The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > One gene, one protein, one function - not so > Comments

One gene, one protein, one function - not so : Comments

By Greg Revell, published 12/12/2008

With the abrupt and uninvited introduction of genetically modified (GM) food into our supermarkets and restaurants, many of us are looking more closely at the food we eat.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All
Thank you, Greg, for a timely and well-written article.

"That the GM companies assume that their inserted foreign gene will only express the one intended protein is a manifestly risky assumption."

I'd be interested to see a scientific rebuttal of this, if one exists, from a disinterested scientist with experience in this particular field.

"Allergies have skyrocketed in the UK since the introduction of GM soy."

This aligns with something I read last week from a Nutritional expert whose advice past experience has taught me to respect and value highly.

"In 1995 Arpad Pusztai and wife Susan, both distinguished senior scientists, were awarded a 1.6 million pound research grant by the Scottish Government. They were chosen to create a model for testing genetically modified foods, verifying that they were safe to eat. Their testing methods were to become the standard used in Britain and likely adopted throughout the European Union. Instead, Pusztai found the GM foods were not safe for human consumption.

He began his testing with GM potatoes and found that not only were they less in protein and nutritional content, but when he fed them to the rats, the rats suffered damaged immune systems, their white blood cells responded more sluggishly, they had smaller less-developed brains, liver and testicles. Some rats had enlarged pancreases and intestines and partial atrophy of the liver. There was proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestines which signalled an increased potential for cancer.

The rats exhibited these symptoms after only ten days of consuming the GM potatoes and the affects lasted 110 days after they stopped eating them. Pusztai decided to go public with his findings and was immediately dismissed from his position and served with a gag order.

Many scientists believe the increase in allergies, autism, aspergers and other diseases which have increased in an epidemic proportion is due to the genetic modification of foods and medicines that are now being consumed. The increase in these diseases has been over the last 10 - 15 years since the introduction of GM foods."
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 12 December 2008 1:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn: "I'd be interested to see a scientific rebuttal of this"

As far as I am aware there is no rebuttal. The statement is correct.

What is incorrect is the impression that anyone, other than perhaps media release writers, ever really believed anyone could predict what would happen when we put a foreign gene in another organism. I'd be amazed if they didn't do it in many different ways attempting to splice the gene into many different parts of the genome before finding a way that worked. In other words it was very much a case of suck it and see - not prediction.

If this worries you, try to avoid driving cars, using computers, or indeed using any complex device. They were all built by designing something, testing it, having it break, and then trying all over again. Even the Dyson vacuum cleaner took 500 prototypes.

If the idea of implanting foreign DNA into something worries you, then try to avoid vaccines. Vaccines are raw, foreign DNA injected directly into your body. If the vaccine is active, it will invade your cells and mix with your DNA.

When its all said and done, we are just emulating what viruses do for our own purposes. Unlike viruses we are a bit more selective about what we inject into the cells DNA. Viruses, particularly retroviruses, mutate rapidly. When you are infected by one of them you are having random crap mixed with your DNA. The same applies for plants, animals, fungi and anything else that gets infected by viruses - something that happens 1000's of times every second.

If vaccines don't worry you then neither should GM food crops. A GM food is consumed by humans GM foods are subject to the same rigorous tests that vaccines are. Despite all the tests I am sure something will slip through one day. When it does, it is likely to do a lot less harm than a decent virus epidemic. And despite what the article and you say, there is no evidence beyond hearsay anything has slipped through yet.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 12 December 2008 4:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article could've been called "The Myth of Genetic Precision".

It is disappointing that the GM industry has not yet been held accountable for creating the myth that novel genes are "inserted" into existing plant DNA, as though a scientist of renown and integrity has done it with a sharp pair of tweezers.

The Roundup Ready canola has lost and scrambled pieces of host DNA, but there may be a lot more that's happened to it that has never been evaluated. It doesn't appear that any resources have been put into looking for transcripts of these disturbed regions of the DNA, and we wouldn't know the implications if they were found.

It took 300 genetic scientists 4 years to look at the genetic products of 1% of human DNA (the ENCODE project). These sort of resources will not be spent on examining the full effects of the GM 'events'.

We don't know the effect of these random destructive GM 'events' on our food, health, and environment.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Friday, 12 December 2008 4:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excuse me for a bit of 'Periclean Pedantism' but that article was from 1999!

I hardly think that 'allergic reaction to gm soy' would not have more recent research results.

I can't find the original article and there a lot of 'if, maybe,could.. suspect' type words in the article and all in all it seems like more wishful activist thinking that real solid evidence.

Here is one titled

GM SOY "MAY" CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS.

http://www.americanwellnessnetwork.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=938

It also says:

<<The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the U.S. is in the news often, but most reports fail to consider a link to a
recent radical change in America’s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted
to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants.>>

NOTICE THAT?

-Soy
-Corn
-Cottonseed
-Canola

Notice also the strength of the work "most reports fail to consider a link"...

err..that's an argument from silence..and is pure speculation.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 12 December 2008 6:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greg, more strawmen eh? I suggest a course in plant breeding might not go astray.

1) Viruses are not used to transfer the genes in genetic engineering. It is usually done with Agrobacterium, a naturally occurring bacterium that naturally introduces it’s own genes into the DNA of plants it infects. Scientists discovered they could substitute other genes for the Agrobacterium genes and get them in. A second, less commonly used method is ballistics. A third, even less commonly used method is electroporation of protoplasts. The only piece of virus DNA usually used is a promoter, a piece of DNA that allows the genes to be transcribed.

2) Nobody “erroneously believes that their foreign gene will behave exactly as it does in its natural setting”. The gene is introduced and then the plants are tested to gather data on how they behave over several generations, first in the glasshouse, then in small field trials. Only after it has survived this testing is the crop released to market.

3) Allergies have not skyrocketed in the UK since the introduction of GM soy. This myth lies solely with a UK journalist who took a press release from York Laboratories and misreported it. The Press release from 1998 commented on an increase in allergies in 1996. No GM soy was sold in the UK in 1996.

4) You raise the L-tryptophan canard again. This was due to poor processing, not GM. You can read the reports from the US FDA and CDC http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html, http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ltr3.html . More from GMOPundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/big-shift-in-diagnosis-of-gm.html I can find you other references if you like.

And nobody, except those erecting strawmen, as GM is precise. After all it is a complete lottery as to where the introduced gene ends up in the genome. What people do say is that it is more precise than conventional plant breeding where thousands of genes are mixed around and scientists have absolutely no idea what is happening.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 12 December 2008 6:34:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart

"If this worries you, try to avoid driving cars, using computers, or indeed using any complex device."

Thanks for the advice, I'll make sure I avoid eating cars and computers! What a ludicrous comparison. These examples of yours can't be validly compared to substances that are injested and absorbed by the body.

"If the idea of implanting foreign DNA into something worries you, then try to avoid vaccines."

I do.

"And despite what the article and you say, there is no evidence beyond hearsay anything has slipped through yet."

I'm not worried about 'anything slipping through' as you say. I'm concerned about the unknown incremental and long-term effects that producing and injesting genetically modified food will have on our environment and our health.

Agronomist

"Allergies have not skyrocketed in the UK since the introduction of GM soy. This myth lies solely with a UK journalist who took a press release from York Laboratories and misreported it. The Press release from 1998 commented on an increase in allergies in 1996. No GM soy was sold in the UK in 1996."

Can you state categorically, preferrably with supporting evidence, that absolutely no GM foods, or additives derived from GM foods, were being consumed in the UK prior to 1998?
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 12 December 2008 6:51:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on a minute, didn't global tempatures spike in 1998, not long after the introduction of commercial GM plants?
Agronomist can you categorically deny GM had anything to do with that while you're at it?

No, I'm not serious.
Posted by rojo, Friday, 12 December 2008 8:00:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greg
What you claim "All these factors are excluded by the central reductionist dogma of the biotech industry, which prefers to adhere to the “one gene, one protein, one function” model of yesteryear." is totally ridiculous to anyone with a modern training in genetics. It's so ludicrously absurd it’s difficult to know where to start. Do you know any one in the indusry who actually believes what you say they believe. Have you ever asked they? Give us an example we can check.

But putting that aside, there are many measurement over the last few years that show that in addition to your comments about genes being nonsense, your ideas are factually wrong. Conventional breeding techniques such as radiation to make mutations have been measured by many biologists to be less precise than genetic engineering.

By the way, since radiation scrambles DNA when it is used to make mutant plants , why does the organic movement allow GMOs made with radiation in their produce? Seems a bit inconsistent to me, to worry about precise genetic engineering and not pay any attention to imprecise random radiation used to make 3000 different foods that are sold in shops, and grown on organic farms.

GMO Pundit
Posted by GMO Pundit, Friday, 12 December 2008 8:44:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to rstuart..."...GM foods are subject to the same rigorous tests that vaccines are."

If vaccines are subject to to the same 'rigorous tests' as GM foods, we are all very deeply in trouble!!

For example, in respect of allergencity...

1. GM foods are not tested at all.

2. If the GM crop developers can work out what intended novel protein/s is/are produced in the plant, and if they can purify a sufficient quantity from the food source (typically the seed), then that/those protein/s alone may be subjected to some tests.

3. Typically, the actual novel proteins produced in the plant are not subject to any tests at all, and the developers haven't looked for unintended proteins.

From the Monsanto data: In their GM Roundup Ready canola the intended GOX-related protein was not only not tested, but Monsanto couldn't determine what the plant made.

Simply, the wild-type bacterial gox gene was mutated once to produce a gene called the gox standard, and after further mutagenesis the gox variant 247 gene was selected.

A genetic sequence coding for an additional 88 amino acid peptide was added so the bacterial protein would get to the chloroplasts in the plant cells.

It is thought that typically, a transit peptide is cleaved (in full or part) from the functional protein when it arrives at the chloroplast. But Monsanto couldn't determine what happened to the GOXv247.

They tried to sequence the end of the protein - couldn't find it. Instead, they used some results they had from a GM tobacco plant - Monsanto gave the reference for this as "Monsanto notebook page 4546593, Mary Taylor".

Mary had written something about GM tobacco in her notebook - hardly peer reviewed science.

The theoretical GOXv247 wasn't even tested for allergenicity in an on-paper sequence analysis. They assessed the GOX standard protein which wasn't an intended plant protein.

Tested!!??!! They didn't even know what they made. And yes, refined oil contains protein.

Contact me through the MADGE network (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) at info@madge.org.au if you would like to review the Monsanto data yourself.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Friday, 12 December 2008 11:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gmo Pundit, Could you please tell me exactly what crops I might be growing on my organic farm that have been derived from radiation caused genetic mutations.I have never heard of this.
Posted by Merri bee, Saturday, 13 December 2008 2:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Madeleine, yet some more myths to bust.

1) The GM protein testing for allergenicity is generally first an in silico test, because scientists understand reasonably well what are most likely allergenic proteins http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/allergen-protein-top-ten.html. If evidence of potential allergenicity emerges, then other tests may be done. Whole food allergenicity testing is a very inexact science littered with false negatives. This is why regulatory agencies prefer in silico testing.

2) Health testing for GMOs takes a 4 pronged approach. The introduced proteins are tested for toxicity in animal models. Changes in composition of known toxins, antifeedants and other compounds are tested. Nutritional composition of the product is compared with products already in the marketplace. Whole food safety assurance testing is conducted.

The GM crop developers know what the protein produced is. It is pretty easy to find out. If your assertion that the crop developers don’t know were true, then there would be evidence of this in the literature. After all, these crops are subject to more intense study than any other. So where is this evidence that crop developers don’t know what proteins are produced?

As for your screed about the GOX gene, I strongly suspect you are attempting to create more out of this than there really is. Whether there are 4 or 33 amino acids left from the chloroplast transit sequence is immaterial, because the transit peptide is known to be safe. And as far as I can see, toxicity testing used GOXv247.

Bronwyn, the allegation was that GM soy specifically caused the increase in allergies. This allergation is simply an invention. I can categorically state that it is an invention. http://www.gene.ch/genet/1999/Mar/msg00056.html

Rojo, unfortunately I can’t give you that assurance. According to Irina Ermakova, recent darling of the anti-GM movement, GM crops are directly responsible for global climate change. http://irina-ermakova.by.ru/eng/art/art12.html
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 13 December 2008 9:45:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agrominist you knoew there are better and worse methods being used by these cowboys after an exclusive new trait that will make them rich

removing ALL the AGRO bacterium is difficult
because it is SO agressive

quote from
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=596_70

>>DECONTAMINATING TREATMENTS ON AGROBACTERIUM-INOCULATED INTERNODE EXPLANTS OF ‘BARTLETT’ PEAR
Authors: P. Negri, L. Manzecchi
Keywords: Pyrus communis, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, genetic transformation, lysozyme
Abstract:
In Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation experiments the antibiotics commonly added to culture media are often unable by themselves to completely overcome bacterial contamination of explants. After co-cultivation with A. tumefaciens C58C1 pGV3850, ‘Bartlett’ internodes were exposed to vacuum-infiltration with different filter-sterilized washes: either lysozyme (2 mg/ml) or plain water were employed at two pH levels (7, or lowered to 3 with HCl) and, only at pH 7, cefotaxime (500 mg/L). Residual contamination of the explants was assessed on samples, transferred to an antibiotic-free substrate for bacterial growth immediately after the washes (day 0) and after 15, 42, 92 and 133 days of incubation on a cefotaxime-containing plant tissue culture medium.

Although none of the treatments by itself was able to eradicate the bacteria, all of them, combined with explant culture on the cefotaxime-containing substrate, assured a faster decontamination than the pH 7 water control.

