As the world population increases and the demand for food increases, the citizens of the world will be grateful for the increased productivity that GM has delivered. GM is enabling many crops to be grown without the use of pesticides which not only kill the undesired insects, but also kill useful species as well.

I have yet to see a list of situations where GM food has produced an undesirable outcome. The anti GM push should be seen for what it is, just an example of hysteria by a bunch if ill informed misfits.

David

Greg, I feel some research would do you some good. Perhaps some on plant breeding? In plant breeding all sorts of wide crosses are made using things like embryo rescue. How do you think they get rust resistance genes into wheat? There is nothing terribly natural about this.

Maybe some on proteins? The proteins included so far are mainly from common soil bacteria. We eat these bacteria all the time, every time you eat a lettuce or an unpeeled carrot, or broccoli, and so on. And if you eat organic vegetables, there is a reasonable chance you would consume some Bt used as a pesticide. These proteins have been part of the human food chain for thousands of years.

Patent law brushup might also help? You can’t patent something that occurs in nature. You can pattern a use. Patents must have novelty. And guess what nobody has to buy the seed from multinationals. Farmers can keep using their own seed if they wish. Where they choose to use biotech seeds and 12 million of them choose to do so, it is because these seeds are better than the ones they had.

Lastly some research on farming? No evidence that I can see that farmers using biotechnology crops are serfs. Farmers are free to grow what they want, when they want and leave the land if they wish. All things impossible in serfdom.

Agronomist, My concern with your piece is not so much the actual science but who is controlling it and how. The why is obvious for power and money.

Any discussion of food is meaningless unless the control and distribution there of are addressed. Consider the tonnes of food that are destroyed each year on being uneconomical (unprofitable). That food in the hands, bellies of those in Dafur would make immeasurable differences to real lives.

The same mentality prevails with The Big Food Four. They are there to make a profit, benefit to the poor isn’t a consideration. As the need for this technology is mostly with the (unprofitable) poor it is doubtful that appropriate research will be entered into let alone delivered simply more profit elsewhere.

This profit maximization approach is illustrated by the ‘Roundup ready regime’ . To buy these seed contract is demanded forbidding the use of alternatives (cheaper) brands. (More profit for them.) However in a 3rd world context the poor farmers may not be able to afford the more expensive product. Additional to this the use of RR grain can impact potentially poorer neighbouring farmers due to increased chemical run off, weed resistance and pollen contamination.

The BFF actively discriminate against seeds/varieties that don’t benefit them. In real terms local seed merchants are either being swallowed or squeezed out of business. Consequently some unpatentable varieties are no longer in their inventories and therefore readily available. This can be locally devastating as the ‘dropped’ species may have local resistances or long term advantages.

There are clear examples of the negativity of the above system in The Philippines. Where tests have shown that the 20%(promised) increase in productivity is cancelled out by the increase in cost of ‘Roundup’ and additional pesticides/fungicides the native crops had natural resistences to. But the market is too small and lacks profit control for conglomeratised local seed suppliers.
In short capitalism as a means of technology, control and distribution in the 3rd world if deeply flawed.

examinator, I didn’t write the piece. That was written by Greg Revell, organic farming enthusiast and Geneethics Network supporter. I merely commented on the errors made in the piece. With respect to your comments, all the farmers I know are in farming to make a profit. If they plan to make losses every year, they go bankrupt. This is also true of the supermarket chains I know. I don’t see any of them setting out not to make a profit. If you want to talk about control of food, you need to concentrate on supermarkets. They have enormous power and are in a position to dictate to farmers what they grow, how they grow it and how much is paid for it. Try your hand at vegetable farming if you don’t believe me.

According to Dr. Jose Yorobe of the University of the Philippines at Los Banas, farmers using Bt corn had 34% more yield, 60% less herbicide use and made 10,132 pesos more per hectare then their non Bt counterparts, that is 88% more. Not bad money heh? Despite the higher cost of the seed. http://www.apcoab.org/documents/bt_corn.pdf

No wonder these farmers are interested in growing Bt corn.

Agronomist. I misspoke I was referring to your pro GM comments.
My point was not that Aussie farmers shouldn't make a profit one assumes that. It's from there on the system get out of whack. (Big Corps)
In this country there are regulating mechanisms to curb or challenge unreasonable profits by supermarkets. Their profit gouging can be exposed.

However, the 'life science companies' because of their size (power) are almost a law unto themselves particularly in the 3rd world where their activities are largely unseen and unregulated. They are manipulating the seed market to the point whereby they are the gate keepers to agriculture and poor subsistence farmer can’t afford to enter. Even when they do the long-term effect is even more tenuous.

Unless GM Corps are controlled the very poor of Africa and Asia will continue to suffer as a direct consequence of the seed cartel's quest of profits through domination of the market.
To illustrate my point that Multinationals can’t be trusted, I refer you to Bhopal, and the pressure seed companies got the US to put on the Indian govt. to accept patenting most of the local strains of rice DNA. The Companies added a gene and then claim control over native species. They also bought most of the local grain suppliers then limited supply to those seeds that they control. It’s like Godzilla versus a koala.

If we in the 1st world continue to ignore the plight of the 3rd world we do so at our own future risk. Hungry bitter people excluded from the luxury of the west is a recipe for trouble. We in Aust are very vulnerable.

I was referring to rice in the Philippians. I saw it in a landline(?) episode. I have subsequently spoken to some of the researchers from there (mates of my daughter) and they are concerned.

The point of the seed article and my contribution is simply that Large multinationals can't be trusted either with supply or accuracy of data to regulating bodies. I was asking you to comment on those points it wasn't a spray.

examinator, all I did in my first comment is point out some major and obvious errors in Greg Revell’s article. You construed that as pro-GM. Are you suggesting to me that fibs are OK, so long as they are non GM?

Even poor farmers in the 3rd world will only purchase technology if it makes them more money. In my experience these farmers are just as astute as farmers in the US or Canada. Using the technology might be a costly exercise if it doesn’t work. If so, farmers will not use it again. At present, most of the experience with GM crops in the third world has been positive for the farmers: Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay; Bt cotton in China, India and South Africa; Bt corn in the Philippines. One group that has suffered in these countries has been the farmers who have not adopted the new technology. Increased profitability by farmers adopting the new crops has pushed up costs, such as land leases and labour. Of course, these increases in costs could be stopped by keeping all the farmers uniformly poor, but I don’t think that is a good idea.

GM rice is not commercially grown anywhere. Iran had a limited commercial release and then pulled it back. It has not been commercially grown in the Philippines at all. So I don’t quite know what you saw on landline? Perhaps you have misunderstood what those researchers were telling you

@ VK3AUU
<b>I have yet to see a list of situations where GM food has produced an undesirable outcome</b>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/779265.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-01-13-biotech-pirates_x.htm
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=monsanto+sues+farmers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Since when should any company have the right to control our very most basic of requirements for survival, the need to grow food!
A restriction on the freedom to grow food is the last thing this planet needs.

Wake up! This is the most sinister of all capitalist endeavors.

Agronomist.
These researchers worked for a research project in Philippines. The program was on some of the trial farms.
What you still don't want to address is the issue of market manipulation, the real issue. The cases I mentioned are all real cases and clearly show abuse of abuse of power.
You of all people would know of the plight of the desperately poor farmer whose crops are small and often more about survival that cash crop farming. Surely you aren’t saying that these individual subsistence farmers have the same market power of choice as we do here V the mega conglomerates.

I have lived in 3rd world countries and I know that local farmers are often so desperate they can be easily persuaded to get onto the GM treadmill. Especially by the big seed sellers selective seed inventories.

I personally know of one such older peasant farmer who didn't understand the fine print or consequences of his choice. To be fair the local seed dealer (the only one for several k s) was the primarily the vector. Suitably influenced by the ‘bonuses’ he received for converting the locals. This dealer’s inventory was influenced determined by deals to buy exclusively from the major in question. The farmer in reality had little real choice initially. Enough to say unpatented seed was independently brought in and distributed by outside help.

I think you and I are discussing two different topics I am curious about the origins of your stance ignoring the real issue and simply quoting market penetration details and Company spun reasoning.
As I keep saying I have little concern about the science but the ethics of these wannabe gate keepers bother me no end.
But enough, you don’t want to comment on the issues the author and I raise, so be it. Thanks anyway

Isn't it amazing. There is a tribe if people out there who believe that the solution to the world food shortage will be overcome by technology, but when successful technology is staring them in the face, they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to use it.

David

Strange indeed.

Just as an aside, I am not defending Monsanto, although what they are doing is probably legal.

I am just defending the technology and trying to point out to the dimwits, that eating GM foods has never been shown to be deleterious, so why all the fuss.

David

I am in complete agreement with Greg's comments and it has nothing to do with knowledge or lack thereof of scientific or biological processes. If GM foods are so "safe" and so "necessary to feed the world" then why is there so much exception to the idea of clearly labelling GM foods as such? No one, least of all Greg, is denying that farmers should make a profit. They should just as we all aim to do. But the problem is this. By a group of individuals exercising their right to having GM foods, they are denying my right to GM free foods. I don't want GM foods, but either through inadequate labelling or through the mixing of genetic material in nature I am denied my right to GM free food and in particular organic food. This is scandalous. Science is not the ultimate deity. Just because you can do something does not mean you should or that it is benign. Those pro-GM, please show me the data, over at least 2 human gnerations that GM is safe and does not cause any ill effects on people (and please only provide studies that are independant of any multinational seed/GM companies). Without that, as far as I'm concerned, you are simply speculating and experimenting with the health and well-being of the world's populations.

So examinator, when you made this claim: “There are clear examples of the negativity of the above system in The Philippines. Where tests have shown that the 20%(promised) increase in productivity is cancelled out by the increase in cost of ‘Roundup’ and additional pesticides/fungicides the native crops had natural resistences to.” You were really talking about a crop that is not even close to regulatory approval for planting in the Philippines. If indeed the field trials were rice, they could only have been one of three events: Golden rice trialled last year; contained trials of bacterial blight resistant rice approved in 2003 and 2004; and Bt rice in 2003. This is the trouble for me, reality is warped with false claims and despite this I am supposed to believe these claims show something is wrong.

I work with farmers, some of whom use GM technology, so I am well aware of the issues regarding its use. Frankly, after 13 years of use it is still virtually impossible to find serious evidence for the sort of market manipulation that you claim occurs.

The so-called patenting of Indian rice actually only covered the use of 3 rice lines with specific traits derived from a breeding program between Basmati rice and American varieties. The Indian government was concerned this patent might exclude Indian Basmati rice exports to the US. Several claims in the patent were withdrawn by the applicant during the review process, settling the issue.

Revell makes the mistake that living organisms can be patented, they can’t. Only novel uses can be patented. Revell seems to think this is bad because it means companies control our food sovereignty, whatever that might be.

Revell’s claim that 4 companies own 60% of the world’s commercial seeds is spurious, given that more than half the seeds sown in the world are farmer-saved. It is also wrong. Even the ETC group state that the top 10 seed companies only account for 55% of the commercial seed market. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=615
Even so, I can buy soybeans in the US from one of more than 200 seed companies.

Greg, your assumption that the the pool of genes in nature is closed is wrong. Change is the norm at the gene level in nature. On top of this continual re-engineering of genes by nature to produce new genes, every occurrence of sexual reproduction shuffles genes in the chromosomes so the gene expression is changed by more then ten fold compared to a single novel gene insertion by genetic modification.

Despite the cost to consumers all food which is in any way changed through gm food content is labelled. These rules, like the approval processes, entrench the advantages of larger companies in the food chain.

