfere with their intention to profit significantly from it.

Consumers are rejecting GM because they do not want to be guinea pigs. Consumers. like myself, have learnt not to trust the pro-GM sector but many trust Dr Carman as she is not ignoring the genuine concerns.
Vicous slander campaigns against those with concerns only adds fuel to the fire and makes consumers think that the pro-GM sector are desperate and frightened of what Judy may find.
If no problem is found, it will help towards resolving the key economic issue of consumer rejection and the inability to segregate the product to meet consumer demands.
My understanding is that Ian's main concern is that the funding is inadequate to resolve the issue. If both the pro-GM and the anti-GM side agree with this statement, why not encourage more funding to be allocated to Judys research? Data will be reviewed when available, not before.
What additional tests should be done?
Monsantos GM canola/ liver weight concern (FSANZ, OGTR) could be addressed by having comparison non-GM varieties of different glucosinolate levels as comparisons. Any more constructive ideas?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 4:27:31 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
Michael, are you implying that GURTs are a good idea?

But seriously, Agronomist is right that the herbicide resistance is not caused directly by GM crops themselves, but rather chemical overuse- even your precious article says that. Management strategies for resistance mitigation need to be in place for the technology to remain viable. Agronomist has already stated how a chemical rotation strategy can be used, and works already in Canada. Once GM crops hit here, a similar strategy can be used, why not?

And there is another article next to that one you cited in Science suggesting that herbicide resistant GMs are good for the environment! Shock horror!

And your suggestion that non-GM farmers have to roll over for the others, well thats just not true. They are free to plant whatever they wish, when they wish. Fears of markets refusing crops point blank because of GM contamination are unfounded. Most organic companies and buyers always allow some contamination, the limits can be set and tested for, especially when there is no greater public health risk from GM crops than non-GM ones. As a geneticist, are you suggesting that GM crops pose a health risk generally? If so, where is that data?

This issue really seems to be more about anti-capitalism than public health. Public health and "loss of markets" (no data there either) are just weapons used to attack those nasty corporations.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 4:29:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. All

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