The low pH washes were the most effective, but had inhibitory effects on plant cell proliferation; in contrast, lysozyme at pH 7 provided good decontamination without adverse effects on tissue culture.<<

but i know you gotta protect the way your chosing to earn your livin
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 13 December 2008 10:00:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am bemused by all this fuss over GM food. Insulin dependant diabetics have been injecting themselves with human insulin made by a genetically modified and potentially pathogenic bacterium inhabiting the human large bowell (E. coli, if my memory serves me correctly,) for years without any unwanted side effcts and without any protests from the anti GM lobby, or haven't they noticed? Boethius.
Posted by Boethius, Saturday, 13 December 2008 11:14:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the article, it provides an angle in the GM debate that needs further debate.
All GM methods seem to have major problems and this is evident in the fact that only one in a million attempts work and that there are so many visual mutations that are required to be weeded out before the plant is considered "safe" and "normal". Naturally those not visually mutated, could have other problems.
One method is firing tungsten bullets into the DNA that are coated with isolated genes and promoter genes.
This technique is very aggressive and can easily result in damaging existing genes and inserting multiple genes in different locations and even upside down or partial sequences can be inserted.
Considering one bent gene in a human results in Downes syndrome, we need to take more care.
Originally scientists felt that this aggressive techique could result in the release of toxins as a plant response.
It is of no surprise that the findings on health testing confirms what would be expected if toxins are released.
Allergies would be a typical response to this. Increased liver weights are also another result (similar to a lifetime of drinking alcohol but results in only a few weeks feeding trial). Problems with development of offspring is also a serious consequence. Surprise surprise... these findings are appearing in GM trials.
Why not do the independent health trials that consumers want before irreversibly contaminating the world food supply? What are the pro-GM activists so afraid of?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Saturday, 13 December 2008 11:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Hang on a minute, didn't global tempatures spike in 1998, not long after the introduction of commercial GM plants?
Agronomist can you categorically deny GM had anything to do with that while you're at it?

No, I'm not serious.”

Ha, ha, rojo, very funny. You for one obviously haven’t any evidence to support Agronomist’s scathing dismissal of Greg’s claim that allergies have increased in the UK since the introduction of GM food there.

You can ridicule me all you like, but posters who dismiss the legitimate claims of writers’ as ‘myths,’ and provide no hard evidence for doing so, need to be made to substantiate their claim. Agronomist has since attempted to do so. He could well be right about that particular news report and the test on which it was based. Irrespective of whether or not he is, I’m still not at all convinced that there is absolutely no link between the increase in GMO in our food supply and the increase in the incidence of allergy problems in the general population.

According to the National Centre for Biotechnology Education in the UK, three genetically modified foods were introduced into the UK for the first time in 1996 – tomato puree, maize and soya. Soya is used in over 60% of foods such as bakery products, margarines and spreads, baby and dietetic foods and animal feed.

Food ingredients made from genetically modified soya or maize weren’t legally required to be labelled in the UK until 1st September 1998, so I doubt very much whether anyone would really know how much GM soya or maize UK residents were ingesting prior to that.

http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/igdwhatis.html
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 13 December 2008 1:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist,

Your pseudonym suggests that your field of expertise is not human health.

The word limit prevented me from saying that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has sent me the reports submitted by Monsanto to support their application for Roundup Ready Canola, and subsequent follow up information.

I know exactly what has and hasn’t been done to test the safety of this product. As a declared person of science I would expect that you would be very interested in going through all this material yourself.

If you, or anyone else would like to see it (available in digital form), or would like to discuss these issues more, or would like MADGE (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) to present to a group on our own or in a forum, my direct email is mclove@dodo.com.au. The MADGE website is www.madge.org.au

To answer your question: “So where is this evidence that crop developers don’t know what proteins are produced?”

This information is in many of the reports but a specific one is Monsanto Report No.: MSL-12676, p19

"Assessment of the N-terminal sequence of GOX from GTC [glyphosate tolerant canola] seeds was unsuccessful despite numerous attempts.” [no reference]

This statement referenced no material. We don’t know what they tried nor what they did or didn’t find - not even a reference to a Monsanto notebook. Note also that this statement was about GOX – this is not the GOXv247 protein which was intended to be in the plant. They made no report of trying to identify the N-terminal sequence of the GOXv247.

Furthermore it seems to have been a practice at the time to only attempt to identify the leading 15 or so amino acids in a protein. Even in this short length they had trouble identifying amino acids. Sequence homology tests? – verify a sequence first!

In recent GM application submitted by Syngenta (COT67B) cotton (A615) only 16% of the amino acids of the intended protein were identified (I have the data for this application too).

Limited by word numbers again, I encourage you to make contact
Posted by Madeleine Love, Saturday, 13 December 2008 5:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart raises the important question of how much risk we as individuals and society are willing to take...he is willing to risk GM - but perhaps it is because he incorrectly believes that GM foods are tested to the same extent as vaccines. Vaccines are subject to multiple tests - beginning in the lab, then animals tests and culminating in tests on humans...And even with this process, we often get medicines/pharmaceuticals horribly wrong. GM foods, however, are not subject to anything remotely close to the same rigour. Regulators are permitted and do rely exclusively on the data provided by the companies/applicants (and there is a mountain of science that says what a dumb idea that is). No animal or human testing is required. Regulators are permitted to undertake testing, but don't. Our more than useless Food Standards folks have never said no to a gm plant. If you get a medicine wrong the impacts can generally be contained and medicines recalled. Try doing that with a plant - particularly one like canola that is highly promiscuous (and has over 130 related plants in Australia) and has miniscule seeds that can blow vast distances and remain viable in the soil for up to 16 years. So, in this case there is not only the risk of harm but the risks of being unable to undo any harm that occurs.
Posted by next, Sunday, 14 December 2008 6:16:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is an assumption that GM insulin is safe therefore GM food is safe. This is obviously daft. Each must be proved to be safe independently. Furthermore it appears that some diabetics have negative reations to GM insulin.

This report in The Observer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/may/07/antonybarnett.theobserver recounted one diabetic having a car crash due to GM insulin not controlling his diabetes. The crash killed his passenger. It also referred to a man acquitted of murder as he had no memory of the event and this was also put down to GM insulin failing to control his diabetes. It also reports that the British Diabetic Association suppressed part of a report on the problems suffered by those using GM insulin as they considered it "too alarmist".

Two diabetics in South Gippsland wrote to the Sentinal Times in September this year on the negative effects they found with GM (human) insulin. The side effects included:
- severe tiredness
- poor control of their blood sugar levels
- not knowing when their blood sugar was reaching dangerous levels and therefore having greater risk of coma etc
- memory loss
- joint pain
- constantly feeling unwell
You can read their letters here http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15105.cf
Posted by lillian, Sunday, 14 December 2008 11:00:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi All
I realised the letter link doesn't work, try this instead
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15105.cfm
Posted by lillian, Sunday, 14 December 2008 11:05:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The absence of precision in GM techniques has been shown to lead to profound disturbance in the host plant DNA – GM RR soy is one of the prime examples.

Allergies arising from slightly altered endogenous proteins through cross-priming are deeply concerning. For example, non-GM soy and peanuts are both legumes and have at least three homologous allergenic proteins. Could slightly altered proteins in the GM soy have an increased capacity to cross-prime for peanut allergy? This has not been examined.

In the ABC Unleashed forum a few months ago "Agronomist" suggested I access a Nature Biotechnology journal article "Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes sense?" Goodman et al.

I read through it carefully. Both Monsanto and Bayer were acknowledged for their support of the research (in provision of information and money).

Five allergists had reviewed some of the allergenicity tests in the GM testing schedule. With the support of Monsanto of Bayer they had determined that some of the testing models had not been validated.

Whether these findings were correct or not, one would have expected allergists to conclude that there is an urgent need for research to develop validated testing models.

Instead they recommended that 4 of the tests be cut from the schedule without replacement, citing concerns related to the cost to the GM Developers and potential disruption of trade.

Parents don’t expect the risks to the health and safety of their children to be weighed up against costs to billion dollar companies, nor do they expect their children’s and friend’s health to be subservient to trade interests. These allergists did not appear to be acting responsibly for the children and people they are bound to protect.

I read through the research history of the allergists and read a number of their papers – there are many things to remark upon, particularly soy, peanut and milk research, but not in 350 words.

An opportunity arose to meet with the allergists and discuss their unexpected conclusions.

To be continued…
Posted by Madeleine Love, Sunday, 14 December 2008 11:10:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The regulatory process for GM crops is nothing more than a public relations exercise.
This is the first year that farmers are growing GM Roundup Ready canola. So what tests have been done?
The OGTR leaves the responsibility to FSANZ. No testing is done by FSANZ as they only assess the data that the company submits. So what testing have they submitted to assess for problems.
No feeding trials were submitted on the oil which is the part consumers eat as it is argued that there is no DNA in oil.
Consumers become reluctant, unmonitored guinea pigs as the first "trials" done are done on unwilling consumers that buy canola oil without knowing it has GM content as GM oil escapes labelling. Consumers are not frightened of eating DNA, they are concerned about the effects on health after eating the product.
There has been feeding trials done on the remaining meal and it was found that animals had an increase in liver weight of 17% after only a few weeks feeding. To me this screams a problem but this is ignored because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed and meal is used for stock feed.
In fact if you look at the hundreds of feeding trials done on GM crops, they usually fall into the category of stock feed trials as they assess things like breast meat depth or deboned carcass weight. How convenient that most tests submitted escape regulation.
Consumers want proper testing that is relevent to their health.
Is this so unreasonable?
Is it unreasonable to ensure there is choice for consumers to avoid these products until they are confident with the product?
Is it unreasonable for farmers to ensure they have a choice to avoid growing or selling as GM?
No! But big business has ensured choice is denied.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Sunday, 14 December 2008 1:11:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
under one god, I have no idea why you bothered to post that abstract. The bacteria mentioned are just normal bacteria, nothing to do with genetic engineering.

Non-GM farmer, the ignorance you pedal here is astounding. Downs syndrome is due to a trisomy for human chromosome 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome not a single bent chromosome. The rest of your post is similar rubbish. It must be deeply humiliating to you to read all the articles in the Australian press about how well RoundupReady canola has performed. After all, you have been telling me for 3 years it will be a total failure.

Madeleine, I have a degree with a major in medical biochemistry. I understand enough to be able to make sense of most medical reports. I still don’t know why you are so focussed on the failure to determine the N-terminal sequence of the protein. It doesn’t mean the protein is unknown. There are lots of ways to find out what the protein is without sequencing it. Indeed, the majority of protein sequences that are talked about – even in the medical literature – are inferred sequences from the genetic code. There has been more than 30 years of testing the hypothesis and it has not been found wanting yet. You can correctly infer the sequence of a protein by translating the genetic code.

Julie, as for the GM canola meal damaging liver myth here is what FSANZ has always said about it: “Based on the data submitted, the slight increase in liver weight was possibly attributable to a slightly higher level of glucosinolates in the GM canola meal. Glucosinolate is well known to cause liver enlargement (Hayes, Principles and Methods of Toxicology, 3rd Edition). Equally, and perhaps more likely, the slight increases in liver weight were due to chance. FSANZ scientists, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research, the South Australian Department of Human Services, regulators in Japan, the UK and Canada, and members of FSANZ’s panel of independent experts were satisfied with this evaluation.” http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Amended%20Judy%20Carmen%20FSANZ%20RESPONSE%20TO%20ARTICLE%20April%202003v1.pdf
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 14 December 2008 1:24:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist (Scott Day), you are trying your usual tactics to sideline and miss the point by namecalling.

You claim the liver weights were a "myth" but confirmed it was true. We both know it is true and caused by glucosinolates but as a consumer it is a problem and was not addressed. Also, Downes is caused by an extra full or partial copy of chromosome 21. The cause is traced to an error in cell division and a bent gene or chromosome (and other problems) have been blamed for causing a pair of the 21st chromosome in either the sperm or the egg to fail to separate prior to conception which is replicated in every cell in the body.

But back to the debate:

The GM part of RR canola ONLY gives resistance to glyphosate, it does nothing else and this trait is easy to do by non-GM means as it is an unwanted trait in our weeds.

The push comes from the research sector and supply chain participants (such as Agronomists that can get a good job as compulsory advisors). Our research sectors are cutting alliance deals with Monsanto in exchange for using Monsanto's patented technologies. Monsanto's stated aim is to own a patent over all seeds and to consolidate the food chain. Without choice due to the sellout from the research sector and government, farmers are to become contract growers for a single supply chain which will further remove choice for consumers.

I'm glad farmers are now realising that GM canola does not live up to the hype that surrounds it.

Farmers selected to support GM in its first year (those not desperate enough to rig trials http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2925 ) complained about the very short window of spraying opportunity (2-6 leaf stage), the high cost, spraying problems caused by mixed germination and the lack of radish control due to lack of residual.