Food safety requires science and technology as most serious food borne illness are caused by natural processes. It is only with the use of modern science and chemistry that we are supplying a larger population with more and safer food than ever before.

Where once a farmer may have recognised the danger posed by a toxic weed contaminants or fungal and bacterial infection and destroyed that food supply (you hope), today modern pesticides and breeding, including gm, means more food is produced with less waste.

You appear to not understand that your call for labelling of chemically and physically identical foods, such as canola oil, will entrench the advantages and power of large companies.

If living organisms could not be patented, GM crops would not be patented but they are.
Monsanto's RR gene is patented and through alliances with seed companies is added to the existing crops that are covered under Plant Breeder Rights.
This year, Australian farmers growing GM canola for the first time pay:
At least twice as much for the seed.
A fee of $500/farm (which is half price for this year) for the paperwork involved in growing GM.
$10.20 "discounted" end point royalty - which means it is deducted when the farmer delivers his crop for sale.
How do farmers stop paying this fee?
All Argentinian pays an export tax on soy of 44.1% which was introduced to pay Monsanto their royalty on seed they had replanted. Brazilian farmers pay a royalty unless the non-GM farmer proves they have no GM which is impossible considering the sensitivity of the test and the ability to contaminate.
And what benefit does the farmer get? With RR canola, you can spray glyphosate up to 6 leaf stage. As a residual grass control is needed to prevent ryegrass causing massive yield penalties on emergence, an alternative grass killer is used (trifluralin).
GM is only a weed control system and Non-GM TT varieties offer better and cheaper weed control.

Hi Agronomist,
you are spreading confusion with your posts. A large study reported GM crops yield about the same as non-GM crops. However GM soy has been reported as yielding 5-10% less.

Crossing a plant with soil bacteria (Bt)can only happen in a laboratory. Eating a bit of soil is totally different to eating the Bt toxin genetically engineered into every plant cell. The methods to make this cross breeding work have unpredictable consequences.

Toxin producing Bt plants washing into streams is causing death, infertility and stunting in caddis fly and water fleas. These form the basis of the food chain. The effects of Bt on soil creatures has not been studied. It could also be affecting soil health and fertility.

You say naturally occuring genes cannot be patented. Rice Tec was granted the N. American rights for basmati rice. It claimed to have invented 20 traits and breeding processes. Subsequently this was challenged and 4 of the 20 claims were struck down. however the issue of biopiracy, protection of farmers rights and common knowledge is not clear.

If 3rd world farmers are able to make informed choices why is GM seed being given away for free in South Africa? Is this to contaminate open pollinated varieties so patents can be enforced?

Monsanto could give away open pollinated corn if it really wanted to help 3rd world farmers as it is now the largest commercial seed company in the world.

Why did Monsanto have a huge media campaign in India using Bollywood stars to promote Bt cotton? One star pulled out citing the suicide of farmers growing GM crops and GM crop failure as the reasons.

You say GM crops use less pesticide. The US Dept of Agriculture figures showed that since the introduction of GM crops pesticide use has increased 15 fold.

Data on pesticides will no longer be collected due to budget cuts. Many groups protested against this cut. Monsanto was conspicuous by not protesting against this.

GM crops are all about power, profit and control and so far there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.

David

You "point out to the dimwits, that eating GM foods has never been shown to be deleterious, so why all the fuss".

GM foods have "never been shown to be deleterious" because no one has looked for deleterious effects, and no one could look when the products have been widely released without labelling.

Some claim that the known increase in allergies is due to GM crops. We have no idea whether such claims are true or false. It would be good to know one way or the other. For that to happen, we would need product labelling and tests conducted by independent scientists. Sounds reasonable to me!

Check Medline and you'll find the few published studies on GM foods are funded or directly done by GM companies. Conflict of interest is a problem as we have seen with studies conducted with funding from pharmaceutical companies. Such studies return results that are much more favourable to the company than independently funded studies.

The large GM companies will not permit independent tests and farmers who provide seed for such tests risk huge fines. What's their problem with independent testing?

And if GM products have benefits, why do GM companies lobby so hard to oppose labelling?

It makes many people suspicious that the companies have something to hide.

Unbeholden

I think we should all be extremely concerned that the world's seed supply can be controlled by just a few and that there is no effective mechanisms in place to ensure that consumers can make informed choices about avoiding GM. Well done to Greg Revell for putting this information on the Internet. I'm certainly not convinced that GM is harm free and reports produced by the companies behind GM is no way to verify this is the case.

Non-GM farmer, I was strictly correct when I stated that living organisms cannot be patented. This has after all been tested in the Canadian Courts in Schmeiser v Monsanto 2004, the Canadian High Court found that Schmeiser did not have to pay profits from use of Roundup Ready canola as he did not use glyphosate on the crop and hence did not use the patent.

lillian, whether higher yields are obtained with GM crops depends on numerous factors, even for the same crop. In Australia, cotton growers get no more yield from Bt cotton because their cotton was previously fully protected from Helicoverpa damage by spraying insecticides. What the farmers get is having to spray 80% less insecticide. In India, cotton farmers do get more yield out of Bt cotton, because they were unable to afford the expensive pesticides Australian growers could.

Toxin producing Bt plants washing into streams is not causing death, infertility and stunting in caddis fly and water fleas. Insufficient Bt material is ending up in streams to create toxicity. And there have been quite a few studies of the effect of Bt on soil organisms. Given Bt is naturally present in soil, unsurprisingly negative impacts are few and far between.

Rice Tec was not given the N.American rights to Basmati rice. Rice Tec put in a patent on the use of 3 cultivars created by crosses between Basmati and American rice varieties. The use of Basmati in the patent claim title caused some consternation. Under review, Rice Tec reduced the number of claims to 5 and amended the title of the patent.

lillian, are you suggesting to me that Australian cotton growers are all mistaken and they have not in fact reduced their pesticide use with Bt cotton? What about the 90% of canola growers in Canada who no longer have to put 1-1.5 kg per hectare of pre-emergent herbicide out? Even the USDA agrees that pesticide use has decreases on Bt cotton, Roundup Ready cotton, Bt corn and Roundup Ready corn. Use has increased slightly on Roundup Ready soybeans.

Agronomist, you sound like you have a vested interest in dominating this forum. We know that people get paid by the big companies up to $5000 for comment. If only you would inform yourself of the largest growing group in farming who have no use for chemicals to grow their crops. I'd love to have you repeating the facts and figures of the resultant food that has been grown in a biologically active and mineral dense soil. What you are supporting so clearly is for crops that are highly likely to cause human health issues down the track. And who will then be there to fix them up? Those very same companies that caused the problem in the first place. Stop being a parrot for these companies.

Have you noticed how any essay on a significant forum by a writer with a knowledge of the biotech industry agenda, attracts a brigade of GM attack dogs?
It is clear that the industry mantras have been crafted by their spin doctors to create the images they want - these images are designed specifically to conceal their actual agenda.
Think through the practicalities of any of the mantras and it is clear that it is a nonsense. The long-standing "we must produce GM food crops to feed the starving millions is utter nonsense! Predictably, the industry has pounced upon climate change induced drought to claim their shotgun genetic manipulation is ready to enable the growth of food crops with little if any water. Sure . . . And even if it were possible, commercial application would be at least a decade away.
Given that Monsanto is far and away the giant of the industry, I put it to readers that it is essential to look at that corporation and ask yourself, "Can they be trusted to control global seed and food supply?' Their record make the answer very clear - it is NO!!
Anyone who doubts this is advised to obtain a DVD entitled The World According to Monsanto. This brilliantly produced French TV documentary is compelling. Those who blindly support the biotech industry are advised not to see it - it will shatter their illusions.

Regarding comments on Greg Revell's essay. Quite a few are from pro-biotech types - regurgitating worn out discredited nonsense.
One comment claims, GM foods have "never been shown to be deleterious."
Oh really? How about the GM apologists getting courageous and reading Jeffrey M. Smith's Genetic Roulette. In this powerful book, Smith sets out a list of scientific evidence and questions that cast a dark shadow over GM food crops.
He challenges GM scientists to set out any scientific grounds that show that any of his arguments are in error. All the industry has done is to attack the messenger!

Trust the biotech industry??
SURE CAN'T!!

Its worth knowing a little about the drive behind GM. Why someone like a director of cotton seed distributors suddenly represents farmers as national spokesperson for the pro-GM Producers Forum.

1999: Senate/CSIRO
"The multinationals recognise that this country has some of the most effective plant gene technology research teams in the world and that these are likely to be of consequence in the development of their own business systems. They are willing, in most cases, to consider trades with some of their intellectual property."

Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Monsanto’s relationships with commercial seed distributors – Cotton Seed Distributors has two licences. It has an exclusive license from CSIRO for its cotton varieties and a separate licence from Monsanto to use the Bt gene promoter contained in these varieties."
Monsanto’s relationship with CSIRO – "In Australia, CSIRO is Monsanto’s main research partner. It has R&D contracts with Monsanto to undertake research using the Bt gene and promoter sequences. CSIRO needed to negotiate a separate arrangement with Monsanto to be in a position to commercialise the R&D through its business partner, Cotton Seed Distributors.

Top 2 Australian Agribiotech Players:
Federal - CSIRO:
Quote: "Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies." 1992 ABC- John Stocker, CSIRO's former CEO
Bayer Cropscience: April 2003 – The same day the Federal Government approved GM Invigor canola, Bayer Cropscience announced it was"extending its lucrative investment in CSIRO".
CSIRO has a joint venture with Monsanto in GM cotton (since 1992) and uses Monsanto’s patented technologies free of charge under confidential agreements.

State Govt alliance - Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre: R&D consortium of 120 government, academic and commercial researchers.
"The breakthrough came when the CRC for plant science started to take out patents. Patents are property; Property is valuable and therefore it can be traded. .(Buller and Taylor 1999)

Margery, do you take money to write things you don’t believe on a public forum? Why do you then think I might? As my moniker states, I work with farmers. Some of these farmers grow GM crops, some don’t. I have even in the past provided advice to organic growers. I don’t much care which system a farmer wants to use, that is up to them. I am much more interested in helping them getting the best out of the system employed. Given my wealth of experience, don’t you think it might be possible that I have made up my own mind on the usefulness or otherwise of the technology without having to be paid?

tassiepaul, I don’t believe that Greg Revell is in fact all that expert on the biotech industry. He made some obvious errors in his piece that someone with any expertise would not do. I don’t particularly trust Monsanto, after all they are a company interested in making profits. That doesn’t mean their products cannot be usefully used. Also there is no obligation to use their products. I do trust the food safety assessments because they have been reviewed by specialists in regulatory agencies around the World. It is also not good business practice to poison your customers.

I have actually read some of Mr. Jeffrey Smith’s book. I find his scholarship to be haphazard. He frequently misquotes his sources, which is always bad form. Dr. David Tribe of the University of Melbourne has done quite a good job at dealing with a few of the issues raised by Smith. You can find them here: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/rats-fed-bad-diets-have-lots-of-changes.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/misleadind-and-innacurate-claims-by.html http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/good-news-about-glufosinate-liberty.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/teaser-for-genetic-roulette-caper.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/gmos-and-movement-of-genes-between.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/do-gmo-crops-promote-food-allergies.htm

Lets look at Brazil... All farmers pay a royalty to Monsanto unless farmers prove they have no GM content. Considering GM was spread widely before it was legal, that some contamination will occur and the testing is extremely sensitive and expensive, it would be unlikely that farmers can avoid payments which is why the number of farmers has escalated in reports. Its to do with the ability of collecting the royalty, not on the willingness or ability for farmers to pay the cost.
Lets look at Argentina. Only a few years ago a GRDC levy style tax deduction on grain produced was arranged with the government of just under 1% to pay Monsanto. The export soy tax is now over 40% which is why farmers are protesting.
Paraguay and Uruguay farmers are being driven from their land and some even shot to make way for the soy monoculture. It is difficult to grow a non-GM crop when glyphosate is being sprayed by air.

