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 > Australia plays the biotechnology cowboy > Comments

Australia plays the biotechnology cowboy : Comments

By Duncan Currie, published 16/5/2008

Genetically modified crops, if they escape or behave in an unexpected way, can cause damage to plants and biodiversity.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. All
Does the world never learn? We seem to continue playing God and taking risks that can affect the whole of the future of mankind!

When we detonated the first atomic bomb we really did NOT know if the resultant chain reaction could have continued to infinity, however in true human "endevour" we took the risk anyway and we WERE lucky!

Let us look at the problems we have created for ourselves here in Australia. We have allowed the establishment of the Prickly Pear, Green Cestrum (one leaf can kill a cow), Groundsel, Rubber Vine, Catsclaw, Lantana, Blackberry, Rabbits, Cane Toads and so the list goes on!......all this because we DID NOT research the problem sufficiently to assess the resultant risk factor!

Now we are worldwide allowing possibly the same mistakes to be made, only this time on a much grander scale,.....supposedly in the name of prevention of starvation for the Third World countries, but in actuality, to allow a small group of businesses to control the sale and distribution of the seed-stocks across the spectrum!

Nobody at this time knows exactly what the long-term results of Genetic Plant Modification can bring to humanity, so we should consider the fact that we have in the past been very lucky, but not plunge headlong into what could be a genetic plant armageddon!
Posted by Cuphandle, Friday, 16 May 2008 10:35:21 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
Duncan, perhaps you might be able to explain to me why anti-biotechnology writers on GM crops on this forum so often fail to get simple facts right. What is so hard about checking sources?

There are not “three weeds” resistant to “the same herbicides” in Canada within three years due to outcrossing. In fact Canada has no cases of herbicide resistance in weeds to any of glyphosate, glufosinate or bromoxynil http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp ; the three herbicide traits introduced into GM canola.

Likewise an intensive study in Oaxaca in 2003 and 2004 failed to fined any transgenes in landraces of corn http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/35/12338 Of course, this doesn’t mean that GM corn was not present in Mexico, just that it wasn’t … well … “significant GM contamination” of “the genetic reserves of maize”.

It is Mexican farmers themselves that are choosing to bring in GM corn seed to plant. As corn in the US is a hybrid, the seed brought in for animal feed is pretty useless for planting in Mexico. Instead farmers drive across the border, buy seed for sowing and drive it back. http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN0732845620080307?sp=true

After 12 years of cultivation, there is not one single example of a GM crop escape causing measurable “environmental damage”. That is because most weedy traits are bred out of crop varieties. When they escape from cultivation, they often behave by going extinct. Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said for non-GM landscape plants that frequently escape and irrevocably alter ecosystems.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 16 May 2008 3:05:36 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
The current crisis affecting world food supply, with skyrocketing prices for food, is a result of the mismatch between supply and demand for food.

Food supply globally has for nearly 50 years increased primarily due to technological innovation in farming. This innovation (particularly plant breeding) is a slow process. Bad regulations created by people who don’t understand plant science threaten this key tool for food security.

Ill conceived regulations touted by the author are slowing down the introduction of new and need crop varieties. For instance, hew rice varieties that could redress vitamin A deficiency have been delayed unnecessarily for about five years by legalist excess. This delay is leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths a year from vitamin A deficiency diseases.

Ill conceived lobbying to promote use of food resources for biofuel use in the EU and USA, all the name of ecological sustainability, are now driving up food prices world-wide, and triggering food-riots in many countries

Such harms from badly conceived policy action have been obvious to many for years, but usually it takes many more years before the general public realise the scope of the damage.

So where does the legal liability lie for the damage to health and life caused by legalistic impediments to future food security?

And if the law itself causes harm, should not a precautionary approach be applied and the law redesigned so that it itself does not cause harm?
Posted by GMO Pundit, Friday, 16 May 2008 4:20:25 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 continues the noble tradition of corrupted science through selective citations. His first is from an industry body. His second is disputed see, http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1641%2F0006-3568(2006)56%5B503%3ATCACVD%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
And his third ‘scientific source’ is a Reuters story. Perhaps Agronomist will apply a more rigourous standard to the so-called science that demonstrates the safety of GE crops. Our Regulator, FSANZ and OGTR do no testing and rely on company data, almost exclusively. Serious impacts on lab animals are regularly ignored (or the notion of testing dismissed).
The safety of GE crops has not been shown. In Australia, at the moment, there is little protection for farmers or consumers. Will agronomist agree that there should be strict liability provisions so that, in the event that something does go wrong, it is the biotech companies, not the victim who pays. (And please don’t try the line that consumers and farmers are currently protected – they’re not and even the Howard Government admitted as much)
Posted by next, Friday, 16 May 2008 9:58:18 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
Sorry next, my first cite was to an internationally-recognised clearing house for data on herbicide resistant weeds. If herbicide resistant weeds have been reported by anyone anywhere, they reside here. Instead I could have quoted the local weed scientists here whose response to this claim would have been “What planet are you from?”.

The paper you pointed to in order to “discredit” the work I pointed to, does no such thing. In fact, their response is (on page 508 if you care to look) “Have transgenes introgressed into maize FVs or wild relatives in Mexico? We don't know.” They speculate that they might have, but can only cite Quist and Chapela for evidence. As Quist and Chapela failed to control for an obvious artefact in their experiments, their results are meaningless. There might have been transgenes in maize in Mexico, but the methods used by Quist and Chapela were not appropriate for finding them. Ortiz et al. failed to find them using the appropriate methods. As I stated above, this doesn’t mean they are not there, just they could not be a “significant GM contamination” of “the genetic reserves of maize” as claimed in the article.

The third press report, simply demonstrates that Mexican farmers are driving across the border to pick up BT maize. That this practice occurs is widely known and here was a farmer willing to admit it.

Regulators of products world wide do not testing of the product. It is the responsibility of the proponent to provide evidence to convince the regulator that the product is safe. The proponents are required to provide all the data on the product collected. The dossier is then reviewed by the independent scientists at FSANZ and if they are not satisfied the product is not registered.

There have been more than 100 published animal studies on GM foods. Only a handful have shown any sort of adverse effect (and many of those because the protein introduced had an effect), which is exactly what you would expect from a procedure that is not dangerous per se.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 16 May 2008 11:02:38 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
There are so many reasons why we should be cautious about GM crops and the potential effects on humans whether it be through cross contamination/pollination or yet unkown impacts on the physical body through ingesting GM food.

The jury is still out on GM food. Just another bunch of powerful profit-motivated biotech companies absolving themselves of responsibility? They do not help their own case when they argue against transparency in labelling nor when they sue farmers for breach of patent such as in the Monsanto vs Schmeisser case; and I have even read talk of development of a terminator seed to ensure that ensuing seed from a crop cannot be re-sown. It is not rocket science to work out the potential devastating effects that this technology might have on global food production.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

Consumers in general don't want GM food, there has been much concern raised over the VIC and NSW governments decision to allow GM canola and much of the dissent is from other farmers who grow non-GM crops. Many of our export markets do not want GM food ie. Japan, parts of Europe.

Short sighted and profit motivated policies don't cut it on this issue. The science is not conclusive and to go ahead regardless and without relevant legislation to oversight the industry is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of governments.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 17 May 2008 12:08:40 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. All

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