Next year the prices will raise significantly with farm fees doubling in costs which will put them off even more. Do you know what costs are planned for 2009?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Sunday, 14 December 2008 3:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist,I have to point out that the trials of GM canola in Victoria and NSW have not done well. The standard practices for growing canola were not followed in the case of the non GM canola plots, even the initial knock down with herbicide before planting did not occur, then the weeds were left to grow and compete with the crop for way too long. "Bad weather" at optimal spraying time was blamed for the failure to control weeds , but an examination of weather records for that time do not indicate that was the case.The planting density of the GM and control plots of Non GM varied substantially with the non gm planted too densely at 176 plants per square meter, way too dense resulting in the individual plants looking spindly.The Roundup ready canola on the other hand was planted at the recommended plant spacings and look far more robust as a result.There were numerous other ploys used ,from the unorthodox spraying regime used on the non GM canola its a wonder any survived.... Check the details with Julie Newman from Newdegate .her comments on it were something like....its a sad day when trials have to be rigged. Its also strange why Monsanto refused to release any RR canola seed for independent trials in W.A., perhaps they arent so sure it will perform in any trial not controlled by them??
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 14 December 2008 3:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to wonder why a farmer would enter into a contract with Monsanto to grow canola. The contract specifies that the land used to grow the crop can only be sold at a later date to someone else willing to enter into the licence agreement with Monsanto!! The farmer trying to sell his land would have a pretty limited purchaser base I'd imagine.Monsanto are keen to make money OUT OF farmers, not help them. Bring on permaculture.
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 14 December 2008 3:46:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lillian,

I ingest billions of bacteria and viruses every day. Sadly, I suspect very few of them has been have been tested at all, let alone as well at GM foods. And the little buggers mutate daily. I guess I am stuffed.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 14 December 2008 9:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, sorry my post was not meant to ridicule you personally, more the general mentality behind the attack on GM via obscure means(say GM insulin efficacy), when in reality there are a myriad of variables involved with any failure, and no-one focuses on the majority of GM insulin users who have no problem whatsoever. The assumption being it's GM thats the problem, not dosage or application or convienient excuse(in defence of manslaughter or murder). What I find strange is the fervour with which such weak "evidence" is latched onto by the anti GM lobby.

"I’m still not at all convinced that there is absolutely no link between the increase in GMO in our food supply and the increase in the incidence of allergy problems in the general population."

The world use of GM crops has increased exponentially, surely someone can work out if allergies have increased proportionally. And are there really more allergies, or more awareness of allergies
Posted by rojo, Monday, 15 December 2008 1:31:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rojo,
We've done a little bit of preliminary work putting together the allergy-GM food association, with a few references to varying international food policy. It's in a document on the web www.madge.org.au/allergy-report.pdf

We've done quite a bit more work since then (particularly related to the cross-reactions of soy) but haven't updated the document yet. The other GM crops will be involved too though - we know of issues around GM canola and corn, for example.

The first animal study looking at GM feed consumption and allergy response found significant differences at immune cell level - the researchers focused on young weaning mice and old mice. We put out a media release on it at http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/madge-release-2008-12-04.pdf
The study references are within it.

My understanding is that the biotechs know their GM food is responsible for the incredible rise in allergies - I was told twice that "it has to be proved". It wasn't said in the sense "We won't accept the truth of it unless it's proved", but rather "You can't sue us unless it's proved".

It should be possible to prove it, even without food labelling - but money is being invested for research along every implausible line!, and along therapy lines rather than 'proof of cause'. We just want the food off the shelves. Wait for the ...Continued blog.

Madeleine Love
One of the MADGE's (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering)
Posted by Madeleine Love, Monday, 15 December 2008 8:01:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Merri bee, I had trouble following your comments. Now it is my understanding that official crop variety trials in Australia are done by the NVT. I haven’t seen their results yet, but I would have thought they would have to follow a standard protocol. Where is the evidence they have not done this? Other trials have been conducted by Nufarm. Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Nufarm the biggest seller of triazine herbicides in Australia? Would they not have an interest in not damaging those sales? Why would they conduct their trials incorrectly? It would be in their best interest to come up with a horses for courses approach.

Sorry, I don’t want to check the details with Julie Newman. Unfortunately, Julie tends to tell me a whole bunch of stuff that is wrong. This includes Canada being unable to sell its canola, Europe has not banned use of atrazine, Canadian GM canola varieties yield less than non-GM, that atrazine-tolerant canola was never grown in Canada, and so on, all easily disproved. Now we have Down’s syndrome being the result of a ‘bent gene’. Why should I believe anything Julie Newman says? She seems to say whatever first comes into her head without bothering to check it.

But I do know why there have been no trials of GM canola in Western Australia. You see until recently they had an Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, who effectively banned the commercial growing of GM canola in Western Australia. Why would you bother running trials for a crop farmers were never going to be permitted to grow
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 15 December 2008 8:10:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rojo

Apology accepted, thank you.

Agronomist

Quite apart from the benefits or risks of GM food, aren't you concerned at the dominance of Monsanto and the corporate control it's acquiring over the world's food supply and its farmers?

Madeleine and Non-GM farmer

Appreciate the information you're sharing with the rest of us. The more I hear the more I realize there's a lot the general public aren't being told. Thanks for bringing us up to speed on this important issue.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 15 December 2008 9:40:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist you really are a laugh. I've never said Canada can't sell its canola, I said they have high ending stocks when we had none. Our non-GM canola has easy market access in comparison. Europe has not banned atrazine for health reasons, they banned it because they radically dropped the level for chemicals and it can't be shown that Atrazine can keep below those levels (not surprising considering users tip neat Atrazine in waterways to control water weeds.) I just read that UK has banned most chemicals since this change. You only need to look at the yield averages reported for Canada when GM canola was introduced and you will see that yields did not go up. I did a research project on Downes when I was involved in the medical field hence the interest. My key debate is that choice will be denied if GM is commercialised under current plans which unfairly put all the costs and liabilities on non-GM farmers.
Thanks Merri Bee. The GRDC trial results will be released very soon, they have been released on non-GM canola but still to come on GM. They have specific criteria that must be followed to ensure that trial results are fair http://www.nvtonline.com.au/home.htm These are far different protocols than what has been found in other trials where non-GM canola is unfairly manipulated to prevent them reaching their optimum yield.
Nufarm has the sole rights to sell Monsanto's Roundup chemical in Australia so they have a massive vested interest.
The reason trials have been denied in WA by the GM companies is that they GM canola offers nothing better than we already have. Kim Chance welcomed independent performance trials which would have given decision makers the opportunity to assess if it was going to provide a benefit.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Monday, 15 December 2008 2:09:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The unpredictable process of transformation is known to result in changes in the genetic code of the transformed host DNA, but only changes in the intended novel code are reported to be sought.

People with 'expertise' in human health may feel sympathy with the policy resolutions of the AMA (Australian Medical Association) (03 9280 8790) calling for full labelling of GM foods, and for an alert system whereby medical practitioners can notify authorities if they believe a reaction to consumption of a genetically modified or other novel food may have taken place (Policy Resolutions 7730-4-07 and 7730-5-07).

Agronomist, I have encouraged you to contact me directly. No email has arrived (mclove@dodo.com.au). Is there a possibility that you may be not be acting here in the role of 'seeker of wisdom and truth'?

The first gardenias of summer have flowered in my garden, and one is beside me in a small white vase. It reminds me of my grandmother.

"There are lots of ways to find out what the protein is without sequencing it." Name them.
"Indeed, the majority of protein sequences that are talked about…" Name some.
"There has been more than 30 years of testing the hypothesis…" Provide an evidence base on recent research.
"You can correctly infer the sequence of a protein by translating the genetic code." I can correctly infer that you are behind on your genetic theory and research.

There’s no need to reply. Seekers of wisdom and truth aren't going to learn anything from a sharp-shot down the barrel of a 350 word pipeline, no matter how well it’s written.

My grandmother made wonderful food. I remember her hedgehog, sweetcorn fritters and preserved mandarins with ice-cream. I also remember her ox-tongue in aspic jelly. We were able to choose not to eat it. Anyone else with grandmother food memories?
Posted by Madeleine Love, Monday, 15 December 2008 3:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Madeleine Love <<Agronomist, I have encouraged you to contact me directly. No email has arrived (mclove@dodo.com.au). Is there a possibility that you may be not be acting here in the role of 'seeker of wisdom and truth'?>>

Madeleine, perhaps I am quite happy getting information from the normal sources, like the scientific literature and the profs at the local university and don’t need your version of wisdom and truth to inform me.

<<"There are lots of ways to find out what the protein is without sequencing it." Name them.>>

Mass spectroscopy. MALDI-TOF.

<<"Indeed, the majority of protein sequences that are talked about…" Name some.>>

All the ones in here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/portal/utils/pageresolver.fcgi?log$=activity&recordid=1229337136674125

<<"There has been more than 30 years of testing the hypothesis…" Provide an evidence base on recent research.>>

500,000 papers in Pubmed with this search
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/portal/utils/pageresolver.fcgi?log$=activity&recordid=1229337351141807

<<"You can correctly infer the sequence of a protein by translating the genetic code." I can correctly infer that you are behind on your genetic theory and research.>>

Not unless you live in a different universe. PS, I hope those links work.

Bronwyn

<<Agronomist

Quite apart from the benefits or risks of GM food, aren't you concerned at the dominance of Monsanto and the corporate control it's acquiring over the world's food supply and its farmers?>>

Bronwyn, I don’t really see Monsanto acquiring any control over the world’s food supply. I can go to the supermarket today and do my complete shopping without touching a single product that is under the control of Monsanto. The farmers I work with can, if they wish, plant their whole farm to seeds that have none of Monsanto’s traits in them. I feel this “taking over the food supply” business is simply a scare tactic. Perhaps I should ask you a question: How many supermarket chains do you have access to? How much of the product sold in them is their own brands? Why are we worried about a couple of supermarket chains taking over the food supply?
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 15 December 2008 8:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi rstuart,

I made a post on reports by diabetics with bad reactions to GM (human insulin). You replied to me that you ingest "billions of bacteria and viruses everyday" and that none had been tested.

Firstly reporting on negative reactions to a medication seems to require that the reports need to be investigated not ignored.

Secondly maybe you should be a little more concerned about what you are eating. Here is a fantastic paper on DNA/RNA and GM and the effect on the human immune system. http://www.eco-risk.at/de/stage1/download.php?offname=FOOD-DNA-risk&extension=pdf&id=69

The section of the human immune system called innate recognises the DNA and RNA of viruses and bacteria that we eat. We are born with this system. It works because of billions of years of evolution where patterns of DNA and RNA are recognised.

The trouble with GM DNA is that it is synthetic and has never existed in nature before. Therefore our innate immune system cannot recognise it.

The above mentioned paper shows how normal DNA and RNA fragments from food travel through to the blood, liver, spleen and muscles. It has been found that GM DNA and RNA does the same. RNA and DNA have a role in turning on and off the immune system and have been linked to illnesses such as some kidney diseases and liver problems.

Pro-biotics like lactobacillus work because the bacterial DNA travels to the liver and spleen and provokes a helpful immune response.

It has been found that the RNA of shrimp is a major human allergen therefore showing RNA affects the immune response.

It seems likely that no one has any idea of what the GM DNA and RNA could be doing to our immune systems. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the vast amount we are still discovering about DNA, RNA and the functioning of our bodies.

In view of this why is GM food on our plates?
Posted by lillian, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 9:10:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, you write well, and someone with unique perception skills has pinpointed you. Do you want the Agronomist label to be carried into your future?

I only talk usually talk with real people, and won't reply again.

I always seek information in published peer reviewed science, and I wouldn't go to a 'prof' at one of the Monsanto/Bayer Universities for answers.

When it comes to GM crop food safety approvals I have to stoop. No peer reviewed science exists, and all I have is the data from the commercial companies of interest. A seeker of wisdom and truth would want to know the best that is available (mclove@dodo.com.au), but I think we understand this is not you.

Thanks for all those 'lots of ways to find out what a protein is' but there is no mass spectroscopy or MALDI-TOF data in the Monsanto RR Canola pages identifying a sequence of potential GOXv247 proteins – there IS a black picture of a western blot scattered with white static dots and arrows on the side to indicate where proteins could be if they could actually be seen. I can email it if you like.

The two links didn't work but I'm a pubmed user and we understand each other well enough here.

On the last topic, I DO live in a parallel universe to you and your friends, and since your universe is one with all of the answers and none of the knowledge, head for Wikipedia – Alternative Splicing as a first lesson. Move on to the ENCODE project findings. Nature follows no simplistic rule of man.

I wouldn’t talk to you this rudely if you had a real name. Consider being yourself. Dump the job.

Yesterday I bought a $10 box of seconds cherries and a $10 box of jam apricots. Today is a day for stewing and making jam. There’s a leg of grass fed mutton in the fridge – perhaps we’ll have a roast, and cherry pie for dessert. Drop in for dinner – plenty to spare - lots to talk about.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 11:07:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have usually given up commenting on these types of threads, but this intrigues me: lillian (or Madeleine since it links on the MADGE website too) could you tell me what journal that review was published I am having trouble finding it anywhere except anti-GM websites.

I am also having trouble finding follow-up studies about the tRNA (not mRNA as stated in the review) causing allergic reactions. I would have thought it was huge news with lots of follow-up if it were true. I notice that the primary author has followed up other avenues like proteins (ie tropomyosin) being the major allergens in shrimp, but nothing on tRNA. If you can point me in the direction that has actually demonstrated RNA allergy I would love to see it. Thanks.

PS what is a 'mayor allergen'? I would have thought it a typo, but the review mentions mayors a lot.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 11:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your statement to Bronwyn regarding corporate control.

Arthur Anderson Consulting revealed at an earlier biotechnology conference that they assisted Monsanto in developing a tactic to control 100% of the seeds grown. Monsanto managers have explained that GM is about consolidating the worlds food supply.

The TRIPS agreement allowed plant breeding to be patented which changed plant breeding as we know it. Instead of public researchers freely sharing their knowledge and techniques, patents were introduced to attract corporate investment.

Monsanto now owns most of the biotechnology patents and intellectual property that is used in both GM and non-GM biotechnology. Public researchers and institutes are cutting alliance deals with Monsanto to use these technologies free of charge in exchange for confidential deals. It is obvious that pushing a path to market for GM is one condition but is the other to add a Monsanto gene to every variety produced?