Agronomist, why don't you reveal who you are?
My guess is Scott Day, from the border of US and Canada and farmer, no till pusher, agronomist and part of a government committee to promote GM. I recognised your terminology, tactics and debate when we debated in WA.

Agronomist, You say that you work with farmers and go on to say that you don’t much care which system a farmer wants to use, that is up to them. That you are much more interested in helping farmers getting the best out of the system employed. So what does that mean? Does it mean that despite how wonderful you think GM is that if a farmer wants to farm organically that you will let him miss out on all the wonderful so called opportunities provided by GM? I don't believe you to start with and nor would I pay you if you just go along with what the farmer wants. Any decent advisor would know what works and would advise accordingly.

Agronomist
Looking through your gmopundit links serves only to reinforce my growing contempt for scientists beholden to the corporate dollar. Corporate control of so much of today's science is a tragedy of these times. It is dragging the once highly esteemed profession of scientist down to the level of politicians. Why do you think that the average consumer is increasingly cynical about claims made by the biotech industry and it's armies of pliable scientists and spin doctors?

Margery, some farmers don’t want to grow canola. I can’t force them to grow canola if they don’t want to do it. If farmers want to grow organic produce, they are not allowed to use GM, so there is no point in suggesting it to them. My role is to help farmers make useful business decisions within the framework they want. Usually the advice I give is how to deal with the problems within the existing farming framework and how to move towards changing that framework in order for the farmers to move their enterprise in the direction they want to go. My job is to collect the research out there and bring it to bear on the issues; that is what I get paid for, not to order the farmers about.

GM canola is only a tool for farmers, just like their air-seeder. It turns out that if used properly it is quite a valuable tool. Like any tool, it doesn’t suit every purpose. However, every farmer I know who has grown GM canola, still grows it. I think that is some indication as to how useful these farmers found the technology.

tassiepaul, Dr. David Tribe of the University of Melbourne has looked at Mr. Jeffrey Smith’s work, looked at the research and found Smith’s interpretation wanting. He even gives references and happens to quote them correctly, something Mr Smith seems unable to do. May I suggest to you that it is Mr. Smith who is spinning this one and not Dr. Tribe?

Non-GM farmer, why does it matter who I am? Do you want to try digging some dirt up and attempt to discredit me or something? I do know quite a lot about agriculture, a fair bit about extension and am literate enough to follow quite a bit of the science in agriculture. I also happen to quite like no-till. I know it allows farmers to seed earlier, to conserve moisture, to obtain higher yields and to protect their land from erosion. All worthy objectives, wouldn’t you agree?

It looks a bit like "Hate Agronomist week".

It is a pity that all you anti GM people out there don't listen to what he has to say, instead of closing your tiny minds because of the irrational preconceptions you have inflicted upon yourselves.

David

Agronomist. I agree there is no need to dig in your life your answers speak for them selves.
You still flatly refuse to discuss the base issue that concern everyone....I repeat my position again. I DO NOT OPPOSE THE SCIENCE... I oppose the AMORALITY of the WANNABE GATE KEEPERS. History shows that these Corporations and others actively seek to usurp local policies and MANIPULATE the market. Yes it’s legal (as far as we know) but is it moral?

The industry’s past behaviour is analogous to BIG TOBACCO and BIG PHARMA (a complete disregard for people, laws and the truth as long as they can make a profit.)

Your answers are simply propaganda in that they don't address the issues being raised they just attempt to obfuscate by quoting irrelevant marketing blurbs e.g. I said seed availability in 3rd world areas is limited and manipulated. You responded with the availability in the USA (hardly a bastion of corporate morality or truth)!

the nature of the concern. The implied trust me, the end justifies the means just doen't wash. Obviously you are acting as spokesperson for the GM industry.

An apt analogy is: a gun is a tool for many farmers. But in the hands of a POWER/MONEY crazed group it becomes an instrument of death and misery.

I don't blame the science but I do criticize the amorality of those who abuse it and even more those who hide their agenda to encourage it.
FTR I checked my facts it wasn't rice after all, you were right. But it was an independent farmer and more importantly the point is still valid

To prove that you havent purchased GM seeds (and therefore avoid a flat royalty) you would simply need to produce your seed invoices. In particular if you employ an agronomist to provide sowing advice, then you would have independent proof as to the source of your seed.

As far as suffering from aerial spraying by neighbours using round-up, there would be ample leeway to sue the neighbour and spray contractor for allowing drift and spraying in adverse conditions, just as exists now (try spraying ester in a cotton growing area). To pull this one out of a bag suggests that you have little experience in agricultural spraying and the restrictions and liabilities that exist.

As far as Bt washing into rivers, more soils end up in river systems than plant matter, so I am a little unsure as to why Bt resistant plants would be a problem from this perspective. Happy to review any evidence though.

Get off agronomist's back. He puts forward a logical and rational argument. Just because you dont agree with it doesnt mean you need to revert to a hate-campaign.

Hi all and Agronomist
Bt (GM)plants express the toxin in every cell. This means that there can be a sizeable ammount of plant produced Bt toxin in a field. Bt GM plants washing into streams have been shown to be hazardous to water fleas and caddis flies. Reseachers are not sure if this is to do solely with the Bt toxin or some other effect of genetic engineering. Full details can be read here
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news19.php


Regarding Bt cotton in Australia. It is expected that pesticide use will drop for the first few years of growing a Bt GM crop. When pests develop immunity to the toxin pesticide use rises.

However I have no idea how Australian Bt cotton farmers are faring as they are forbidden to tell anyone under their patent agreements. There are reports that Bt cotton is causing a fungal disease "fusarium wilt" in the soil.

Indian farmers complained that their Bt plants (which were designed to produce their own pesticide rather than have it sprayed on) were attacked by insects other than the bollworm Bt cotton protected against. The crops failed.

Patents are a confusing and contested area. Patents have been granted over a breast cancer gene and various other human genes. Biotech companies are currently in a frenzy to patent plant genes thought to be useful in climate change. A company tried to patent the neem tree.

The details of how, what, when etc of patenting can be debated but the issue is that living organisms are being patented and this removes them from our common genetic inheritance.

Finally no GM plants are designed to increase yield. The two traits are either insect resistance (Bt) or herbicide resistance (can be sprayed with weedkiller and not die). These can have a yield penalty as the plant has to either produce or resist a poison that it normally does not have to.

David - where is the evidence of increased productivity with GE crops? Why has the government (not to mention the industry) refused to release all the data to the public of trials conducted of GE crops in Australia? Where is the evidence that the companies that own GE, derive profits from seeds, chemicals and royalties are going to give that away in order to feed the world's hungry? Where is the evidence that politically, there is the will to feed the world's hungry when food surpluses have been available? It is such patent (literally) nonsense that Ge is about anything other than corporate profits. What is most despicable about this scam, is the academics and so-called scientists who become the prosletysers for an industry that is as corrupt as they come.
next

Hello Folks

It has been awhile since I posted here. I see the critics of GM crops are as active as ever.

Just a couple points for now.

Since every year the acreage of GM crops increases by atleast 10% and 20% in the developing world, is it fair to say farmers like what they see on the ground, (pun intended) and continue to increase the planting of GM crops.

India is a prime example of PPP agreements that will definitely benefit the poor.

China is about to commercialize a whole raft of GM crops and will quickly be far larger than any one company.

Over 70 countries have active research programs in GM crop development.

If Bt is so bad then why is it widely used in organic agriculture?

Hi Rob
Bt in organic agriculture is sprayed on when required and breaks down quickly.

Bt GM plants express the Bt toxin in every cell all the time. A field of Bt plants is producing a huge ammount of Bt.

The negative effect of Bt GM plants on aquatic life could be either from the increase in Bt from the GM plants or because the plants are producing some unknown substance.

GM Crop uptake in the developing world:
S America had illegal growing of GM plants that polluted crops. Royalty payments are required when the crops are sold.Farmers pay the royalties as they are probably polluted and can't fight the patents.

India had a massive GM promotion campaign using Bollywood Stars. One of them refused to continue to promote them when GM crops were linked to farmer suicides and crop failures.

The GM watch site has newsclippings from around the world. Current stories are: how Poland is trying to keep out GM animal feed, how civil society groups in India are trying to keep out Bt Brinjal (eggplant), how the biotechs are trying to force approval of a GM potato in S. Africa.

Many Governments have sided with biotech companies to authorise GM food and crops even though there is no evidence of their safety. Farmers and consumer rights and concerns are ignored.

Research
GM has been promoted as the way to go in plant breeding. However there have not been many successes as the genome is very complex and not well understood.

Genes work in "networks" and so swapping one gene around causes unpredictible effects. Patenting has encouraged GM research with the promise of profits. Many plant breeding techniques are patented and so research institutes find it cheaper to team up with private GM companies and not do conventional plant breeding.

US farmers
Farmers in the US are forming groups as they realise the power of agribusiness. For example Monsanto will raise the price of corn by $100 a bag (35%) as there is no competition. Read what is happening here http://www.competitivemarkets.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=3&Itemid=20

hi all,

I see the usual GM V Non-GM bun fight is ensuing.

I would appreciate it if the somewhat paranoid, highly defensive pro-GM lobby team just relax for once and try to stand back to allow a broader perspective to perhaps enter their realm.

If I hear another ProGMer go on about how emotional or irrational NoGMers are, or that NoGMers should even dare question anything GM at all , I'll puke.

Food supply is a core survival issue - so everyone has a god / atheist-nongod given right to all the information that is available, regardless of commercial interests ( these can be safeguarded in other ways apart from blanket secrecy, it's not hard to organise )- as it affects the survival of everyone and everything.

There is no personal "hate agronomist' campaign ( mentioned by another here ), only anger at the disrespect and disregard to those who want full information disclosure about what other people want to do to, and put into, their food.

Seems a perfectly normal and fair enough reaction and reason to me, wouldn't you say ?

If you want NonGMers to have a chance of agreeing with you - then let's see what you've got to offer - ALL of it, for once - and let the facts speak for themselves.

And if the studies aren't mutually agreed to be there ( health / environment etc ) then let's do them in a mutually agreeable way and then we'll all know, once and for all.

This is also a genuine, official invitation for all parties to come together in a filmed, open and public debate / forum in the next few months. I'll pay for your accommodation , and any international or national airfares. There'll be no editing or broadcasting of any info out of context. Only verifiable data will be accepted into the debate.

For more details post your responses and some form of genuine means of contact here and I'll get in touch.

