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 > Taking stock of agriculture > Comments

Taking stock of agriculture : Comments

By Jan van Aken, published 5/6/2008

Australia is out of step with rest of the world. We should be diverting funding away from GE crops and industrial farming towards more sustainable farming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
For embedded links see: http://tinyurl.com/6cpv5l

At the risk of being an arm chair critic given that I have not read the report - we have today and have had for many many years, not some time in the future, known how to literarily double our food growth in half the foot print ; do it organically; produce clean free energy as a byproduct; do it sustainably; and clean up the environment to boot! All this and more using tried and true time proven parmaculture and biodynamic methods already in public domain - so who is stopping us?

Australia, the US, Canada and their cronies. That who. Could it be stealing markets from fossil fuels, cleaning environment and an abundance of nutrient rich foods that keep us healthy be a little to threatening for the predatory corporations? These rich snobs with their self serving experts shills have repeatedly abused due diligence and continue to injure us. Their excuse. No money, Yet lots of money for wars at a drop of a had! They have usurped all our tax dollars to deliberately create from, richness and abundance, unconscionable wars and scarcity and environmental damage for personal gain for their cronies.

Just the cost of one year war in Iraq could easily pay for all the infrastructure for permanently establish abundance for all. But will they? And will we demand accountability or continue to be abused?

See:

Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food

GE Labelling - Government Adamant To Pass Bills C-51 & C-52

The Machinations Of The New World Order - The Farmer
Posted by Chris G, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 2:26:19 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
Contrary to Bugsys comment that "Non-GM farmers conclusions about the document don't appear to be the actual case either". A copy of the relevent section in the report confirms my summary:

- GM performance questionable
- GM introduces additional liabilities for GM and non-GM farmers
- GM patents concentrate ownership, drive up costs, undermine economic sustainability and food security, inhibit seed-saving and restrict access to products needed for independent trials.

Direct from http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_210408_Final.pdf

"The application of modern biotechnology outside containment, such as the use of GM crops is much more contentious. For example, data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others.

Higher level drivers of biotechnology R&D, such as IPR frameworks, determine what products become available. While this attracts investment in agriculture, it can also concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. An emphasis on modern biotechnology without ensuring adequate support for other agricultural research can alter education and training programs and reduce the number of professionals in other core agricultural sciences. This situation can be self-reinforcing since today’s students define tomorrow’s educational and training opportunities.

The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. In this regard, there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of market certification and income to neighboring organic farmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops."
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:57:05 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 stand behind what I said Non-GM Farmer.

-Yield variability does not equal "questionable performance" in reality, but to an anti-GM lobbyist guess it does. That GM crops can yield up to 30% higher is noted. It is not noted however under what circumstances yield declines occur. Yield declines happen under particular circumstances, as with all crops and varieties. Such as in heat-stress susceptible GM-soy which was found to yield less under high-heat climatic conditions. This is only relevant to particular areas. The same happens with all varieties, some are suited to particular conditions and some are not. These are not random variables. As a farmer I know you know this.

-All you have done with the other points is taken "concerns" and hypotheticals and turned them into assertions and "research findings".

This was not a "research" exercise, it was a review exercise. The millions of dollars spent went on travel and accommodation and administration costs for delegates mostly. It's on their website.

Oh, and Australia helped pay for it, along with Canada and the USA. How about that.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 8:44:04 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
Try reading the full report rather than the summary.
The reason the GM industry stormed off the committee was because the report did not promote the usual pro-GM propaganda.
Yields also work in reverse, the higher yields could well have been due to better conditions or favoured trials. Why would GM crops yield worse in drought?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 12:19:55 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

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