If so, GM allows a patent over the crop and farmers become contract growers for the patent owner. The restrictions on the contracts can be amended every year and without the right to replant seeds, once locked in, it is difficult to get out.

Plant breeders in countries that grow GM are not producing crop varieties with and without a GM gene, only with. If farmers want a new variety, it comes with a GM gene.

Currently farmers have the ability to trade with all upstream and downstream industries but if we are locked in by contracts to be contract growers for a single supply chain we lose our choice. If alternative industries are unable to source food as there is no choice for farmers, the competition will be removed.

Take it another step and the costs to farmers could increase out of proportion and loans could be extended until the corporates own the land too and farmers become employees.

So what choice will there be if all our food is patented and owned by a single supply chain? What price will farmers and consumers pay?

Some farmers and consumers want fair risk management to avoid this.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 12:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see why you'd give up commenting Bugsy - I'm not really enjoying it. Now, what's your name? I'm not lillian. I went to the link very quickly before picking the children up from school. Like you I saw a lot of 'mayors' - looks like a translation issue.

If you're really interested in discussing the content tell me your name and I'll read it (mclove@dodo.com.au).

Otherwise, stop all this bickering and have a jar of apricot jam - first batch was better than the second. I'm about to stew the cherries.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 4:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Agronomist ( may I call you Agro for short?), seems its your word against a lot of quality peoples here,as well as Julie Newman's, a lady with indisputable farming credentials, lots of integrity and no vested intrest.But I will confine my comments to what I know....my situation on my farm.
I've been on my small acreage for 25 years, slowly evolving a permaculture whilst raising 5 kids and working part time. In the last 5 years have become certified organic, and now my partner and I are full time farmers. We grow 70 or more different fruit and nut crops, berries,veges ,herbs and fungi. We produce pork, lamb,eggs and beef. We sell all this at a farmers market and find our work of supplying people with nutrient dense, chemical free food extremely satisfying.The demand for our produce is growing exponentially,our customers are intelligent and generous . Our farm is an ecosystem where chemicals have rarely been used, and none whatsoever since 1995.Chooks and pigs keep kike at bay and hundreds of birds,bats,frogs,lizards etc keep control of pests. Every year our system becomes more diverse and stable, with the only inputs being waste from local sources like sawdust, paper and grass clippings,some seaweed and organic grain.Kale, broccoli, cabbage and cauli are amongst the most nutritious and anti cancer foods we sell, and our chooks and pigs love these too.This could and should be the way of the future for farming ! to be continued
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Water Corporation have a bore into the Yarragadee 500 meters from our property and are setting up to pump water to 7 far distant towns. This threat to our environment is surpassed only by the spectre of GM canola being introduced to our district, possibly soon.I believe that GM canola will contaminate wild radish and mustard, and will infect the turnips, broccoli,cabbage, kale and many other crops we grow. As no one could realistically expect to rid their district of wild radish etc, we have to accept that there is no going back from GM once it is unleashed.We wont be able to save our brassica seeds any more, nor buy any naturally evolved brassica plant seeds (BTW Monsanto has brought out Yates and 50 other seed companies world wide).The consequences of eating GM kale (for example) is untested on humans and unknown, and the meat and eggs of animals who eat it could be even more dangerous.Tell me Agronomist, should anyone have the right to take away everyone’s choice to eat safe food (organic) by growing GM Canola which as we have already seen ,benefits no one but Monsanto and any claims to the contrary re yield, less chemical needed , etc are no doubt false.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bugsy,
Yes I am a MADGE. I’m assuming that “mayor” is a typo. The review mentions mRNA but the reference is to tRNA http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/12/4169

Here is a link to a conference that Werner Muller spoke at http://www.planet-diversity.org/workshops/workshop1/health-impacts-of-gmos.html It is reasonable that you question why if what he says is true it is not splashed all over the news? It is also reasonable to ask why this is only on anti-GM websites? I cannot answer either question.

MADGE has tried to raise the issue of the lack of research showing the safety of even one GM food. We have released a report on the massive increase in food allergies in Australia and other countries http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/allergy-report.pdf . It coincides with the introduction of GM food. This does not mean it is caused by GM food but it does suggest that GM food should at least be looked at to see if it may be related to this increase.

MADGE has also commented on the inability of Monsanto to discover the protein(s) made by RR canola.

To me, both of these should have raised alarm bells and been at least mentioned in the media. Both received no response. No doubt many other people, concerned about a range of issues, find that their best attempts to provoke sensible discussion and attention are ignored.

Maybe someone who is involved in the media would like to respond on this issue?

The other issue is that criticising the GM industry threatens enormous amounts of patents and money. The companies that control these are extremely well connected and powerful. In contrast groups like MADGE are really just a bunch of concerned people with computers and a bottomless curiosity.

It is easy to try and dismiss us but unless proper, credible evidence is produced we will just keep going. I eat every day and I feed my family and friends and I refuse to give them food that I believe has a strong chance of harming them.

If you want to contact me directly email <info@madge.org.au>
Posted by lillian, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee: "seems its your word against a lot of quality peoples here"

You make the mistake of thinking all of us reading take a post here at face value. OLO provides a soapbox for anybody can stand on, and as such it attracts a lot of other fringe idealists who don't have a lot of other places to stand.

So you look at the words, then try to verify them. In the case of Agronomist - he makes that easy posting links to .gov and .edu sites which make statements I can put some reliance on. In the case of the rest - well there isn't much beyond the words themselves.

And then you get something like this:

lillian: "research showing the safety of even one GM food"

Two errors of fact in 9 words. Firstly, a lot of research has been done, none showing it is unsafe. It's pretty solid too, as it has been eaten by hundreds of millions (billions?) over many years with no statistically discernible ill effects. Secondly it is impossible to "prove" safety in absolute terms.

With efforts like that, it is not hard for one Agronomist post to appear more reliable than all of the posts from the "quality people" combined.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 6:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Madeleine, I’m quite happy being Agronomist, thank you very much for your concern. I wouldn’t worry too much about Julie Newman’s perception skills, after all she also thinks I am Ian, Bill and David as well and a few others. I have no agenda to push here, so no need to publicise who I am. You can take or leave my comments, although I do try to provide references to back things up. You clearly have the better of me, I didn’t know there was a Monsanto or Bayer University, although Monsanto do call their Creve Coeur site a ‘campus’. I am sorry my links didn’t work. Trying to be too clever. Here are some that do. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=protein http://mips.gsf.de/genre/proj/mfungd/ And Westerns are just another way of identifying proteins. As for peer reviewed safety articles you should start with this list – There are more than 200 and most are peer reviewed http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

Merri bee, good to know you have your farm running the way you want. I work with a lot of farmers who have similar desires, but they don’t all see the future of farming the way you do. My job is to work with them to get the best out of the system they want to use. To do that I have to gather knowledge about what goes on, not simply reinforcing prejudices by searching the internet. As to canola ‘contaminating’ wild radish, I suggest you look at this old piece of research. http://www.springerlink.com/content/fjljdtjd514enyx1/?p=4d5c0649acc14e2a8721e14b6b4b07ac&pi=0 They work somewhere near you I believe. You may be able to find the odd ‘contaminated’ wild radish, but they represent no threat at all to your kale. Unfortunately, GM canola is a benefit to someone other than Monsanto. Turns out these people are canola growers in Canada who benefit to the tune of a 10% yield benefit, 31 million litres less fuel used for cultivation per year, less herbicide used and $5.80 an acre more in their pockets. http://www.canola-council.org/uploads/biotechnology/manual/GMO/17908_Transgenic_Canola_1.pdf So the claims about yield, less chemical, etc. seem to be true.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 7:28:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Madeleine, I didn't think you were lillian, just that both of you were MADGE.

lillian, I still cannot find any further work on RNA allergies. I don't expect it to be splashed all over the news, just a couple of confirming studies or perhaps even a follow-up study on the original work. To date, as far as I can tell, it remains the only example of a reported RNA allergy, but there's no further work. None.
I found a review on the molecular biology of food allergies that mentions it, http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3184363 but has doubts about it's veracity because some protein was left in the sample. Given the lack of follow-up, I'm inclined to agree.
I also cannot find the journal your review was published in, if you could provide a reference for it, I'd much appreciate it.

The author of that review mentioned earlier has some other interesting papers:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12045422?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
andhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344340?ordinalpos=36&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

These directly address the risk issue for allergies. I find them quite reasonable.

While I have heard of "alternative splicing", I think that everyone (including biotech-companies) have been aware of it for some time. I'm having trouble though, in digging out references explaining how single-exon genes are alternatively spliced, or any that show how the modified genes like the bt-toxin or GOX are alternatively spliced to produce allergens. Perhaps you could provide a link or just a reference for me?

I understand that the broad bean amylase inhibitor was shown to increase allergenicity in peas, but that one never made it to market and quite rightly too.

I will decline both your offers of discussing these issues off the forum, as I can navigate websites quite well by myself, thank you. Anything that needs to be said can be said here.

I'm not really sure what apricot jam or granna's cooking has to do with anything, as I'm pretty sure as most of her life my granna had food variably sprayed with ddt, organochlorines, organophosphates and a multitude of other pesticides. One thing I am glad of is that there is much less of those sorts of chemicals these days.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 8:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets think logically:
Why would GM canola yield more, use less fuel through less tillage, less chemical or improve farmers profits in Australia?

The GM part only confers tolerance to glyphosate which means it is ONLY a weed control tool. Glyphosate is non-residual and can ONLY be applied from 2-6 leaf stage. Unlike Canada, we don't start the season with a snow melt giving the moisture requirement we need to start weed germination. Unlike Canada, Australia's worst weeds in canola are radish and ryegrass (Canada do not have these weed problems) and both need residual control as they keep germinating with every rain. As there is no alternative post emergent wild radish or mustard control, these weeds will appear which will downgrade samples and reduce yields. Farmers already grow TT and Clearfield crops so our weeds are controlled and TT is a success because it gives post emergent control of wild radish and turnip.
That means that farmers need to use more chemical as the residual Trifluralin is applied when sowing to give residual control of the yield robbing ryegrass on emergence. Selectives may be needed after 6leaf stage. Also additional chemicals need to be applied to glyphosate for volunteer control.
Part of the resistance management plan is to replace glyphosate use in following rotations which means that either apply the far more toxic but less effective Sprayseed OR use tillage (NOT less tillage). Farmers in Australia already use minimum till so it does not mean less tillage, it means more tillage.
The difference is the cost. GM canola is astronomical and using basic calculations on seed cost and use only, farmers need around 12% increase in yield just to pay this years discounted costs.

So:
GM canola does not yield more as the GM part is nothing to do with yield.
GM canola gives less weed control than what we already have.
GM canola encourages more tillage which will mean more fuel.
GM canola costs far more which will mean a loss to farmers.

Remove the hype and you find its a scam.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 10:30:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM farmer: "Remove the hype and you find its a scam."

Perhaps. But no one is forcing you to take part in the scam. All the current legislation is doing is allowing individual farmers to make that assessment for themselves, rather than having your opinion forced on them.

It is possible you eventually won't able to grow non-GM because all your peers decide you are wrong, and so your sources of non-GM seeds dry up. I presume this is nothing new as it must happen with other seed varieties now.

All this has been pointed out over and over again in previous threads. Yet you raise it anew in every thread. It does get tiresome.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 11:28:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bugsy,
I'll answer your last post in list form:
- RNA, allergies and follow up studies, maybe the lack of follow up studies could have something to do with the research money not being available. Non-GM farmer gave an excellent description of what's happening to funding in this era of public/private partnerships in a previous post
- alternative splicing and the awareness of biotech companies. The article we are commenting on is all about how all the long held beliefs of genetics are being constantly overturned. The biotechs have to hold to the old science or their patents become unenforcable
- the study that found a GM pea caused allergies in mice underwent a level of testing that none of the GM food we are currently eating has done. This shows how threadbare the testing regime is.
- I offered to discuss things with you off list as at that time I thought you were a real person and may be interested in longer emails and deeper discussion. Never mind it will save me time!
- apricot jam and grandmothers. My grandmother grew up on a farm. She grew fruit and veg and raised rabbits in wartime England to keep her family fed. She thought it was extremely important to buy good quality food as there had been various nasty food adulterations in her day. She taught me a lot about health and nutrition. My father trained as a market gardener. He saw the introduction of pesticides in the 1940's. Luckily he read the instructions and either wore protective clothing or stayed away from them. He said after 4 years the pest infestations were as bad as ever. So I value the experiences and lessons taught to me by my parents and grandparents.

I'll finish off with a quick reply to rstuart. If everything is so wonderful why have US farmers created this website all about how they are being ripped off by big agribusiness? http://www.competitivemarkets.com/

I'm off to do the Chistmas shopping and, if the level of discussion doesn't improve, I'm not sure I'll be back.

Seasons greetings
Posted by lillian, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 12:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, You’re a lovely pseudonym and I’d love to listen to you and learn how you feel about GM stuff, but I gave you my email address because I thought you might like the recipe for jam.

It’s simple – a bit more apricots than sugar in weight, and a little bit of water. Boil it up.

It went really frothy early and was over-boiling but once I skimmed off the froth it boiled away quietly. People have different ways of telling if it’s ready. I spoon some onto a plate and wait for it to cool – then push a spoon backwards through it and if it ripples a little bit on the surface it’s near enough. I’d boiled up the jam jars and lids for 10 minutes beforehand.

I was remembering my grandmother because the gardenia had flowered. I also saved a lot of money on jam. That was all.

When my 6yo came home from school she hugged me and told me over and over again how much she loved me – she was very happy with the jam, and cut up apricots to make apricot crumble, so we didn’t have cherry pie after all.