So, I say put up or shut up. I'm sick of the goddam bickering.

lillian, since you asked, and as i'm unaware of any fine print precluding Australian cotton growers from discussing GM cotton performance, it's faring very well. About 80% of cotton plantings are now GM, either Bt, round-up ready or "stacked". While only marginally higher yielding in an average year, the reduction of insecticides for the Bt cotton is in the order of 80%. Measured by money alone the return is neither here nor there, but the positive effect on the environment and ease of management is GM's selling points.
Round-up ready technology, certainly in our operation, has reduced the amount of residual herbicides applied. Chemicals that by their very nature are designed to work for weeks or months. Replaced by RR used when and if required, not as a blanket preventative.
Anecdotal evidence suggests better water use efficiency, most likely through effective weed control and the plant not dropping "fruit" due to insect damage.
"When pests develop immunity to the toxin pesticide use rises." sure, when and if that happens, but what about those interim benefits. Certainly no worse than being without Bt cotton in the first place. Funnily enough these wacky people in the research facilities have thought of resistance too, which is why we have stipulated non-Bt refuges to actually breed insects, and on-going developments to stay ahead like the two-gene Bt cotton.

Under ideal conditions with no insects and no weeds perhaps conventional cotton still is king in the yield dept. Unfortunately I'm not lucky enough to have those conditions, and benefit from GM technology.

"There are reports that Bt cotton is causing a fungal disease "fusarium wilt" in the soil."
Only from idiots. Fusarium has been around for a lot longer than GM cotton. good try though.

My latest article on GM crops. If you have questions please ask.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/07/137_28530.html

Cheers

roushy,

"if the somewhat paranoid, highly defensive pro-GM lobby team"

"If I hear another ProGMer go on about how emotional or irrational NoGMers are, or that NoGMers should even dare question anything GM at all , I'll puke."

Well that sounds like a balanced view indeed, and the edited in-context program should certainly clear the air.

rojo84_10 AT hotmail.com if you require a farmers perspective, sorry no scientific bona fides, only experience.

What I will say about the anti-GM lobby is their willingness to include all manners of disinformation, whether it be the supposed reasons for the Argentinian soy tax, corporation control/seed monopoly, or heaven forbid - profit. It's a position that displays weakness of argument which is why the fall-back to the dogma of "seeds of deception" and ad-hominem attacks on counterparties exist. By all means prove GM is harmful in any way to humans or the environment and farmers will listen. I agree put up or shut up.
Any use in discussion of verifiable material, preferably of a non-conspiratorial nature, will be most welcome and is well overdue. Good luck.

The notion that patents only apply to novel uses and not to living organisms is actually a furphy. Following the onco mouse case in Canada which supported long-held precedents that patents could not be given over living organisms, the Canadian high court effectively (but not explicitly) reversed this position in the Schmeiser case. You cannot hold and control a patent over a novel organism in a living organism without also controlling the living organism. How do you separate the patented component of a biologically reproducing organism from the organism itself. The court's support for this kind of extreme reductionist view of life has rendered the limits and constraints on patents virtually meaningless. By the way, the notion of novelty is pretty much dead in patents - the patenting of junk jeans - along with a host of bio-piracy cases are converting patent law into a colonising law of 'occupation/possession equals ownership.'
Anyone who thinks that intellectual property rights law isn't a handmaiden to the savage push for corporate control of food is simply dreaming.

Rob from Canada.
Thanks you and the sites said it better than I have.
I've read much of it before but couldn't remember where. I’ve now listed the site
This is the stuff I would like to see Agronomist and the pro team address.

What I said or meant to stress was it is the manner of 3rd world penetration and domination that concerns me and currently the two can’t reasonably discussed in isolation. This is clearly reinforced on this site. i.e. If they'll pull these strokes where laws are tight well…. Leopards and spots come to mind! You mess with food you mess with survival of real people not just (amoral) profitability calculations

The potential damage they're doing in the 3rd world without the same level of controls is frightening.

I do think however, that GM will be important at some time once we learn how to ensure adequate testing and control the mega corps to the point where by the public isn’t abused by their seeming manic drive for extra ordinary profits.

Cheers
examinator

Hi Rojo,
You say you are spraying on much less pesticide thanks to Bt cotton. I'm sure that is so however since every Bt cotton plant is a pesticide factory this does not mean that there is less pesticide in your fields.

As you mention the reduction in sprayed on pesticide will only be maintained as long as pests do not develop immunity. Even with refuges for insects, continual growing of Bt and GM crops will produce resistance in insect populations. It is just what nature is designed to do - adapt.

Robert Kremer, a microbiologist from the US Department of Agriculture found that every time Roundup is applied there is a spike in the soil bourne fungus Fusarium. This causes disease in crops.

"In Northern NSW and Queensland Fusarium is devastating cotton at a cost of about $100 million a year". Full details in this article http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/gm-foods-can-be-dangerous-but-you-do-the-research/2007/12/13/1197135654134.html

Finally Don Huber, emeritus Professor on Botany and Plant Pathology of Pardue University Indiana has done studies showing that Roundup prevents plants taking up nutrients from the soil.

This could cause mineral and vitamin deficiencies in crops and affect the health of people and animals who eat them. This is especially relevant in Australia as we have old and fragile soils

Exterminator

I do not understand your post entirely. Yes the developing world is using GM crops and yes the poor farmers are benefiting from that use. China will very soon commercialize many crops so no one company will "control the food supply" India and Brazil are not far behind.

I am somewhat familiar with the testing of GM crops. What in particular would you like to see strenthened? They are already by far the most highly tested food ever. They are the only food compared to known allergens. Not one single illnes has ever been documented linked to consumption of GM ingredients. This is my second post today so I will not be able to respond til tomorrow.
Cheers

Why is it that organic farmers are allowed to use Bt to control insects and no one seems concerned about the said insects becoming resistant, but as soon as the GM scientists put a Bt gene in something you all start screaming. It seems like rank hypocrisy to me.

David

Hi David,
There is a difference between organic growers use of Bt and GM bt crops.

In organic agriculture Bt is sprayed on during severe insect infestations. It is a last resort. The toxin is sprayed onto the plants surface. The ability of the toxin to infect insects declines within 12-48 hours. Sunlight breaks down the Bt in about 2 weeks.

However negative reactions to this Bt spray have been reported: allergies and asthma are the most common reactions. The symptoms are related to the amount of exposure.

Bt GM plants were passed as safe as it was argued that Bt sprays have a long history of safe use and the Bt toxin does not affect mammals.

With GM crops the Bt is the first, not the last, resort. Bt is produced in every cell of the plant throughout its life. The toxin cannot be washed off. It is much more concentrated that the sprays. GM corn MON 810 had 1,500 to 3,000 times the level found in sprayed plants.

This continual production of the toxin means that insects adapt to the Bt toxin very quickly. Alternatively other pests, resistant to Bt attack the crop. For example Bt cotton protects against bollworm. In India the crops were partly protected against bollworm but were attacked by mealy bugs too. Many crops failed.

Scientists alter the gene that codes for the Bt toxin when they engineer it into plants. Evidence suggests this makes it more allergenic. There are also questions about whether Bt GM plants may also be making unknown substances due to the unpredictability of the GM process.

I hope this clarifies the differences between a toxin sprayed on only in emergencies to one made constantly in large ammounts by GM plants.

thanks for your post which clearly sums up exactly how I feel about food control institutions: I don't trust them one bit; I add to that our state and federal governments as far as food issues are concerned - because of their attempts to force GM on us without full consultation or information.

Increasingly I buy food at local farmers' markets, where I can speak to the farmer, grower, producer and ask questions before deciding to buy. This is the Future of Food for me - locally grown, fresh, traditional produce. The stuff humans have been eating for centuries and millennia.

As a science trained person I am utterly mortified by the efforts of the pro-GM lobby to smear its critics' characters, suppress information, prevent further research and testing, and to distort facts - for example, that tired old line about GM being no different from traditional breeding methods, and all the far-fetched comments about why they think the world ought to believe it needs GM.

GM-biotechnologists bring disrepute upon all science through their efforts in this respect. Peoples' distrust will extend to all science generally, and it will take a long time to heal that position.

Whenever I read a pro-GM argument now my first reaction is, how much is he or she getting paid? How many funding dollars secured that endorsement? Has such-and-such a politician got their eye on a life-after-politics biotech company retainer?

It doesn't matter whether it's true or not: it's my perception, and many others I speak with or read, think likewise.

I am convinced there is nothing GM-biotechnologists can say now to redeem their own image and reputations; the best they can do for themselves is to accept that most consumers will not embrace GM foods until rigorous, peer-reviewed, published, long term, independent, transgenerational studies have proved it safe to consume beyond reasonable doubt; and to give up trying to force it on people

The tact that tobacco companies were taking ,saying smoking did not affect the health, is much the same as Genetech companies saying GM grains do not affect the health. The only difference is that GM grains are patented and no scientific research can be done without the GM companies consent and conditions.
Currently the WA government are wanting to fund independent testing but approval is not being given for it to proceed in any manner where an independent result could be achieved.

The Ermakova report on rats fed with Roundup Ready GM soybean showed damage to vital organs and the immune system. This report was of course dammed by genetech supporters but approval was never given to repeat the test. Rats can breed every 21 days and so it would only take six months to show the effects of GM canola on eight generations of rats. If Genetech companies were not afraid that results of independent test would show GM food is unsafe they could have allowed hundreds of feeding tests already.

In the US, where GM crops have been grown for more than 10 years, they have not shown an increase in yield of crops but the yield of pesticides Monsanto sells have increased by more than 100% in some cases. So bad is the increase in pesticide use that the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) in 2007 ceased to collect pesticide use information for any GM crops and from 2008 will not collect any pesticide information at all, using budgetary constraints as an excuse.

The public should hear the reports of the IAASTD which is a, four-year, US$10-million project undertaken by several hundred scientists from around the world, to take stock of the current state of farming globally. In its conclusion it says that GM is not the answer to current farming issues and today's chemical-intensive agriculture is more like mining than farming. While it may provide short-term gains in production, it is not sustainable in the long term and compromises the dwindling agricultural area upon which our future food supply depends.

Wow. Where to start. It seems WON does not care what "pro-GM' people say so I will not bother speaking to his/her points except to say it must be nice to "know a perception is more accurate than decades of research."

The Ermakova non-peer reviewed paper was soundly discreditied as was Putzai potato paper and every other so-called paper with "science" reportedly showing harm from consuming GM crops.

If you go to my website you can read from world experts and articles written by myself on this subject(these are for the general public with less jargon). As for the IAASTD please go to my site and read how the green-washing machine destroyed what should have been a very usful endevour.

As for 15,000 time Bt proteins, I call you on that. Since only Bt crops are EVER examined for the levels of Bt proteins there is absolutely no way you could generate this number. Not one person has ever been shown to have generated an immune response to any GM protein. That is called safe food.

Oh and I am not a payed spokesperson just a concerned scientist who hates how much pseudo-science is affecting public policy today.

Cheers

Thank you for your comments Country Gal, I am only trying get across my experience and that some of the more ridiculous claims about GM are just that.

lillian, I suspect you don’t realise how much Bacillus thuringiensis occurs in soils. As for the research you pointed to on Daphnia, this study ground corn kernels to a very fine powder to feed as the only diet source. By my calculations the Daphnia were given 50g of ground corn kernels/L. Quite a bit higher than would be found in natural waters, don’t you think.?

next, perhaps you would like to read this survey of Canadian canola growers: http://www.canola-council.org/facts_gmo.aspx 10% extra yield from GM. The extra yield comes from changes to the canola system (earlier seeding, less pre-emergent herbicide) allowed by the GM canola.

examinator: “I oppose the AMORALITY of the WANNABE GATE KEEPERS.” I didn’t respond to this, because I am not quite sure what you mean. The “GATE KEEPERS” for me are the regulatory agencies that have to approve these products. Are you suggesting they are somehow in the pay of corporations? I think elsewhere I mentioned there are more than 9000 staff at the FDA. Pretty hard to bribe them all without something leaking out, don’t you think?