Hi Lillian, fellow MADGEr – been doing some reading?! – the MADGEs are such good readers. What do you think about reading through the last of the 200 ‘safety studies’ by commercial companies of interest or offshoots verifying that if we feed our children on 15% GM feed and slaughter them in three months they’ll still have nice weight breasts and rumps? Would that be valuable? Did Bugsy say GOX? How is GOX relevant?

Bugsy, I wouldn’t talk GM with a pseudonym – it would be silly. It would be like eating pseudo-food. But indeed, anytime the plume de nom wants a chat or some jam, that would be lovely – I’ve lots of both.

Bronwyn, thanks for your kind words, and if you or Rojo would like the ...Continued story please don't hesitate to email.

Best wishes!
Posted by Madeleine Love, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 1:33:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,
Claiming that non-GM farmers are going to have a choice is not correct and that is what this debate is about. By allowing GM farmers to give GM a whirl means that non-GM farmers are stuck with the responsibility of trying to keep GM from contaminating our non-GM property which industry knows is impossible. No choice for farmers means no choice for consumers.
How about resolving the issue and promoting legislative changes to ensure that the GM industry accept full liability for any economic loss that their product causes.
Repetive denial of a problem followed by denial by the GM sector to accept responsibility if our concerns are right is why issues are so boringly repititive. If the GM sector believed their misleading propaganda of "she'll be right Mate" they would happily accept liability.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 1:44:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lillian,
I don't think that lack of funding in agricultural sciences has anything to do with RNA allergies. The original material concerned shrimp. Since this was also the only paper that can be found that even mentions any sort of data on RNA allergy makes me suspicious of its accuracy. I would have thought that if RNA could actually cause allergies, then it would be funded by health research funding bodies, like the NIH or NHMRC. It has huge public health implications well past the area of GM food and yet seems to have been ignored for 20 years. If there appeared to be a case for the spread of allergies caused by errant RNA in our food, then I would certainly campaign for more research to be done. However, it would be difficult to get a grant funded that on the basis of only one study from over 20 years ago, for reasons that I think are obvious. Is there anything more recent?

As far as I am aware, the biotech companies are not working from old paradigms, nor stuck in the genetic dark ages. Alternative splicing and various other modifiying processes such as post-translational protein phosphorylation etc. are well known to all university based genetics laboratories, and have been for some time, they are in the textbooks.

I am a real person, and I am really interested in public health, but before I go off wearing my MADGE T-shirt and holding signs up outside my local members office, I would like to know more about the basis of what I will be arguing about. As far as I can tell so far, all I see is a bunch of shallow inferences on how some stuff we don't quite understand could possibly cause something that could be bad for us.

I'm sorry that you have found the level of discourse not to your liking, but I'm not entirely sure what you were expecting. I have little interest in jam. I don't like to have off the record discussions and certainly would not want any identifying information passed about here.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 4:16:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“These results are discussed together with the consequences of commercial release of transgenic crops. Transgenes can escape via seeds and volunteer rape, and seeds of interspecific hybrids between rape and wild relatives can survive and germinate after several years, ensuring genetic and spatial spread of transgenes.”
This is just one paragraph from the hundreds of references I found for the fact that canola (known as rape elsewhere) and wild radish do in fact cross pollinate, by following your link Agronomist, so thankyou.
I was told about the crossbreeding of canola with kale by associate professor Dr Bob Longmore... didn’t get the facts from the internet in that instance.
Buggsy you mentioned DDT and other persistent dangerous chemicals....all put out by the company that developed GMOs.... Monsanto. They said their PCBs were safe, they were not. They said their other inventions DDT,agent orange and even Roundup - ” the environmentally friendly herbicide”, were safe and of course we now know they are not.
In each case the company swore their products were safe and it was only after many lives were ruined and many millions of dollars were spent in court did it became blatantly obvious that these chemicals were deadly. Then they were slowly banned around the world......I know, roundup isn’t banned .Yet.
Now, Monsanto (with your help) is saying GM is safe, but in the case of GM it won’t be able to be recalled or banned, it will with us forever and everywhere.
rstuart ...you say lots of research on GM food has been done, none showing its unsafe...millions eating it with no discernible ill effect..blah blah.
People only need to look back at the start of this discussion to see the results of rats fed 10 days on GM spuds...scary!Shrunken brains and testicles.
Posted by Merri bee, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 9:44:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a paragraph from David R Schuberts article on nutritionally enhanced plants, like golden rice.http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/jmf.2008.0094?cookieSet=1

"There is in fact no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional
breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that since there
is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are
safe (see, for example, McHughen and Smyth,50 Bradford
et al.,51 and Miller et al.52) is both illogical and false. There
are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support
this contention.53 Without proper epidemiological studies,
most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies
have been conducted. The necessity of labeling all GM
products and particularly NEPs is therefore critical if there
is any hope of monitoring adverse health consequences due
to their consumption. For example, it would have been impossible
to identify the source of the toxic tryptophan supplement
if the product were not traceable through labeling."

He is referring to the tragedy of 1500 or so people harmed seriously, 37 killed by the GM food supplement L tryptophan.The article points out that the tiniest change to the genetic make up done by GE scientists wreaked this untold havoc. Please friends avoid American wine which may contain a GM yeast , unlabelled, with some seriously bad unintended by- products.
It is tiresome all right having to repeat these warnings because you keep repeating false assurances rstaurt.
Posted by Merri bee, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 10:03:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
INABILTY TO EXPLAIN;its not really'science'[as quoted]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

>>took geneticists more than 270 tries to clone“Dolly”the sheep.But what of the 269 Dollys that didn’t make it?Many were deformed and disfigured,stillborn or unable to mature.

...Tobacco-plants were genetically modified with the intention to increase their natural acid profile.Instead they produced a toxic compound not normally found in tobacco.A genetically modified potato unintentionally increased its starch content some 40 to 200 times.

The biotech industry erroneously believes that their foreign gene will behave exactly as it does in its natural setting.The working assumption is that genes determine characteristics in linear/causal chains:one gene,[they believe]gives one protein,gives one function...

..Our current understanding tells us that genes behave in complex inter-related non-linear networks:causation is multi-dimensional and circular;and genes are subject to environmental feedback regulation.

All these factors are excluded by the central reductionist dogma of the biotech industry,which prefers to adhere to the“one gene,one protein,one function” model of yesteryear.

This narrow reductionist mindset allows GM companies to assert that their foreign gene will only produce the one intended protein and therefore will behave in the precise and controlled way they expect.

That the GM companies assume that their inserted foreign gene will only express the one intended protein...In fact,the number of genes in nature that actually express a single protein can be counted on two hands.Most genes code for many proteins.In fact,the fruit-fly holds ..highest number of proteins expressed by a single gene-38,016!

Disturbingly, the biotech industry and our food regulators do no testing for theses possible outcomes.

But there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that they should...

..Mice fed GM soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells and rats fed GM corn showed significant changes in their blood cells,livers and kidneys.

All these GM products had been tested and approved for human consumption.Could the narrow reductionist lens with which the biotech industry views genetic engineering be resulting in unintended effects ..the biotech industry is using the dim candle of 1960’s genetics to assure us that GM food products in the 21st century are safe.

AND yet you blindly accept their deceptions
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 10:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee's reference about the absence of post-market testing is quite right...

GM promoters have repeatedly stated that we have been eating GM food for years with no ill effects. However there have been no studies to investigate if GM food has been safe to eat or not, and this was confirmed by Food Standards Chief Scientist Dr Paul Brent (02 6271 2222) at a Senate Estimates hearing on October 22nd.this year

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11355.pdf pdf P83

Senator SIEWERT—Okay. Just to clarify, there is no post-approval review of any of the products that you have already approved?

Dr Brent—There is no post-market monitoring per se. There were attempts in the UK to do some research on this issue. The UK Food Safety Authority or agency actually commissioned some research to see how difficult it would be to do post-market monitoring on GM foods. I think the result of that and the consensus was that it was virtually impossible to do that sort of work. I think the UK spent almost £1 million on that research and it was dropped.

Senator SIEWERT—Thank you

For simple practical reasons it is impossible to fully assess the random alterations in the transformed DNA as a result of the imprecision of GM techniques. The safety of the food cannot be guaranteed before market, nor can the safety be assessed after.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 11:24:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bugsy
Research
My reference to funding for research was to show that it is very difficult to come by. Since Government has made policies of “public/private” research it is likely that funding for research into RNA is not seen as a priority. This would be just as likely in health as in agriculture.

If you are concerned that something 20 years old or a lack of studies must be wrong I suggest you read “The Shadows of Consumption” by Peter Dauvergne. It details how lead was introduced to petrol in the US in the 1920’s. It was approved even though several scientists spoke against it. The US Surgeon General’s report recommended continuing research but was ignored. Critics of lead in petrol were called “misguided zealots” and “incompetent”.

The most noted scientist was Robert Kehoe. He was the founding director of a lab (Kettering Laboratory of Applied Physiology at the University of Cincinnati) opened with a donation from General Motors and DuPont. For 40 years the labs findings were that leaded gasoline was no danger to health.

Finally in 1965 a geochemist, Clair Patterson, found that lead in the atmosphere was 1000 times higher than natural levels and this was due to leaded gasoline.

The industry fought an enormous campaign to maintain leaded gasoline and was defeated due to proper studies finally being funded into the health of children, the loss of lobbying power and the development of catalytic converters.

Developments in genetics and epigenetics
The whole basis of biotech needs rethinking as there is no such thing as an industrial patentable gene. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/01frame.html?ex=1340942400&en=e8a6202e0162538f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Shallow MADGE
You regard MADGE as shallow. I suggest you look at our website www.madge.org.au

Jam
Not everyone likes jam. However women are generally the ones who shop, cook and prepare food. We see the connection between good food and good health on a daily practical level. We try and eat sensible during pregnancy and make sure our kids and families thrive.
This is why the introduction of inadequately tested, unlabelled, unnecessary, scientifically flawed GM food is such an outrage.
Posted by lillian, Thursday, 18 December 2008 7:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi, Madeleine, I thought you MADGErs found the level of discourse here not to your liking, but you are back? Like, Bugsy I am unsure what you were expecting. To have everyone agree with you?

I have been following this discussion for the best part of 20 years. For the last 13 I have seen the crops in the ground and dealt with farmers growing them. To be brutally honest, the crops have done nothing that you MADGErs, Merri bee or Julie Newman say they do. Food regulatory agencies around the World have looked at them and approved them as safe. There has been more scientific scrutiny of GM crops than any other food we eat. Despite this scrutiny, there is no harm that can be pointed at GM per se. Or as an acquaintance of mine likes to say “There has not been as much as a sniffle cause by GM foods.”

Allow me to let you in on a secret. I know a large number of farmers who grow GM crops. They do so because the crops work for them. It is really as simple as that. If they didn’t work, these farmers would not grow them.

And just to put some more myths to bed. Monsanto didn’t invent DDT – Geigy (a Swiss company) did.

The problem with Showa Denko’s L tryptophan was due to poor filtering, not GM. You can read the reports from the US FDA and CDC http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html, http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ltr3.htm
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 18 December 2008 7:29:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes lillian, I looked at your website, that is one reason I find your whole line of argument exceptionally shallow. You have effectively compiled a great of websites, news releases and junk science papers that agree with you, well done.

There are more than a couple of logical fallacies and intellectual sleight-of-hand going on here and on your website. For example, overlaying the anaphylaxis admissions and GM crop approvals is cute. It looks especially amusing when you have taken two independent phenomena and change the axes to make them look like they correlate. Why don’t we just put a trend graph for CO2 emissions as well?
The trouble is, the data for crop approvals starts at 50, the axis has been dodgied and the trend towards higher anaphylaxis admission rates starts well before any GM was approved, even according to your own graph.

Madeleine has pinpointed why I have generally given up commenting on these types of threads. Your argument basically runs: You cannot prove the safety of the food, before consumption therefore it must not be consumed.

Completely ignored is the fact that other statements are also true: You cannot guarantee the safety of ANY food before consumption. There are daily health scares on all sorts of foods, the vast majority of which are completely unrelated to GM.

This exposes the weakness of the argument: it is far easier to prove adverse health effects than a notion of ‘safety’ (safety has to be carefully defined or you will constantly be shifting the goalposts). And yet it appears that you cannot prove anything either way and so taking the a priori position of it being unsafe is a faith-based proposition.

It’s very difficult to argue against this position as you might as well try to reason a fundamentalist out of their religion. If one persists, they very seriously run the risk of being accused of being in league with the devil, or in this case Monsanto (or both).

That you also have to enlist the help of (unrelated) junk science, speaks volumes on the strength of your position.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 18 December 2008 12:02:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist

"There has been more scientific scrutiny of GM crops than any other food we eat. Despite this scrutiny, there is no harm that can be pointed at GM per se."

I have yet to be convinced that any of this 'scientific scrutiny' you speak of has ever extended to the point of conducting objective and comprehensive studies on the long term health ramifications of consuming GM food.

Madeleine's Hansard reference to the interchange between Senator Siewart and Food Standards Chief Scientist, Dr Paul Brent, very much confirms to me that there has been no such 'scrutiny'.

Dr Brent's words bear that out very clearly — "There is no post-market monitoring per se. There were attempts in the UK to do some research on this issue. The UK Food Safety Authority or agency actually commissioned some research to see how difficult it would be to do post-market monitoring on GM foods. I think the result of that and the consensus was that it was virtually impossible to do that sort of work. I think the UK spent almost £1 million on that research and it was dropped."

A fairly damning admission, wouldn't you say?