Watchful Eye “I am utterly mortified by the efforts of the pro-GM lobby to smear its critics' characters”

Watchful Eye “Whenever I read a pro-GM argument now my first reaction is, how much is he or she getting paid?”

Do we have a bit of hypocrisy here?

Won, There was a well conducted multi-generational study on rats conducted in the early 1990s. It showed no significant effects. Ermakova’s study has never been presented for scientific analysis, but the information available points to several problems with the study. Firstly, the feeds were not identical and never tested to find out what differences there were. This more or less invalidates the study from the start, because it would be impossible to know what caused any effect. Secondly, there was high mortality in the control animals, suggesting problems with how the animals were kept.

"accept that most consumers will not embrace GM foods until rigorous, peer-reviewed, published, long term, independent, transgenerational studies have proved it safe to consume beyond reasonable doubt"

Agronomist and Canadian Rob - what precisely, about taking that route, is so tewwifyingly scarey? Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? Why would anyone not be happy about researchers wishing to exercise that choice? Why would anyone, who was proud of their product, not want to support testing that would lay the worries to rest and increase market support?

The point I have tried to make is, it's not what GM-biotech lobby SAYS that is going to do it any good or advance its cause. On the contrary, it goes about shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.

It's what it DOES that will make a difference. "By their fruits shall ye know them".

Please how can you possibly argue that GM food is safe when genetech companies won't allow as many independent studies as possible for publication and peer review. It is impossible to prove either way until independent research is done.

If Genetech companies were not afraid that results of independent test would show GM food is unsafe they could have allowed hundreds of feeding tests already.

It's as simple as that.

They obviously know they are not safe. All the pro GM activists should also want these independent studies to take place and prove their position. Allow them to happen. Publish and debate the results like real scientists do.

The genetech companies together should come out and say that if GM is found to be bad for the environment, health or bees, in the future, they would take complete financial and legal responsibility to fix it at any cost. If they are so sure GM is safe they should put their money where their mouth is. GM farmers should also be responsible for any contamination to other farms or government property. Whoever wants it should pay for it. Those who do not want it should not be forced to have it.

Hi Rob and Agronomist
The figure of 1,500 to 3,000 more bt toxin in GM than sprayed plants was taken from Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith.

He also recounts how when Bt was sprayed in Vancouver, to fight a gypsy moth infestation, nearly 250 people reported reactions, mostly allergy or flu like symptoms.

There have been reports that Indian cotton workers have had allergies when picking GM cotton. Also there have been deaths of sheep when they grazed on the GM cotton plants after harvest.

A new report on Bt shows that Bt GM plants leave residues in the soil that negatively affects the fungi. http://www.ifoam.org/events/ifoam_conferences/owc/modules/abstracts_pdfs/turrini_abs_GMO.pdf Healthy soil, with healthy fungi, are vital to good crop growth. The work of Paul Stamets on fungi and the Soil Food Web Institute is fascinating. They show that the health of the soil is key to healthy crops and food.

Please can you give details of the four generational rat study done in the 1990's?

Some excellent posts that pretty well some up the debate.

Agronomics and Economics:
Against side: Want to discuss details and independent trials on a case by casis as GM canola offers nothing better than what we already have in non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties). For example, Pratleys report showed a 5 year study resulting in a $7/ha advantage and if the additional costs were integrated and if the non-GM comparisons were treated correctly (ie. weed control), the claimed agronomic and economic benefits would easily be negated.
For side: Prefer a football team mentality of pro-GM versus anti-GM rather than in depth discussion about the traits offered. For example, GM canola offers no residual control of weeds, Glyphosate can not be applied after 6 leaf stage and Glufosinate ammonium does not control radish and turnip. Want to rely on promotions and paper summaries of data prepared by the industries with a vested interest without discussing detail that exposes the misleading assumptions.

Health and food choice:
Against side: Want independent health testing that actually tests the GM food. Want a choice to avoid GM foods until satisfied.
For side: Happy claiming a regulatory process that relies on industry self management is satisfactory. ie. GM canola was proven as "safe" but the oil from GM canola was not tested - the products from the origin of the gene was analysed rather than the product itself and no animal feeding studies were done on GM canola oil. The tests done were stock feed related (breast meat depth, carcass weight etc) which is relevent to stock feed which is not regulated as FSANZ has no authority over stock feed. Happy claiming that coexistence will work when there is no intention for it to work as this will deny consumer choice.

If the GM industry truly believed in the agronomic, economic benefits and truly disbelieved the health risks, why not prove it? Why not allow GM products to be independently tested? What are you so frightened of, the truth?

Watchful Eye
"By their fruits shall ye know them"
Indeed!

A useful guide to The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation can be found in a recent book "Seeds of Destruction" by F. William Engdahl.
http://globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html
"What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production." (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)

By their fruits, the world is getting to know them. The industry mantras are losing their power. The global corporate agendas are coming apart at the seams with the collapse of the established economic and financial order.

No doubt the biotech fellow travelers will regurgitate their vicious attacks on Dr Pusztai.
Those with open eyes will know exactly how and why this man of great integrity and courage was crucified. Understanding that speaks volumes about where the biotech industry comes from.

We trust these corporations to our great peril!

I will try again. Which test that are currently done on GM crops before they are commercialized would you like to be increased and why? It is very well documented that GM crops are tested between 10-50 times that of conventional crops. Recent research has confirmed that GM crops have far less genomic DNA perturbations compared to conventional bred crops. Every GM crop has the engineered DNA extensively characterized wrt sequence, position, expresssion levels and effects on near genetic loci. etc, etc,etc. GM are the only ones compared to known allergens. All macro and some micro nutrients are compared with parental varieties and must be substantially equivilent. So please tell us which test you would have the regulators request above the present ones? These tests are not picked by the developers but by World experts including the UN-FAO thru CODEX, WHO and endorsed by National Academies of Science and other regulatory bodies like European Food Standards Agency, FDA, Health Canada etc.

Please go to my website for links to authorities around the world.

So what the producers of GM crops, the regulators of all food and the scientists who evaluate the science have all done over the past twelve years is produce safe food. That is why scientists not affiliated with the developers support the products.

Watchful Eye, you seem to forget that a lot of testing is already done. Regulatory regimes around the world insist that companies bringing these products to market conduct a wide range of health testing studies under GLP conditions and deliver ALL the data for review. I don’t see the companies bringing these products to market being at all concerned about additional testing being done, so long as it is done under GLP conditions with the correct controls. In fact, the companies often outsource the testing to labs that are expert in doing this sort of work.

As to independence, you need to think about who you want to pay for the testing. At the moment regulators insist the proponents do and it is up to the proponents to demonstrate through the data that the product is at least as safe as the conventional product. If you wanted to shift the costs of testing on to taxpayers, I am sure the corporations would love it. After all it costs millions for these tests to be done.

There are a lot of studies out there now: http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html The vast majority find no significant difference. This is why I am not overly concerned.

lillian, Bt content of soil. Large pdf. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=203101&blobtype=pdf In 1989 – before any commercial use of Bt containing crops, Bacillus thuringiensis could be found in 1 g samples of more than 70% of soils around the world and represented 28% of all bacteria isolated.

On allergies in cotton farmers in India, I assume you mean this study http://www.indiagminfo.org/Independent%20studies%20&%20papers%20on%20GM%20crops%20in%20India/On%20BT%20Cotton%20&%20Health%20impacts/BT_Health_Report-NBA-JSA.pdf ? 23 labourers’ interviews were included, no controls. Labourers without symptoms were specifically excluded from the study as were those that had symptoms, but who weren’t exposed to Bt crops. The labourers reported symptoms that were entirely consistent with those expected from working in hot, dusty conditions among plants – such as hand picking cotton.

lillian, so what exactlty if the field is a "pesticide factory"- isn't that the point? By having the plant protect itself the necessity to apply insecticides in the air is greatly lessened, let alone the safety and highly insect specific nature of Bt. The option isn't just spraying Bt a heap of times during the season, it's the other harsher chemicals that are the potential problem to the environment. The less they are required the better.

Nature does adapt, resistance is a real threat, which is why research is ongoing. Science can adapt too.

Kremers work is interesting, in cotton we know we have susceptable and resistant cultivars to Fusarium Oxysporum. Others have looked at this proposition.
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/5/1140
Either way Round-up does not cause fusarium wilt and appropriate varieties should be grown in infected fields.

watchful, "that tired old line about GM being no different from traditional breeding methods" you mean you were happier with gene mutation from x-rays and/or irradiation?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2218926

Rob from Canada – you are in fairy tale world if you believe that GM crops are independently tested before they are commercialized. Please supply the scientific journals they are presented in and in what forum are they debated by the scientific world? Please list these independent tests which are not funded by the bio tech companies themselves.
Rob Knowles from FSANZ(Food safety Australia and New Zealand) admitted that no independent tests have been done on GM foods before being approved and said they relied on the company’s own test results.
Currently the WA government want to fund independent testing but approval is not being given for it to proceed in any manner where an independent result could be achieved. Biotech companies are obviously afraid of the results in tests they cannot manipulate.

Rob are you aware Australia, Canada and the US are the only countries involved in the project not signed up to the IAASTD. “Green-washing machine” is very useful jargon to try to discredit the wonderful work of 700 scientists.

Rob from Canada have you visited the Canadian National Farmers Union site. GM has not been a friend of the Canadian farmers. They are now lobbying to ensure they do not have GM wheat thrust apron them. In fact representatives from the Canadian National farmers union visited Australia to try to educate our farmers against the perils of farming GM. I guess too many politicians and farmers are listening to the likes of you instead of the farmers growing the stuff.

Agronomist, the corporations are thrilled to pay for and manipulate test results. If they were happy for someone else to prove GM was healthy they would have given approval to the WA government and hundreds of others interested? Seriously what are they afraid of?

Agro,

"you seem to forget that a lot of testing is already done."

- Quality, not quantity, is the key, I'd suggest

"As to independence, you need to think about who you want to pay for the testing. At the moment regulators insist the proponents do and it is up to the proponents to demonstrate through the data that the product is at least as safe as the conventional product. If you wanted to shift the costs of testing on to taxpayers, I am sure the corporations would love it. After all it costs millions for these tests to be done.

- Yep I'd pay someone else to do the testing gladly if the corporations would only allow them to do it.
If the corporations would really love us to shift the job of testing onto someone else, let's do it tomorrow.

The studies critics claims showed abnormalities in test animals were demonstrated to be highly flawed. The Royal Society examined the report with alleged problems in test animals and stated: “The safety of GM plants is an important and complex area of scientific research and demands rigorous standards. However, on the basis of the information available to us, it appears that the reported work from the Rowett is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it... We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes.”

Is the entire Royal Society on the take?

I seem to see the same debate again. First there is no testing. Then when it is clear there is mountains of testing the argument shifts to not the right testing. Then when no difference in testing procedures can be justified scientifically, the argument goes the tests are compromised by the companies that do them. Well there is no evidence of that either.

Independent testing. Hmmm That would make it the only industry in the world that must do this. All industries do in house testing according to regulators criteria. That is the way things work. But since we are on this subject, it has been 12 years since the first commercial GM crop was available. The critics have been trying for 12 years to demonstrate harm from these crops(I would call that independent from the industry) and yet nothing. Would 20 years of no negative test satisfy your demand for longterm testing, or how about 50 years.

Please read Why the IAASTD Failed on my website and you will see the reasons for my statement on green-washing. Then I would love to discuss it with you.