No one truly knows that this food is safe. You and the scientific fraternity are asking us to take you on trust. And when I look at history and recall the trajectories of some of our past 'scientifically-tested' products, things like thalidomide, asbestos, tobacco, DDT, leaded paint and petrol and alcohol, I'm afraid I just don't feel very reassured at all.

I don't have a science degree. I'm just another one of the women Lillian referred to who are "the ones who shop, cook and prepare food" and who "see the connection between good food and good health on a daily practical level." My natural protective instinct is kicking in strongly here and telling me that something smells about all this so-called 'scientific scrutiny' and the glib assurances that go along with it.
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 18 December 2008 12:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, I don’t think that the comments of Dr. Paul Brent are at all damning. Perhaps you might like to point out the post-market monitoring that has been done on the effect of chemical mutagenesis on food? Or perhaps those done on irradiation of food? Or even those done on release of new food types? What about kiwi fruit? Where is the post market monitoring of this crop? What about atrazine-resistant canola? Has there been any post-market monitoring of that?

Effectively, what I am saying is that you are seeking to hold GM food crops to a standard that you wouldn’t even consider for any other food product. This is despite the fact that there is no evidence at all that GM per se will produce a dangerous product and that regulatory agencies around the world assess GM foods before they are introduced. Kiwi fruit weren’t assessed before being foisted on the public, despite evidence of harm that can occur with this food. Atrazine-resistant canola was not assessed by food regulators either. All you can offer in support of your position are vague fears.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 19 December 2008 7:38:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist. Study done by respected senior scientists Arpad and Susan Pustai.The rats brains and testicles shrunk, showed stomach lesions and liver atrophy on 10 days GM potatoes. That was a study that showed harm from GM foods.Every time you say Gm has never been proven harmful, I will have to reply with this. Im going to just paste it in every time.It was detailed at the start of this discussion, there are many more experiments done by independent researchers with little funding.Like the one where 40% of the Monarch butterflies fed GM pollen died unexpectedly.Univeristy in California.Watch the movie "The Future of Food" for the details.And the latest word about GM cotton in QLD is that farmers are finding they are better off planting conventional cotton!Even though your mob has W.A. ag minister Terry Redmond declaring in conversation with my friend that NON GM cotton will not even grow in QLD any more!. He's going to feel pretty silly .
Posted by Merri bee, Friday, 19 December 2008 10:11:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That was a such a beautiful comment Bronwyn. Recently Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said we should be looking at GM food through the eyes of science, not superstition, and as a lover of scientific pursuit I agree.

If only there was some science. Rather we're being asked to have a superstitious faith in completely untested products we feel very wrong about and don't want to buy.

We can't even recognise GM products through labelling and have no choice. I can't tell if the 'maize thickener' in jam is GM or not. It's not like GM food is a fat round kiwi fruit or something.

And Merri bee made excellent points about the chemicals previously used by farmers, now banned.

When overwhelmed in discussion we notice that the unknown people arguing in favour of GM will tag their argument onto farmers, saying that GM is ‘good for farmers’.

Your point Merri bee now comes back into play – the banned chemicals were also once ‘good for farmers’.

MADGE has a very strong position on supporting farming and this is not trivial - our children’s food depends on it. We know that few farmers exist in such a morally, emotionally and spiritually degraded condition that they would choose to grow unsafe crops.

Indeed it is only the lack of information about the food safety of the crops driving the potential of the GM industry. But the case on the danger of GM food has been settled.

We are very glad that as a result of this forum there are new MADGEs – the situation is clear to all who have the opportunity to see it, and thank you to the pro-GMers for providing the counterpoint.

They may twitch, Merri Bee and Bronwyn.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Friday, 19 December 2008 10:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
merri bee,

"And the latest word about GM cotton in QLD is that farmers are finding they are better off planting conventional cotton"

depends on the circumstances, especially neighbouring crop types or vegetation, the more arid areas have less insect pressure simply because of less opportunities for insects to breed.
If the farms are relatively weed free then no doubt roundup ready(RR) would be a waste of money too.
Of course an individual farmer might be better off financially growing conventional cotton, but is the environment? Bt cotton has reduced insecticide application by 85%, and RR cotton has reduced residual chemical use by approx 45%. The 2007-8 cotton crop was comprised by 96% of GM varieties so it must have some financial attributes because it sure isn't free.(CRDC annual report)

"Like the one where 40% of the Monarch butterflies fed GM pollen died unexpectedly" I think you'll find it's caterpillars that are susceptable, and I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that feeding Bt expressing pollen would be anything other than detrimental to caterpillars.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full

So how many would survive with an application of conventional insecticide? Not 60%(assuming your info was correct). What about if using a Bt spray that even organic farmers can use? What if they weren't fed more pollen than would normally be eaten in the field?
Monarchs generally don't eat the Bt crops so they are at less risk of death in Bt crop than in a conventional one, hence the overall environmental benefit of Bt expressing crops, particularly on non-target species.
Posted by rojo, Friday, 19 December 2008 11:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist

"All you can offer in support of your position are vague fears."

And with respect, all you're offering are equally vague reassurances.

I don't buy your argument at all that because no post market monitoring has been done on the health effects of eating 'atrazine-resistant canola', or food that's been subjected to 'chemical mutagenesis' or 'irradiation', that by extension there's no need either for post market monitoring of GM food. Personally I wouldn't eat any of this food if I had the choice. This unmonitored 'scientific' interference with the food we eat is one of the reasons I'm now endeavouring to eat food that is grown organically.

I appreciate your calm and consistent reasoning. It hasn't persuaded me but it's been an interesting debate.

To Madeleine, Lillian, Merri bee and Non-GM farmer - enjoy growing your food, cooking it, preserving it and nourishing your families and thanks for all the informative posts.

Happy Christmas to you all!
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 19 December 2008 11:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rojo/what gmo is doing[to bees]
update now bumble-bees too?
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1330&category=Environment

this is my conclusion as well

the gm corn when fed to pigs resulted in the pigs stopping breeding,same deal with cattle,they either birth a empty birth bag or other defectives but mainly a huge drop in fertility is observed

bees need royal-jelly[can the gm pollen make royal/jelly?defective royal-jelly?][are humans con-suming it royally?]

having young is a clue that these young could be surviving but stuck in a stage of growth,or,that the hive is barly surviving the natural hive decline[higher mortality rate][due to a declining birth rate]

the evidence is in on the declining fertility rate on the pigs and cows,but science hasnt even begun on them

a few farmers are doing the research themselves,it is sad when big buisness has the power of life and death,owning even the genetic markers that are needed to prove any crime the tracers that will even allow them to make claim to the honeey harvested by the bees they helped to kill

we know the first signs in the end times are food shortages,we seem to ne on schedual for the religious nutters, followed by sickness,put your trust in pills and science ?[are you willing to bet your life on it?]or your childrens?[their first concern is your well being [right?}
who are you serving?

science is in it for the money,is this much money deserving of going to those who are prepared to do anything for it?how much is your food worth#

farmers have noted this with pigs fed on ge corn
another farmer on hearing this replicated it with his cows
needless to say monsanto wouldnt allow research on its monopoly high proffiteering monopoly marketing product[they own the genes and now are suing anyone who's crop reveals cross contamination[even by wind drift]by presence in thier harvest of'thier'genes

so infertility will be unable to be confirmed[but ownership of the gene material is a done deal]govt being the way govt is it wont check on it either[in time we will see if ge has its harvest,as it becomes more clear

continued
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 20 December 2008 12:14:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ge cotton seed being fed to cattle,ge-canola,ge-corn,its only a matter of time before we see the fruit of this mono cropping experiment on monopolising our food seeds,

100,000 indian farmers comitted suicide because thier cotton costs quadrupled[they had to lend money from money lenders to by the fertiliser and roundup,then got reduced harvest and low cotton price
and now even the native cotton contains ge contamination[thus legally belongs to monsanto[plus to get the seed you have to sign wavers indemnifying monsanto[clever marketing]

it will have an end cost[but by then they will be so big'to fail'no one let alone any govt can touch them
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/102757

WHY BEES ARE DYING.GEN-MODIFIED CROPS
THE BIRDS/BEES 101:THE BEES REJECT POLLINATING GM CROPS
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=97448

Wild Bees Reject GM Crop[Potential Major_Impact on Pollination]

Bee abundance data were collected using pan traps and standardized sweep netting, and pollination deficit was assessed by comparing the number of seeds per fruit from open-pollinated and supplementally pollinated flowers.

There was no pollination deficit in organic fields,a moderate pollination deficit in conventional fields,and the greatest pollination deficit in GM fields.

Bee abundance was greatest in organic fields,followed by conventional fields, and lowest in GM fields.Overall,there was a strong,positive relationship between bee abundance at sampling locations and reduced pollination deficits.


Ecological Society of America,

From Ecological Society of America[Referring to[Sept.2004] a peer-reviewed article

Department of Biological Sciences,Simon Fraser,University,Canada

Abstract. The ecological impacts of agriculture are of concern, especially with genetically modified and other intensive, modern cropping systems, yet little is known about effects on wild bee populations and subsequent implications for pollination.

Pollination deficit(the difference between potential and actual pollination)and bee abundance were measured in organic,conventional, and herbicide-resistant,genetically modified(GM)canola fields (Brassica napus and B. rapa)in northern Alberta,Canada, in the summer of 2002.Complete article:
http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=1587

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-842180934463681887

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television(ARTE - French-German cultural tv channel)by French journalist and film ...

The World According to Monsanto[A documentary that Americans won't ever see.]The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 20 December 2008 12:21:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee, I think you mean the study done by Arpad Puzstai and Stanley Ewen? I have read the paper, you can find it here if you like http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)05860-7/fulltext . The assessment made by many others in the field is that the research reported is fundamentally flawed. The paper really showed that mice get sick on a diet of potatoes, GM or not. GMOPundit has a nice commentary http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/rats-fed-bad-diets-have-lots-of-changes.html Monarch butterfly larvae are susceptible to Bt. If they are fed Bt they die. Normally, they encounter almost no Bt in GM corn fields, but if they are fed Bt anthers in the lab they die. After this story broke several million dollars was spent finding out that monarch caterpillars were not affected by Bt corn http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full .

Bronwyn, the reason I raised the lack of post market monitoring was not to say it shouldn’t be done, but to point out that you are seeking to hold GM foods to a higher standard than other food, based on nothing other than vague fears. There is no post market monitoring of food that we know to be dangerous to health (like kiwi fruit), yet I don’t hear calls for that. There is no a priori reason for GM food to be more dangerous than conventional food and the vast number of studies have found little of concern, yet you still want post-market monitoring.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 20 December 2008 7:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Madge website shallow? Its the most intresting,deep ,profound website I have seen for a while with great links. Especially moving was the Indian website with photos of many Indian people holding signs “’like No Gm for my village” etc.
Thanks for a great post Under one god, you have nailed it.
Agronomist and Rogo , it is confusing that Bacillus Thuringiensis has the Initial BT, but let me explain. Bacillus Thuringienisis TOXIN is not sprayed on organic crops.
Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria that is harmless to animals, humans, and beneficial insects and may be used on organic crops right up until harvest.The product we use is Dipel, and it is a powder that is sprinkled on cabbage family leaves. Only in the gut of the pest caterpillar( the white cabbage butterfly)who ingests the bacteria will it create a toxin, which forms crystals and spores inside the caterpillar and cause its death.I stress that this toxin is naturally only found in the gut of a caterpillar.Now the bio tech scientists chose that toxin (I guess it sounded like an organic product and had friendly connotations) to insert into every cell of their BT corn , soybeans and cotton.So every part of the plant including the corn cob (that potentially cattle, pigs chooks and us eat ) is a registered pesticide!Of course the constant exposure of insect pests to the BT leads to resistance to it. The trash and pollen of the BT cotton crops has residual toxicity in the ground .The plant roots exude the toxin and mychorizal fungi are being killed off. Mychorizzal fungi are essential to plants, forests where it is destroyed start dying. It acts like the root hairs of a plant, and if you don’t have...to be continued
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 21 December 2008 10:28:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...... mychorizal fungi are being killed off. Mychorizzal fungi are essential to plants.Forests where it is destroyed start dying. It acts like the root hairs of a plant, and if you don’t have mychorrizal fungi, plants will only look good if they receive artificial fertilizer. It is my theory that this is why the traditional corn grown in Mexico grows well without purchased fertilizer but GM wont grow well without it.Its terrible that the traditional corn there has been contaminated with American GM corn . Waterways near the BT cotton crops in QLD are being effected by the BT pollen and trash... the water flea and caddis fly in streams , vital to ecosystems,are being harmed.This report available MADGE website.
I don’t use Dipel, the blue wrens around here feast on cabbage butterfly lavae.Every year I hear more owls,frogs, and helpful critters on our land.
Back to (As in round and round we go) the harm done to rats on GM potato diet, Would the Scottish government give these respected scientists so much money if there was a chance they would conduct fundamentally flawed experiments? Surley they would have many control group of rats or was it mice (and does it matter as long as they were the same creature in both groups?) eating non gm potatoes for 10 days.Check the article at the top of this discussion.
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 21 December 2008 10:49:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee, the fact the Scottish Government, or indeed any other Government, provided money for research doesn’t automatically make that research good. In this case, the research was fundamentally flawed by the fact that a potato diet is bad for rats. The researchers (and the Scottish Government) may have not have known that at the beginning of the trial. However, not to recognise that as a problem in interpreting the results makes the conclusions fundamentally flawed.

Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacterium that manufactures an insect toxin (actually it manufactures several). The protein made by plants is to all intents the same as one made by the bacterium. Oh and I am sure that if you fed Dipel to Monarch butterfly larvae they would die. There isn’t any evidence that Bt affects mychorrhiza on crops. Likewise, there is no evidence that Bt cotton in Australia has any negative impact on water or aquatic life. All the evidence points to a positive impact through the reduction in pesticides in water. http://www.cottonaustralia.com.au/facts/factsandfigures.aspx?id=14 http://www.cottonaustralia.com.au/library/publications/Biotechnology10yearsOff.pd
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 24 December 2008 11:04:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merry christmas agronomist from Canada. I see the same ol myths have resurfaced once again. Keep up the fight to educate the public with the real science of ag biotech. Those who truly want to learn thank you for your efforts. Those who do not, well, do not.

cheers

Rob
Posted by Rob from Canada, Thursday, 25 December 2008 10:55:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob, I find the people who are pro GM are the ones who don’t want to learn. Maybe one day they will investigate and be as horrified as the rest of us. Agronomist tries to blind people with science. But even he would not pretend to know everything about plants, the human body and all their complex interactions. It is astonishing that some people have the arrogance to play around with the very foundation of all life... DNA, the carrier of genetic code, and have released their experiments into the environment to proliferate.If these people knew they would be held liable for the damage they inflict on non gm and organic agriculture, people and animals who eat their creations and the eco systems that suffer , they would never have emerged from the lab with this stuff.
Agro, your link to the Lancet re the rat experiment is still not working weeks later, but if you are so familiar with it and dismiss it as flawed, why would you be confused as to whether it was rats or mice? There is evidence aplenty that Bt pollen and crop debri is affecting life in nearby streams:
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/article.php?id=6
I will fight on for my grandchildrens right to eat natural, non GM broccoli and kale.
Posted by Merri bee, Thursday, 25 December 2008 9:10:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee, there is one problem with this forum and that is you can’t go back and correct errors in posts. I incorrectly wrote mice rather than rats earlier. You have picked that up. But I cannot change the post. A break occurred in the link due to the forum software. There is nothing I can do about that. You will have to copy and paste the link.

Merri bee, you made a specific claim that Bt cotton was affecting stream life in Australia. When I ask for evidence you sent me to an anti-GM blog. In all that blog, there is no mention of damage to streams in Australia. Instead what the blog author has done is cherry pick the data and fail to recognise that the studies on Daphnia used the equivalence of 50 g of ground up corn kernals/ L water, before they found any effect. You will not find such conditions in nature. Lower concentrations had no effect. The caddisfly study was similar and had to use more than 3 times the highest concentration they observed in streams to produce an effect. You will find some discussion of this blog on an earlier page http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7685&page=0 Where links to other studies are given.

Rob, thanks for your support here.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 26 December 2008 8:28:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agromist said>>Instead what the blog author has done is cherry pick the data and fail to recognise that the studies on Daphnia used the equivalence of 50 g of ground up corn kernals/ L water, before they found any effect. You will not find such conditions in nature. Lower concentrations had no effect. The caddisfly study was similar and had to use more than 3 times the highest concentration they observed in streams to produce an effect>>

great this explains why they dont use water in Corn Flour Pancakes

2 cups corn flour 2 large eggs, well beaten
1/2 tsp ground cinnamon 2 cups buttermilk
1/2 tsp salt olive oil
2 tsp baking soda



Mix the dry ingredients together real well in a large mixing bowl. Beat the eggs, then add the buttermilk to them. Mix well and add to the dry mixture.

Coat the bottom of a large frying pan with olive oil and heat up over a medium fire. Add the batter by the spoonful to the skillet and cook on both sides until golden brown. Serve with cane syrup or maple syrup.

better hope the corn flour dont get washed into any local flood eh
your using the same reasoning that puts mercury in our teeth[and vacines
Posted by one under god, Friday, 26 December 2008 11:01:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri Bee said:
"It is astonishing that some people have the arrogance to play around with the very foundation of all life... DNA, the carrier of genetic code, and have released their experiments into the environment to proliferate."

It would appear you are unaware of how new varieties of crops are made. Each and every one has its DNA altered to make the new variety. The method of DNA change differs with some being completely random while others have designed specific changes to the DNA. Modern agricultural breeding (twentieth century) used chemical and radiation mutagenesis to alter the DNA. We have never known what changes or how many changes occurred with these types of breeding (including organic crops). Yet you seem to be content to use the end product. Genetic engineering uses specific changes, well documented and analysed to get the desire trait. We know thousands of times more about each and every change to the DNA of every GE crop compared to the standard bred crops(including organic).
Posted by Rob from Canada, Saturday, 27 December 2008 7:32:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri Bee said:

"The product we use is Dipel, and it is a powder that is sprinkled on cabbage family leaves. Only in the gut of the pest caterpillar( the white cabbage butterfly)who ingests the bacteria will it create a toxin, which forms crystals and spores inside the caterpillar and cause its death."

I am sorry but you do not seem to understand the bacteria produce the toxin all the time and it crystalizes inside the bacteria. The high pH of the catapillar gut (ours is much lower pH) causes the crystals to dissociate into individual proteins. The individual proteins form the pores after they bind species specific membrane proteins (not found in our gut) on the gut surface of the target species. These cry proteins are digested like every other protein when we consume them.

Meeri Bee said:
"Of course the constant exposure of insect pests to the BT leads to resistance to it."

After twelve years of Bt crops the level of resistance development is tiny. Resistance development is a universal phenomenon. Clearly the use of refuge areas has greatly reduced the development of resistance in GE fields. further the new Bt crops have two different cry proteins with different targets therefore greatly reduce the likelihood of resistance development.

And finally the Royal Society made it very clear when they stated - No conclusions can be drawn from this research regarding the Putzai research with rats and GM potatoes.

Perhaps you might like to go to my website to learn the difference between the science of genetic engineering crops and the pseudo-science so popular on the web. http://web.viu.ca/wager

cheers

Rob
Posted by Rob from Canada, Saturday, 27 December 2008 8:01:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agro/rob you are what you eat[i suggest you guys stop eating the stuff]its making you gullable[or the guilt of what you are supporting is driving you guys insane [or blinded by delusion]

how else can you excuse that you guys are standing up for
[or selling out to] put it in your diet[not ours]then let the process of natural selection see who survives

thing is WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED to chose to eat them OR NOT
i chose not[but you mindless trolls dont want the facts to be put on lables so we can[just like the buisness practices of mon satan OH, most clearly reveal the same contempt for rights[by their buisness practices]

Beware of the toxicity of soy productsBreasts can appear and testicles do not develop. Several women have rung ... By far the worst cases of soy damage are reported to us by women who have drunk ...
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/soy.htm
www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/soy.htm

Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Soybeans Damage Health of Test ...9 May 2007 ... GM-soy also is found to impact the size of litters, and the mortality ... kidneys, testicles) and in histological and cellular construction. ...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5119.cfm
www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5119.cfm -

Soy is an Endocrine Disrupter and Can Damage Your Child's HealthSoy is an Endocrine Disrupter and Can Damage Your Child's Health ... In men hypospadias, cryptorchidism (undescended testicles), cancer of the prostate, ...
http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/200202/soyisendocrinedisruptor.htm

GM diets may cause organ damage and disease | Perspectives...When male rats were fed Roundup Ready soy, their testicles became dark blue instead of pink. ... 1 Response to GM diets may cause organ damage and disease ...

http://blogs.drgreene.com/perspectives/2008/08/13/gm-diets-may-cause-organ-damage-and-disease/

PCC | GM Food Crops: Consumer Health Concerns: Liver and other ...Lab animals fed GM food have showed damage to virtually every system studied. ... pancreas, and testicles; altered gene expression and cell metabolism; ...
www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/issues/gmconcerns/organdamage.html - 22k
http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/issues/gmconcerns/organdamage.html
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 27 December 2008 10:39:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Under one god, that truly has to be one of the most astonishing posts I have seen on OLO. I might be more willing to engage with your posts if you created a coherent argument and sourced your information from proper scientific studies rather from conspiracy websites on the internet.

The fact that you are unable to get facts correct, and don’t seem to care, leads me to instantly dismiss your ravings. Some examples are: that there is no mercury in vaccines in Australia. Australia labels food products containing GM ingredients. You have both wrong in this thread, despite the fact they have been pointed out and the sources given many times on this forum. And yet, you accuse me of being a mindless troll because I seek the truth about these things rather than operating in a parallel universe where up is down and black is white. Trust me, while the true believers may accept your views, other people will come to the conclusion that you can’t be trusted.

Don’t bother replying, because I won’t respond. I find your posts tedious to read, full of misinformation plucked liberally from websites, ignorant and abusive to those you disagree with. For the future, you should look up the definition of troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll I suggest this more accurately describes your behaviour rather than mine.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 27 December 2008 12:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agro-mist ,
it is interesting re-READING THE POSTS

HOW MUCH YOU AVOID REPLYING TO those points named by those having researched the topic,ANY WONDER PEOPLE HAVE AVOIDED repeating the questions,[you dont even bother to reply them]

i have nothing but contempt for you[and the master you serve]

it is well that we both are not responding ,the big difference between you and me is i read seeking to help others you read to help yourself

you respond to the weakest point[when you reply at all]

and mostly you avoid the many valid points made by the other more 'informed' poster's[who i admire for their dedication is researching both sides of the topic[unpaid]

your as worthy as the buisness practices of the industry you chose to serve
[and gmo is as low as you can go]

i have one final thing to say

REPLY TO EVERY POINT your opponants made

[you know those questions YOU BEEN AVOIDING TO RESPOND TO

[there is a post limit ,and of course you will say ;' my limit prevents me from doing so'

[but bro you been wasting posts responding to me]
#
[but as the topic is now complete]you finally can respond to every point posted [or reveal you been doing just as i accuse you of doing[chery picking]

to avoid responding
[and responding yet again to my post proves you cant reply theirs

its all in the record above

now respond to ALL their questions/points!

or be revealed
as the reviled cherry picker of the vile gmo fruits your defending
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 28 December 2008 8:24:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting Rob, I did ask way back if Bugsy could explain what crops I might be growing which have been bred by mutagenesis, I admit I havent heard of it. Could you be specific as to types and varieties of vegetables you are talking about? I guess it is not a worry as I havent heard of any controversy regarding mutagenesis, whereas I have heard of plenty of scientists who are very concerned about Genetic engineering, Dr Rosemary Stanton, David Suzuki,Josh Byrne,Dr Judy Carmen,to name a very few. They all seem so intelligent and caring and genuine I find it hard to believe they are all lying, but someone is. And that Russian woman scientist Dr Irma someone who has photographed the stunted little rat whose mother had a 30 % Gm diet next to a normal healthy rat of the same age whose mother had a GM free diet , Thats a great photo and it gets people attention as we have it on a large poster and take it to festivals and markets. Lots of people are now aware of whats going on.Viva the farmers markets !
Posted by Merri bee, Monday, 29 December 2008 2:10:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meeri Bee

Here is a link to the IAEA site. As you will see over 2200 varieties have been made with randon ionizing radiation mutagenesis. I will leave it to you to determine if your organic varieties are included. A list of those produced from chemical mutagenesis is unknown to myself. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Newsletters/MB-REV-12.pdf

As for those scientists you listed I do not know why they chosse to mislead the public but some do it for money. The more they try to scare the more money they make. It is that simple. The russian scientist has had her fifteen minutes of fame and the so-called research was soundly dismantled in Nature Biotechnology a while back. you can check out why she only showed she did not know how to do feeding studies, nothing more. On this subject I suggest you go to my website and see the opinion of the European Food Safety Agency on animal feeding studies. Surely they haven't been corrupted by the biotech companies. While you are there you can read the support from twenty five Nobel Laureates for ag biotech. It is truely unfortunate how many people are suffering in the devloping world due to the multi-billion dollar anti-GM food pseudo-science industry.

Cheers
Posted by Rob from Canada, Monday, 29 December 2008 3:23:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come on Rob...
Scientists have genuine concerns and exactly what money do they get for expressing their concerns. None! Who would pay? What money do scientists promoting GM get? They get alliance deals with corporate companies and the opportunity to start off a little business through patent alliances.
"The Russian scientist" you quoted could not believe the adverse attacks she got. She stated that these were preliminary studies and should be further investigated.
Arpad Puztai was employed by the UK government to prove GM was safe and undertook a preapproved test. He was so concerned he went public 6 months into his 3 year test to warn people of the early findings. He wanted to finish his research but was halted in his tracks.
Scientists opposing GM risk losing their jobs as scientists depend on the corporate investment opportunities to get the opportunity to play with this technology.
Exactly what are people suffering from in your statement:
"It is truely unfortunate how many people are suffering in the devloping world due to the multi-billion dollar anti-GM food pseudo-science industry."?
The commercial GM crops are only Bt or herbicide tolerant, nothing more. The "golden rice" is nothing to do with the opposition, its the regulatory body that has not approved the dual crossing system as Monsanto instigated the conditions and their technology was a single cross so their recommendation to limit the technology to single crosses was approved.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Monday, 29 December 2008 5:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non GM Farmer
I would say you have got to be kidding but we have had this dance before. There are literally billions of dollars in the anti-biotechnology industry. Lets start with the black marketing used by the organic /natural food industry. They use fear-generation style to sell their products. Then we have groups like the Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth who solicit funds to help them “fight" the rise in GM food industry. As I said BILLIONS of dollars.
Go to Nature Biotechnology and read why the Russian so-called research was a complete bust scientifically. The Royal Society stated the Pustzai research was deeply flawed and no conclusions could be drawn from it. Same for the Italian mice study and the also the Austrian mice study.(both later ones were not peer –reviewed just massively published by Greenpeace). They prefer science bu media vs the scientific method and sound peer reiew.
Now for the height of your immorality. Golden rice is a prime example of how the anti-GM industry has forced unscientific over regulations that pushed back the giving (YES GIVING) GR rice to the hundreds of millions of people who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. I would direct you to my website but you already know about the well documented arguments I speak of there. To suggest the millions of (mostly) children who have died from a result of vit A deficiency has nothing to do with the anti-GM industry is blatantly false and you should be ashamed of yourself. Hell GP is still trying to tell people the level of beta carotene is too low to be of benefit. Immoral in my book.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 3:37:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob from Canada

"It is truely unfortunate how many people are suffering in the devloping world due to the multi-billion dollar anti-GM food pseudo-science industry."