The Canadian National Farmers Union is a very small group of organic farmers(perhaps 1000) and does not represent the Canadian farmers. Drought tolerant wheat trials are presently on-going in Australia and fungus resistant trials are on-going in several countries. GM wheat will soon be a standard (not the majority but significant agreage)just as with corn, soy and canola.

Cheers

“The critics have been trying for 12 years to demonstrate harm from these crops and yet nothing. Would 20 years of no negative test satisfy your demand for longterm testing, or how about 50 years.”

Rob as you well know, rats’ lifespans are short. All anyone is asking for is for GM food testing to meet the ‘gold standard’. GM Canola oil, for example, hasn’t even been tested on animals yet even though it does contain protein.

What a curious fact it is that hospitalisations for Food Associated Anaphylaxis in Australia started rising around the time of introduction of GM in the Australian food supply. What a curious fact that the rate has been rising sharply alongside the sharp rise in GM food approvals by FSANZ. What a convenient thing it is that the labelling standard doesn’t allow for traceability of GM foods. You can’t, in this country, at this time, connect a food allergy with any GM foods a person might have been eating. There are many GM-containing foods that can’t be identified easily by the consumer. Never mind that the hospitalisation rates have reached crisis point, that our health system is strained to breaking point, or that professionals in the field are calling for the initiation of a surveillance/monitoring scheme for this particular health problem.

How much evidence of ‘reasonable grounds for concern’ do YOU need, Rob?

When numerous international high profile scientists have said, there are grounds for serious concern and this needs further investigation, explain to me why any decent human being would choose to argue? Just repeat the * study and stop wasting time.

When those kind of criticisms have been raised, GM-biotech will never regain public confidence by mere talk and silly bickering, as I have been at pains to point out. All they achieve by that strategy is to undermine their own credibility

Lets look at the details of the testing of GM canola that was approved as "safe for human consumption" by the Australian regulatory process after "exhaustive testing" that is meant to be the top in the world:
1. Neither Monsanto or Bayer Cropscience did animal feeding tests on the oil which is the part that consumers eat.
2. The tests submitted on the meal or seed was related to stock feeding tests (breast meat depth in chickens, carcass weight etc)and because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed, these tests escaped regulation consideration.
3. The findings of animal feeding studies found an increase in glucosilinates and an increased liver weight of 17%. Why? It doesn't matter because they were animal feeding studies.
4. The analysis was on the protein that was meant to be produced (pre-GM process), not on the protein that was produced after the GM process.

CSIRO did the tests that consumers want but they withdrew their application because they found problems. Why are the GM companies submitting data that escapes regulation?
Consumers want the tests and analysis done on the GM product itself and on the part that consumers eat.
OK, so run it by us why the reguulatory process is supposed to satisfy consumer concern...

won, I assume you mean the tests that the WA Government paid Judy Carman to do? Firstly, you are aware that Judy Carman’s Institute just consists of an internet site and a PO Box aren’t you? Any work needs to be done under GLP and someone without a laboratory or track record would not fill me with confidence in their ability to conduct GLP. This is why companies outsource their testing to accredited laboratories. Now I don’t know anything about these trials, as I heard from Bill Crabtree that the trials are secret. I haven’t seen any evidence the companies refused to give approval. Perhaps Judy Carman wanted to keep the trials secret from the companies as well?

As for the NFU, they represent less than 5% of all Canadian farmers. It would be a bit like me claiming that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation represents your views.

Watchful Eye, you obviously have a job to do. Petition the Australian Government to pay for all testing of any GM product anyone wants to bring forward. Personally, I am against subsidising MNCs with my tax dollars, but you go ahead.

Watchful Eye, the proteins have been tested as safe, so it wouldn’t matter if they did appear in canola oil. However, the only chance you might get protein in the oil is in cold-pressed oil – even then, it would be minute quantities and inactive. The manufacturing process, by heating the oil denatures the proteins.

The rate of food-related anaphylaxis in Australia doubled between 1993 and 1997 before any GM foods were on the market here. It has doubled again in the intervening 10 years. http://www.allergy.org.au/images/stories/pospapers/2007_economic_impact_allergies_report_13nov.pdf While cause for concern, it is clearly not evidence that GM foods are causing an increase in food allergies. The overwhelming majority of food allergies remain to hens eggs, peanuts and tree nuts – none of these are GE.

The CSIRO tests for allergies from inserting the bean gene to a pea were interesting. There should have been no allergies and the pre-GM process analysis of the proteins would have been safe as beans and peas are safe. The tests though showed there was a problem.
The animals not only showed allergies to the GM food during the testing but developed allergies to products such as eggs after the testing as it permanently affected their immune system.
Allergies and immune system damage was also found by Monsanto and Arpad Puztai with different GM products.

Hi Agronomist,
Co2 is a common gas in our atmosphere. It causes global warming only when it is out of balance with the other gases in the atmosphere.

In the same way Bt is present in the soil. It becomes a problem only when GM Bt crops produce large ammounts of it.

The problems reported are: Bt poisoning aquatic animals, residual Bt in the soil damaging fungi causing problems with the next crop and increased allergenicity.

Soil health is vital to the health of crops. Interesting websites on this are www.soilfoodweb.com.au and www.fungi.com/front/stamets/index.html

You linked to a report on allergies to Bt cotton in Indian cotton pickers. Some people were hospitalised for 9-15 days. These cotton workers had picked cotton for years but noticed allergies only with Bt cotton. Doctors reported a huge increase in allergies. These results deserve further investigation.

Rojo - you ask what is wrong with plants producing pesticide. Presumably farmers do not want pests to attack their crops. You therefore assume that plants producing the Bt pesticide will stop attack. Bt is not toxic to all insects. In India cotton Bt crops resistant to bollworm were attacked by mealy bugs instead.

So plants produced Bt pesticide that is shown to be allergenic, toxic to soil and aquatic life yet still get eaten by bugs. To me this is a failure.

Most tests on GM crops and food are animal production studies (ie to show animals gain weight when fed GM), very short (one dose of GM and if animal still alive 14 days later the GM is deemed safe)or rarely longer than 4 weeks.

Scientists who report GM having negative effects are attacked i.e. Arpad Pustai (fed rats GM potatoes and went public with their numerous health problems), Irina Ermakova (rats fed GM soy, pups dead, stunted or infertile) and Judy Carman (reports on why GM tests inadequate to show safe for us to eat)have all been mentioned in this blog. However their studies have not been repeated.

GM food needs to have long term, multi-generational, independent testing. The raw data must be presented and discussed

Agronomist you really do not know what you are talking about. I did not say the any tests were done. I commented that the WA government wants to do testing but cannot. Do you understand GM s are patented and no testing can be legally done unless permission is obtained from the patent holder? The only secrets are those the biotech companies hold. And hold them they will as they do not allow for any testing to de done that they cannot control the outcome of.
Rob from Canada the only ‘mountains of tests’ done are those funded by the corporations which hold the patents or by those they choose to do the tests on their behalf and can control. You obviously think you are better that the 700 scientists on the IAASTD project of which the biotech companies were part of. Sorry they didn’t come up with the answer you wanted, but the correct one for the world moving forward. This project was bigger than the biotech companies and they could not rig the results.
At the end of the day I do not have a problem with GM. I would be happy for GM lovers to eat as much of the stuff as they want and feed it to their children. I have an issue with the fact that GM farmers contaminate non GM farmers grains and in turn I end up without a choice to avoid GM. Contamination and labelling issues make it impossible for me to decide what I eat and give to my children. It’s a Nazi like mentality to dictate the food chain.
GM is not the answer to anything but big corporation’s profits and those paid by these corporations to be their mouth pieces. Time will certainly provide the answers and I hope all pro GM people can look their children in the eye and admit their failings in the future.

Lets see. in 1995 GT73 (Roundup Ready)was cleared by regulators in Canada and the US, in 2000 Australia and the EU in 1997 cleared it and China in 2004. So are you trying to tell this forum all these countries regulatory agencies accepted it without scrutiny of the safety data? Or are you saying the biotech companies are too smart for the regulators and have fooled them all?

In 1995 Canada, the US cleared HCN92 (Pat gene), in 1996 Japan, in 2001 Australia and in 2004 China. So once again are you suggesting all these countries were duped? Not very likely.

As I said there is not a single case documented of allergic responses to any commercial GM protein. Yes there are all kinds of wild accusations but zip proof.

So I will assume you did not read "Why the IAASTD Failed" how can we discuss it if you will not read it?

Seems none of the critics will admit the Pusztai paper was very poor science and proved nothing. Same with the Chapela paper and the Russian so-called research.

We are twelve years of commercialization and no eveidence of harm at all from GM crops and food.

I challenge the notion testing can not be done because of patents. Any researcher can test any GM product if they like but they had better get the science correct if they publish it. peer review can be harsh on bad science.

Rob from Canada why don't you follow up the patent laws. You are completely wrong with your statement that anyone can do testing on GMs. Your information is very flawed.
By the way Monsanto also told us for years that Round up was biodegradable but lied and were taken to court in Europe. They had to take this claim off the packaging. If you trust them go ahead but those who do not want GM should not be forced to.
In regards to politics just look at Monsantos history of bribes. Yes they have the money to determine the political outcome.

Non-GM farmer, I think if you looked at the data you would find the protein introduced into the peas belongs to a family of proteins well known to be allergenic. You would also find that sugar residues are important for generating a response. The different sugar residues used by peas compared with beans meant this protein produced a response in mice. However, proteins like EPSPS that do not belong to families with allergenic potential and do not get sugars added won’t produce a response.

lillian, Bt content of soil varies naturally by over 1000-fold. The total number of bacteria is 100-3000 million per gram. With 25% being Bt, that is 5x10^17 Bt per hectare. I don’t think the added Bt from crops is going to change the concentration all that much. Also, Bt crops have now been grown for 12 years, continuously in some fields, and no obvious problems have arisen.

Bt poisoning in aquatic animals is, as I have shown, a factor of concentration. The amount required in waterways is huge.

If you had read that study on Bt cotton labourers in India, you would have noticed that labourers without exposure to Bt crops were specifically excluded, as were those exposed but without symptoms. So, no the symptoms were not only with Bt cotton. The authors chose to focus only on those individuals reporting symptoms from Bt cotton and from this trying to convince that Bt was allergenic.

In Pusztai’s study the rats fed control potatoes had just as many changes to their intestines as those fed GM potatoes. http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/02/analysis-of-pusztai-study-on-gm.html

In Ermakova’s study there was high mortality in the control rats. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/ermakovas-gm-soy-trials-in-rats-get.html

Both these studies are flawed. I don’t know of any GM stuidies by Carman.

won, are you telling me that the WA Government has not given more than $90,000 to Judy Carman to do a GM feeding study? I would count that as evidence that the WA Government can do studies, wouldn’t you? The patent only stops the crops being grown for financial gain without permission, not tested. I could go out and run a test tomorrow.

No agronomist, you can't run out and do a test tomorrow. You need permission to do any testing at all (agronomic and health) and the company needs to be involved in release of information.

Read Monsantos contract and read the IAASTD report which is a $12m / 4 year research project funded byt FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank and WHO). They found GM performance was questionable, GM introduces additional liabilities for GM and non-GM farmers, GM patents concentrate ownership, drive up costs, undermine economic sustainability and food security, inhibits seed-saving and restricts access to products needed for independent trials.

Yes, the sugar residues are important for generating a response but why are the sugars different in the final GM product than in the pre-GM product that is analysed under the regulatory system. There was an increase in glucosilinates in GM canola which indicates the final structure of the final protein is different than the amino acid backbone that is analysed. We as consumers only care about the product we are expected to eat and the regulatory system should not avoid testing it and then promote that the product is "rigorously tested and proven safe" when it is not.

The reason researchers, governments, seed industry, agronomists, marketers etc are pushing GM is because they plan on making more money out of plant breeding. Who ultimately pays for this? Its farmers that can't afford it. Who will ultimately pay for it? Consumers. Its a pyramid selling arrangement where the GM industry and the R&D industry want to take a cut out of all food produced.

Farmers and consumers can't afford industry parasites.

Hi Agronomist

You are making assumptions about the effect of GM Bt crops on the environment ie

“I don’t think the added Bt from crops is going to change the concentration all that much. Also, Bt crops have now been grown for 12 years, continuously in some fields, and no obvious problems have arisen. “

This ignores the studies I have listed showing there are reported problems with toxicity to aquatic creatures and soil and reports of allergies.

Assumptions that ignore evidence to the contrary show a belief system not scientific rigour.

Arpad Pustai is a reputable scientist who was not anti-GM when he fed rats GM potato. He worked for the Rowlett Institute and considered he would routinely test GM foods to show they were safe.

He was so concerned with the results of the tests that he went public with them. For this he was sacked and vilified. No GM food on our shelves has received the same level of testing that Pustai did.

Ermakova has been attacked for her study. However it has not been repeated and so her findings cannot be discounted.

Dr Judy Carman is an epidemiologist. She worked on the AIDS epidemic in Sydney and was asked to determine whether rabbit Calicivirus would harm people it was accidentally released. She has done numerous animal feeding trials. Therefore she is eminently qualified to do a GM canola oil feeding trial.

You mention that many countries have passed GM food as safe and question whether they all could be wrong.

The assumption that GM food is safe should not rest on the numbers of countries where it has passed regulatory approval. It should rest on the quality of the evidence on the health effects of GM foods. As I have previously stated, most tests done on animals are animal production studies to show they gain weight when fed GM food. They are not studies to show the effects of GM food on human health.

You mentioned a multigenerational study of rats done in the 1990’s. Please give details of this study.

Non-GM farmer, yes I could do a test tomorrow. In Canada you can buy Roundup Ready and Clearfield canola seed and could run an agronomic test without permission. You merely have to pay the royalties on the bags of seed. You do know what glucosinolates are don’t you? They don’t change the amino acid backbone of proteins. Canola was bred to have low levels of glucosinolates in the seed. Tests in Canada in 1996 and 1997 showed GM canola had lower glucosinolates than did non-GM canola. http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/4/223.htm and to 2001 http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FAGS%2FAGS142_03%2FS0021859604004393a.pdf&code=0e55f901597081e083c2e95bce65491e

lillian, I responded to one study you mentioned showing the study had the equivalent of 50g/L of corn kernels in water – completely unrealistic concentrations. The second study had too little detail. We know AFM respond to nutrient conditions in the soil. The abstract did not say whether soil nutrient conditions had been measured or what they were. It also didn’t indicate whether there were nutrient composition differences between the corn lines that might explain the response. Other studies have found no difference http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/20/6577 http://www.ajol.info/viewarticle.php?jid=259&id=34899 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7CW5-4NNPB70-3&_user=162644&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=162644&md5=427ed531ff9e016db4401eabc1f0c464 even after 4 years of corn http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/2/647 What do we make of this?

Perhaps I should re-iterate – Pusztai’s experiment was flawed. Even the Royal Society said so http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6170 Given the study didn’t really tell us anything, Pusztai’s big mistake was thinking that it did.

Again I should re-iterate. There was already one study out there before Ermakova started and it reported no significant effect and no deaths in the control animals http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-49V77YW-1&_user=162644&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=162644&md5=86d1451dfd5cb68cb83ef6f8cad5afb9 – so it has in a sense been repeated. The full methods of Ermakova’s study have not been published so it would be very difficult to repeat exactly.

As for Judy Carman, a search of pubmed turns up 4 papers – none are feeding studies. So her track record in animal feeding studies is what exactly?

hi all,

1. My intention to organise a filmed debate / forum was genuine. Thanks for the 'hand up', Rojo, indeed, farmers will be contacted and involved. I have some other projects ready to go first however.

2. Agronomist ( and others ) - as you would know but choose to ignore or deny I suspect - here is an extract from the email ( I recommend everyone read the whole piece, it's not long, see link at bottom ):

Starts here :

...Email from Dr Brian John (GM Free Cymru) to Professor Mike Gasson (ACNFP Chairman):

You say this:

"…Dr Ermakova's findings are not consistent with those described in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2004. In a well controlled study no adverse effects were found......…"

http://food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfpgmsoya.pdf

The following points are relevant, and have been made by a number of scientists who have looked at both studies:

1. Brake and Evenson had a completely different - and highly specific - focus in their GM soya study (testicular development in young male rats) and aspects of their study were very poorly described. The authors may know a lot about sperm and testes analytical techniques, and male fertility issues, but it does not follow that they are experts in nutritional studies.

For 2,3,4,5,6,7,8..( go to link below )

....9. Ermakova was so surprised by her own results re offspring mortality rates that she repeated the experiment three times, with similar results. This is not the action of a slapdash or biased scientist. She also asked histologists to perform analyses of some of the organs of "Non-GM" rats and "GM rats". They investigated testes and liver and found great changes in the cells of these organs similar to those found by the Italian scientist M.Malatesta.

What we are saying is this: there are even more problems and uncertainties associated with the Brake / Evenson study than there are with the Ermakove study......"

Here is the full version : ( refer to Document 3a specifically )

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp_75_11_gmsoya.pdf

Is your argument always a case of 'my scientist is better than your scientist' ?

...Thanks

Here are just a few of the many (some independent) research papers on safety of GM crops and food.
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/gen_safety.html

And for one type of GM canola...
http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=GT73%2C+RT73

The fact is there is MOUNTAINS of safety data. There is no evidence of harm from consumption of GM crops.

I wonder why 25 Nobel Laureates support agricultural biotechnology.

Hi Agronomist,
This article
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news19.php
details the problems emerging with Bt. The article is fully referenced.

Bt toxins are expressed at high levels in GM plant tissues and they persist in the soil, either within plant cells or as native protein
(Baumgarte and Tebbe 2005; Griffiths et al. 2006).

Debris and pollen of plants transgenic for Bt-toxins can enter nearby agricultural streams in large quantities and negatively effect important stream organisms (Rosi-Marshall et al. 2007).

Daphnia magna, a water flea commonly used in toxicological investigations, can also be negatively affected by Bt transgenic plant debris containing the Bt toxin Cry1Ab (Bøhn et al. 2008).

The Bt GM plants are not the same as non-GM plants (ie substantially equivalent) and this may be causing problems.
“There are at least 43 significant protein expression differences between the MON810 line and a near-isogenic control (Zolla et al. 2008).” “Therefore it supports the view that substantial equivalence was never a true scientific concept, as has been argued, it is a regulatory ‘principle’ associated with no biological relationship nor any theoretical validity (Millstone et al. 1999).”

The Pub med site is not fully comprehensive. Dr Judy Carman did 25 animal feeding studies for her PhD alone. ( Ph.D. in Medicine, University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry and cancer. Accepted without alteration. Conferred 1989)

The Royal Society receives funding from biotech corporations. The experts from the Royal Society who examined Pusztai’s work were mainly pro-GM. Their report was based on incomplete data Pusztai produced as an internal report.

His full study was peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet. The editor of the lancet was threatened by one of the former Vice Presidents of the Royal Society. Full details here http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Royal_Society

Rob the studies you link to are mainly animal production studies done on hens, ruminants and fish. These are not relevant to human health.

Studies showing no problems with GM do not mean it is safe. If studies show problems with GM they should be followed up not ignored

"Rob the studies you link to are mainly animal production studies done on hens, ruminants and fish. These are not relevant to human health. "

But Daphnia are. Please.

I just love how a shwish of your mighty keyboard and the Royal Society becomes irrelevant. For your next trick how about you make the 25 Nobel Laureates dissappear.

Before I leave I suggest you alert the organic food industry of the evils of Bt. They shouuld be warned.

It is now clear you have zero interest in learning the real science. Have a nice day.

Rob from Canada- seems it's your version of science or no science. You should take your own advice and check out some of the detail. Also even in Canada you are not allowed testing on GMs without authorisation from the patent holder. Even farmers are required to sign a contract before buying GM grains agreeing that no studies will be done with the grain they purchase. Why don't you try to buy some grain, get permission to do testing and provide the evidence you have achieved this and how. Maybe you'll find the loop hole other testers need to find.

Rob

Now you know how it feels to have what you believe to be a carefully considered and researched opinion summarily dismissed in a blink.

Frustrating isn't it ?

By your photo you seem a genuine type, and I suspect your love of your science, perhaps blinds you to looking beyond your immediate trained frames of reference. You may be a 'science-tragic' and really want to see technology rewarded more than what it is, perhaps. You do seem a little naive when it comes to corporatised science or related bodies though, if I may so.

There are many in the science community, it seems, who regard the Royal Society as corrupt, and biased, for example.

With respect - " no evidence of harm..." - well, one needs proper monitoring to be able to make that conclusion - even Prof Rick Roush ( melbourne uni ) was recently publicly heard to admit to there being no human health / GM studies ever done.

There are rising health issues in the community and GM, because there have been no appropriate studies, MUST be included in the range of possibilities to consider as possible causes.

I, personally, would simply create a mutually agreed, and reviewed, upon series of studies, and whatever else deemed necessary, and considerably resolve the issue. Period.

Re the 25 nobel laureates - who are they and what are their fields please ? Can you also confirm that they have reviewed all the NoGM arguments and views too or just the proGM perspective? If necessary I will contact them personally afterwards.

Agronomist -

1. Could you also please specifically define or reference what you consider to be an appropriate human health /GM study guideline / procedure / protocol ? ( sorry don't know correct terminology )?

NoGMers will then know what your frame of reference is.

2. And I would certainly prefer Judy Carman's "one website, one PO Box" Institute over Monsanto's insipidly pretty website, 18,800 staff, and documented record of government / GM related bribings, and community and human chemical harms ( just forked out $600,000,000US settlement ).

Thanks

Hi Rob
Daphnia are not relevant to human health. The studies I listed show that Daphnia are relevant to the health of streams and they are being negatively affected by Bt GM crops.

What consumers of GM foods need is full and detailed tests and studies done that are relevant to human health. This has not yet occurred.

The Royal Society becomes irrelevant to science if its Fellows are not following the scientific method.

I have explained in a previous post that Bt spray used by organic growers is sprayed onto plants and this degrades within 2 weeks. This is different to Bt GM plants which are pesticide factories constantly creating large ammounts of the Bt toxin.

There is evidence that GM and non-GM plants are not “substantially equivalent”. The GM Bt plants could be manufacturing unknown substances that negatively affect soil and aquatic life.

Bt GM plants were passed as safe partly because Bt sprays were considered to have a history of safe use. However I have also listed in previous posts details of where Bt sprays have caused reports of allergy and asthma. This is why the organic industry uses Bt sprays as a last resort during periods of high insect infestation.

With Bt GM crops this toxin is used as a first resort.

RoushysLoveChild, Brake and Evenson’s paper, whilst focussed on testicular biology, did measure the general health of their animals (Table 3 in their paper) and litter sizes. They also measured and reported the composition of the feed.

The ACNFP’s conclusion: “The Committee also notes that Dr Ermakova’s findings are not consistent with those described in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2004.1 In a well controlled study no adverse effects were found in mice fed on diets containing 21% GM herbicide-resistant soya beans and followed through up to 4 generations.” http://food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfpgmsoya.pdf

lillian, the fact that an article on the internet has references is no guarantee of quality. This article does a bit of cherry-picking data to support the conclusion. The Bohn et al. paper, as I have noted a couple of times here, used unrealistically high concentrations of ground corn that would never occur in nature. Rosi-Marshall et al. did not find “debris and pollen of plants transgenic for Bt-toxins can enter nearby agricultural streams in large quantities”. Instead they reported a maximum of 8g/sq m/year of corn material and a maximum of 1g/sq m/year of corn pollen. They also only found higher mortality among caddis fly larvae fed 3 times the highest amount of pollen found in streams. Interesting, but other studies have found no effect of lepidopteran Bt on caddis fly larvae http://nabs.confex.com/nabs/2007/techprogram/P1519.HTM http://www.fao.org/agris/search/display.do?f=./1996/v2203/CA9502319.xml;CA9502319 .

As for the 43 significant protein differences between Bt corn and its near isoline, there are hundreds of protein differences between different varieties.

The Pubmed site is comprehensive for the published literature. 25 feeding studies, but none published. How good were they? What matters is the track record in the area. No papers = no track record.

I happen to have read Ewen and Pusztai’s paper. It shows: 1) 3 of 5 measurements were significant for GNA, 2) 3 of 5 measurements were highly significant for cooking, 3) 1 of 5 measurements was (just) significant for transformation.

Several correspondents in this debate seemed to see many of the studies for more than they give us.
Many of the feeding studies at best give us a lead to the need for more evaluation.

When I look at a feeding studies results I check it on 3 areas, validity, relevance and significance.

Validity, is where much this debate has been eg. Pusztai's results and the royal society etc. However argument here and references given mix up the different studies he did, some with valid controls and no GM potatoes others with GM potatoes and no valid control. I cannot put those studies together and get valid results, attempts to do so are rarely credible.

Relevance is equally important and when toxicology is involved it is about dose rate. Can we set a MRI that makes issues with the toxin irrelevant to commercial practice, human health, environment etc. Relevance is also wider than even dosage, such an example is Pusztai's results which refer to a particular toxin in potatoes which have not been considered for entry into the food chain, even though the research is more than 10 years old.

Significance is the consequence of the negative event and the likelihood when compared to improvements the innovation can bring. The example is BT. In every cotton, maize and rice enterprise GM BT varieties have seen big measurable improvements in the health and well being of farm workers or local inhabitants or consumers which totally overshadow the negative affects of BT discussed here.

To spend large amounts of time discussing the minutia of one area when in other areas the study is not credible is a waste of time when we are considering the approved crops and those about to be approved.

To recapitulate you need no negatives for validity, relevance and significance for a study to be a large part of the crop approval decisions.

hi For Choice

1.I was reading with interest up to "In every cotton, maize and rice enterprise GM BT varieties.....overshadow the negative affects of BT discussed here" when I had to grab my computer as it tried to float to the ceiling from all the hot air that that claim is made of. I wish you no animosity but that's a totally unsupportable claim.

2. ANY people getting sick or dying from anything, is NOT something to be "overshadowed".

Agronomist

If anyone knows about "cherry picking data" it's you. I see you pick so many cherries that you should open a GM fruit & veg outlet.

For example :

(i) Re your comebacks on my B&E paper post - one small table of weights without showing any relationship to intake, is scientifically unusably sloppy. Even I can see that.

(ii) Ermakova used rats and B&E used mice - they have different feed requirements. (So "in a sense " it's not a repeat of the same, as you try to assert )

(iii) "They also measured and reported the composition of the feed" - they may as well have also listed the composition of the nearest corn flakes box - again, I re-iterate, without relationship to how much was eaten, the results are unusable.

Not to mention, and I quote the Dr Brian John comments on this referenced B&E male testicular study ( not a feeding study ) of yours -

" ...no idea what happened to their male mice once they were born; there is no feeding protocol, no data, no weights, no feed intake, and no data on growth patterns related to feed intake."

The seed sources, and verification of the NonGM / GM status of the seed samples, for the B&E study are unstated and unconfirmable, as is whether the same combine was used to harvest both types or not. This was in the days before the contamination factors of GM was well known remember.

I know you are familiar with ALL the data, but please everyone read the full comment from Dr Brian John here :

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp_75_11_gmsoya.pdf

Hi All,
GM technology is based on the concept of an “industrial gene” that is simple, stable, produces only one trait and, most importantly, is patentable.

Unfortunately recent advances in genetic science show that genes work in networks or families. One gene can affect many different characteristics and qualities in organisms. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/01frame.html?ei=5088&en=e8a6202e0162538f&ex=1340942400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1218002448-ShpskbK1Sw8d/CzpMzhc0A

Therefore the whole substructure on which GM food, crops and technology is built is fundamentally flawed.

The science, legislation, myths and regulations that surround GM are all similarly unstable as they are based on the same error.

GM crops and food have been forced on an unwilling public in country after country. http://www.gmwatch.eu/categories/3-Monthly-Review

There is increasing unrest in the very centre of GM, the US. Farmers, co-ops and other groups are being sued over GM crop patents. There is an ever increasing seed monopoly with Monsanto being the largest seed company in the world. This has resulted in the price of a bag of corn seed increasing by 35%. The OCM group of farmers in the US show what is happening to them and how they are fighting back http://www.competitivemarkets.com/

One way or another GM will eventually collapse – loss of subsidies, increasing price of inputs, ecological damage caused by GM farming, farmer and consumer revolt etc,

We must hope that not too much damage is done before that.
Thanks for being part of the discussion and helping to hone my investigation skills.
Signing off now

hi,

Thank you everyone - I have more to offer here but must prioritise my time towards other things now.

Rob - don't worry about the details of the 25 nobel laureates as I'm, coincidentally with lillian, leaving this forum. I assume I can get them from you or elsewhere if I need them. I do suggest you look further and more deeply into all that GM entails, and its history - don't take anything at face value.

When I started looking into GM a few years ago I knew nothing and had no position either way. I still have an open mind but am yet to see sufficient argument to support any part of the GM industry, science or agendas.

Thanks Rojo for your offer to contribute to a filmed forum - it's a serious intention but just a little down my list at the moment - I will definitely contact you when it's got wheels. I have some other projects almost ready to launch that require my attention right now.

I, too, believe that "One way or another GM will eventually collapse – loss of subsidies, increasing price of inputs, ecological damage caused by GM farming, farmer and consumer revolt etc" ( see lillian above ), and that there are better alternatives out there getting ready to establish themselves.

I sincerely also put it to all the proGMers - especially the "GM-tragics" I'll call them ( Agronomist, RobfromCanada, David Tribe, Prof Rick Roush etc ) that you all have truly honest, open minded look at who and what you are defending and supporting.

Maybe you'll get an insight into what the NoGMers are on about.

I also must correct an earlier comment - my sources told me that they heard Pro Rick Roush state publicly there were no human health feeding studies done - actually it was David Tribe, microbiologist, though Rick Roush was adjacent to him at the front of the audience, and didn't contradict him. Apologies for that minor inaccuracy.

Sincerely, me

Just for completeness, the following quote comes from the ANZFA (Australias food regulatory agency) after its evaluation of herbicide tolerant Canola GT73.

"Conclusions

No potential public health or safety concerns have been identified in the safety assessment of food derived from glyphosate-tolerant canola. Based on the data submitted in the present application, food derived from glyphosate-tolerant canola, can be regarded as equivalent to food derived from conventional canola in respect of
its composition, safety and end use. ANZFA proposes that an amendment be made tothe Standard A18 - Food Produced Using Gene Technology of the Food Standards Code to include oil derived from glyphosate-tolerant canola."

This is the same conclusion every other food regulatory body in the world(that has looked at this variety of HT canola) has come to.

RoushysLoveChild, firstly what are your hypotheses? What might be changed in GM food that could result in a health concern in humans?

From there you develop the testing regime. The testing regime could (and perhaps should) be different for different products because each one poses a different set of risks. Here is quite a good discussion on the thinking you might employ http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/21/suppl_3/166S More can be found here http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094

As for the Brake and Evenson paper, yes they fed mice not rats. They still found no difference in growth rates. Measuring the composition of the feed is vital, as you want to compare GM with non-GM, not with non-GM and…and...and… Ermakova’s failure to do this makes any results impossible to interpret. As for John, he is wrong. There is a feeding protocol, there is information on what happened to the mice, there are weights and each individual was housed separately. The methods in Brake and Evenson could have more information, but the fact that John seems to think Ermakova’s study was done better is testament to his inability to look at the two studies objectively. Brake and Evenson is not perfect, Ermakova is total rubbish. Ciao Madeline.

lillian, I don’t have space to deal with all these new issues you raise. I will make one comment. You have made a number of assertions on here, about 75% of which have been easily shown to be totally wrong, extensions of reality or not out of context. Most you never defend afterwards, so I assume you accept they are not correct. Have you ever stopped to reflect on where you get this information from and why so much of it is wrong?

Rob from Canada, you have missed the point.
Yes, FSANZ claimed that GM canola oil was safe but they did not do any animal feeding studies on the oil which is the part consumers eat.
The remaining meal is stock feed and testing was ignored because FSANZ has no authority over stockfeed. The increase in liver weights was blamed on glucosinolates yet no reason was given why the glucosinolates were higher in the GM canola.
An earlier response to Country gal: the countries I mentioned that do aerial spray glyphosate do not have the same regulation that we have. Yes, we could sue farmers for spray drift, they can't because it is not regulated. Your anger against anyone coming up with any debate against GM is obvious with your comment: "To pull this one out of a bag suggests that you have little experience in agricultural spraying and the restrictions and liabilities that exist."
We did contract crop spraying for almost 20 years and I am well aware of the regulations in Australia. I was explaining the lack of regulation in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay

Re non-gm farmer and testing of GM canola oil.

The analysis of the constituents of GM canola oil showed it can be exactly replicated by a blend of non-GM canola oils.

With the low proportion of canola oil in healthy diets whether human or rat any further testing would see any results irrelevant as the larger proportion of the test diet (the non-oil part)would be the determinate of the eventual results.

These facts see any further animal tests as a waste, which will prove nothing. This is sound science well known to food safety authorities world wide and explains the absence of calls from them for further testing of gm oils cotton or canola

Non-GM farmer, a reason was given why glucosinolates were different in the GM canola feed in the rat feeding study. The difference resulted from “variation in the degree of processing of the GM and non-GM canola seed used in the second study, leading to differences in the levels of glucosinolates in the meal fraction” It says so clearly in FSANZ’s response to Greenpeace and others’ claims. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2004/gmcanolasafetyassess2498.cfm I am sure I have mentioned this to you once before and directed you to this document. Oh yes I have: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=827&page=0 Given you know that differences in processing were involved, why do you keep claiming GM canola gas more glucosinolates?

As for testing oil, For Choice has it exactly correct. You can relatively easily measure all the components of oil and show that oil from GM and non-GM sources are the same. Unless you believe in homeopathy, there is nothing different there to test.

If independent tests were done, I am sure they would process both GM and non-GM the same and that they would do animal feeding tests on the oil because that is the bit that humans eat. Because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed, meal escapes regulation.
Wouldn't it make sense to do the tests that consumers want rather than try to use any excuse to avoid them?
Avoiding the tests only makes consumers suspicious and wary.