The anti-GM food movement a multi-billion dollar industry??

I doubt many organic farmers are making huge profits. Most of them are in it for ethical reasons more than they are profiteering. Most choose to grow organically because they see it as the best option for both environmental and health reasons. And few if any would do it on a scale large enough to rake in the dollars you're implying.

As for the 'black marketing' of organic/natural produce you speak of, a little evidence to support that allegation might be in order. Farmers and produce markets, natural foodstores, the organic alternatives on the supermarket shelves - that's where most of us purchase our organic food - hardly a black market. Or are you referring to roadside stalls and over-the-fence exchange? - that would have to be a very small part indeed of any 'multi-billion dollar industry'.

As for groups like the Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who you also accuse of being part of this phantom billion dollar industry, these are not-for-profit groups comprised largely of volunteers. They raise funds to plough back into conservation and awareness-raising. To sneeringly deride them as part of a 'multi-billion dollar industry' is not only ignorant but I think quite obscene, considering the selfless contributions such groups are built on.

As for the people suffering in the developing world, many are suffering as a direct result of growing GM crops, not because of any lack of them.

Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide due to the successive failures of GM crops for which they'd borrowed at extortionate rates. They were never told the GM varieties would require twice the amount of water they'd previously used. And they can't even save the seed from their failed crops to replant, but have to purchase it from Monsanto at exhorbitant prices.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

This type of scenario is not isolated to india alone but is repeated throughout the developing world.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 2:42:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist why has former research scientist with Monsanto Elaine Ingham been served with a gag order for life?
Rob said "And finally the Royal Society made it very clear when they stated - No conclusions can be drawn from this research regarding the Putzai research with rats and GM potatoes."
And Agro mist
Merri bee, I think you mean the study done by Arpad Puzstai and Stanley Ewen? I have read the paper, you can find it here if you like http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)05860-7/fulltext . The assessment made by many others in the field is that the research reported is fundamentally flawed. The paper really showed that mice get sick on a diet of potatoes, GM or not.

So Again:
In 1996 the UK government gave a $1.6 million pound grant to ArpadPusztai and his 20 strong team of scientists to develop the testing protocol for long term safety tests for all GM foods in the UK. These researchers had been working on a GM potatoe for their first subject for the study, and chose a gene from a snowdrop plant which produces an insecticide called GNA Lectin.For 7 years prior they had looked at GNA Lectin extensively and found it to be harmless to rats. Researchers anticipated that the potatoe engineered with GNA Lectin would be similarly harmless to rats. The UK government was planning to commercialize this GE potato and had planned how the Royalties would be divided up between the prestigious Rowlett University where the research was being done and themselves. Arpad Pusztai was in favour of GM at the start.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 8:24:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To test the GM potato,6 male rats were assigned to each diet category containing natural potato, natural potato with lectin added, and GM potato.They repeated the tests with raw, baked and boiled potatoes, and all rats were supplemented with vitamins and minerals to ensure their diets were complete and balanced.
Gm potatoes were shown to affect virtually every organ system of young rats, with most changes after just 10 days. The rats fed with the natural potato spiked with lectin, even at 700 times the concentration of lectin found in the gm potato,had health affects that barely approached those seen in the GM fed rats.They concluded that the disturbing health effects seen in the GM fed rats were the result of the genetic engineering process itself.This study raised serious concerns about all GM products on the market.

Agrononomist and Rob, you have denounced this study as fundamentally flawed, and mention a Royal Society of some sort that agrees. Can you tell me in what way this study was flawed?
Even though the research was abruptly halted and the scientists gagged after Pusztai appeared on a TV program warning of what he’d found, it remains the most in depth feeding study of GMOs ever published.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 8:25:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri Bee

Please go to my website and read the ESFA report on Animal Feeding Studies. The Putszai work was defficient in almost every aspect. As was the Italian mice study and the Austrain mice study.

If you would like to read how David Susuki misled the public please go to my website and read Transgenic Canola does not Threaten Insects.

Try this, go to the Organic Comsumers Association and count how many times they use their "Fear of GM" campaign to sell their produce. Or the Soil Association in the UK if you like Europe.

Cheers
Posted by Rob from Canada, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 3:35:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for the myth about suicides in India.

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf

The facts are the Indian farmers are adopting Bt cotton as fast as possible.

Cheers
Posted by Rob from Canada, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 4:40:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee, as far as I understand Elaine Ingham was never employed by Monsanto. http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/dr_ingham_cv/education_positions.htm Perhaps you have some evidence I am unaware of?. Ingham distinguished herself at the NZ Royal Commission hearings by making false claims about the impact of GM organisms including citation of a paper of hers that didn’t exist. http://www.biotech-info.net/ingham_rebuttal.pdf Ingham had to apologise to the Commission.

I have mentioned at least twice on this thread why the Pusztai study was fundamentally flawed. The control diet of potatoes was damaging to the rats. The control potatoes caused just as many changes to the intestines of the rats as the GM potatoes. As the potatoes were causing so many changes, no conclusions can be drawn about the GM potatoes. The problem was that Pusztai did not recognise this. There were also some statistical flaws in the paper. Pusztai conducted a series of t-tests and concluded significant differences when the omnibus tests did not indicate a difference. In fact, in these studies the omnibus tests indicated GNA alone produced a significant difference in 3 out of 5 measures, boiling potatoes in 4 out of 5 measures and GM GNA potatoes in one out of 5 measures. The failure to include a control (no potato) diet in the study was unfortunate as it would have helped Pusztai see the effects of the potato diet. If Pusztai had found GNA to be harmless to rats over 7 years of research, the fact that this study found it to produce significant changes in 60% of gut measurements surely should have alerted him to there being something wrong with the study? According to the paper published in the Lancet, the concentration of GNA in the diet was the same for GM potatoes or non-GM potatoes supplemented with GNA.

It is certainly not the most in-depth study conducted. It used only 6 rats per group for 10 weeks and measured the effects on 5 intestinal properties.

As for the Indian suicide story, Rob has posted the most useful study. Farmer suicides have not increased in India since the introduction of BT cotton.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 9:34:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist

“As for the Indian suicide story, Rob has posted the most useful study. Farmer suicides have not increased in India since the introduction of BT cotton.”

Suicide amongst Indian farmers might be nothing new, but evidence clearly shows it is increasing at a particularly alarming rate in the big BT cotton regions.

The statistics in the IFPRI study that Rob linked to are well over two years old and don’t represent the current picture at all. Even in the decade up until 2006 though, the figures nonetheless showed more than a doubling of the suicide rate in the main BT cotton growing regions, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.

Official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture today reveal that more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves each month in Maharashtra state and in Vidarbhah one farmer is killing himself every six hours.

As stated by on-the-ground environmental activist, Vandana Shiva, "The more recent escalation of suicides has been in the region of Vidarbhah and if you look at the data of expansion of BT cotton the highest expansion has taken place there."

"In Vidharbah, one farmer is killing himself every six hours and the separation of suicides from BT cotton is the worst lie because if you do a suicide map of this country and you do a BT sales map of this country - you have a one-to-one co-relation in terms of the districts," she maintains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7785212.stm

The situation has become so dire that the Indian Health Minister, Anbumani Ramadoss, is considering a ban on all GM seeds.

One state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds.

“The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.”

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=3541

So, yes, Rob, you can attempt to explain the GM cotton and farmer suicide connection away as a ‘myth’ if you like, even though the latest information clearly shows it is indeed very real. But you can’t explain away the fact that GM companies are ripping these poor farmers off big time.
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 12:22:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just because pro-GM activists claim GM is safe does not make it so. Just because they claim that anyone that proves it is not is discredited, does not make it so.
The public relations campaign is clearly directed to try to discredit anyone that speaks against GM, not to actually try to analyse and retest to ensure validity. (see Irvine's website)
This golden rice campaign is missing the reason why it is not approved.
Nothing to do with activism, everything to do with Monsanto.
As explained, it has not been approved because it involves multiple GM events rather than the single event that is approved by the regulatory body. Monsanto designed this single-event approval with the US government which was then adopted internationally.
Have a good new year.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 1:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are just a few stories that show Bt cotton is a mjor success (just like it is in China) not the devil Ms Shiva (recipient of the Bull S--t award) claims.
http://www.agbios.com/static/news/NEWSID_10221.php
"India has made tremendous growth in GM cotton. Farmers have earned total 1,294 million dollars additional income since the launch of the GM cotton in 2002," he said.

GM cotton was developed and commercially launched in India by Mahyco-Monsanto and it is currently grown in over 75 per cent of the total cotton area.
http://www.agbios.com/static/news/NEWSID_10203.php
Back in 2002, Gagrana village’s Mewa Singh was on the verge of commiting suicide. A Rs 7.5 lakh debt and declining yield left him with no other option. ‘‘It became impossible to survive,’’ he says. But that was then. Today Mewa Singh is a happy man. He cultivates Bt cotton on his five-acre plot and as a result of higher yields and earnings he has paid back his debt and has purchased a new tractor, motorcycle, and has sent his son to study in Punjab University.
http://www.agbios.com/static/news/NEWSID_10192.php
After the significant increase in yield following introduction of Bollgard—1, a single gene technology introduced in 2002, Lengeleya has not only built a house but also purchased two bullocks to support him in farming. Due to introduction of Bollgard— I cotton seed owned by US-based bio technology company Monsanto in 2002, yield has estimated to have increased from 6 quintals per acre during the pre-BT days to around 14-15 quintals per acre at present. Farmers in Sivagi Nagar village told FE that after the introduction of Bollagard—II, a double gene technology seed last year, the yield increased further.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Thursday, 1 January 2009 4:18:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Indian_Farmers_Commit_Suicide[Over]Failed Crops]©Deborah Mitchell-Nov7,2008

125,000;farmers have died[*]in India because their genetically modified(GM)cotton-crops have failed,leaving them[and]their families destitute and in debt,having signed their life/land away to buy fertiliser/seed/roundup upfront,then the crop fails.

Millions of Indian-farmers were promised that they would have incredible harvests/income[and crops that were free of insects and parasites]if they switched from farming with'traditional'cotton seed and planted genetically-modified(GM)cotton-seed instead....To help promote the use of GM cotton,many government seed banks banned the sale of traditional seed.

..but the dream did not come true.Countless numbers of farmers had to borrow money from local money-lenders to buy the seeds,so they were depending on good harvests to pay back the loans...as well as support their families....Yet the cost of GM seed is staggering:modified seeds cost one thousand times more[than traditional cotton seeds.]

Many of the farmers have lost their crops,not just once but twice.

With the crop failures come lost livelihoods,loss of land,and disgrace.In some cases,a husband commits suicide and leaves the wife and children to tend to the mortgauged land.When the next crop fails, the wife commits suicide as well.

*an estimated 125,000[Indian farmers]have taken their lives. According to Mail Online(November 3, 2008),the Indian Ministry of Agriculture confirms that more than 1,000[farmers]commit suicide each month.Their method is ironic:most swallow insecticide,which they were told they would no longer need if they grew GM crops.

Pro-GM experts,including those from the giant chemical company Monsanto,which sells much of the seed to Indian farmers,claim that the suicides are the result of alcoholism,poverty,drought,and other agricultural difficulties and not related to GM seed.

They say that suicide has always been a part of rural Indian life.lol

GM seeds require twice the amount of water of traditional seeds.Poor rainfall has contributed greatly to crop failures.

genetically modified crops do not produce viable seeds..farmers are forced to buy new seed each year[because]they cannot save seeds and replant them the following year,..

Yet another situation associated with GM cotton is the death of thousands of goats and sheep that are grazing on post-harvest GM cotton plants...Some agricultural workers are also experiencing allergic reactions when they are exposed to GM cotton.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 1 January 2009 5:44:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0205StoneIndia.htm
Who: cotton farmers, particularly small and marginal ones. What: suicide, mostly by drinking pesticides. Where: the epicenter was Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh, although agrarian suicides were (and still are) occurring elsewhere. When: the worst was in 1998, when over 500 took their own lives in Warangal, but the suicides have continued, topping 1,000 in Warangal alone. But why? This is the subject of sharp disagreement, largely because of GM issues.
Therefore 1998 was four years before Bt cotton was permitted in India.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/14-people-commit-suicide-every-hour-in-India/393702/
Family problems and illness were other causes for suicide, accounting for 23.8 per cent and 22.3 per cent respectively. Failure in relationships (2.8 per cent), bankruptcy (2.7) and dowry dispute (2.6) were other major factors.
That means Bt crop failure is not a major cause (less than 2.7 percent)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/asur/1999/00000005/00000002/00185797;jsessionid=1n18dse5e8qbq.alexandra
Suicide has been a problem in India for decades before Bt crops were commercialized.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/More_people_committing_suicide_in_south_India_Report/articleshow/3842412.cms
The NCRB report confirms the explanation. Mental illness was found to be one of the major causes behind people committing suicide in South Indian states. Around 1,982 of those who committed suicide in TN, 637 in Karnataka and 1,384 in Kerala were suffering from mental illnesses.

As I said before some people simply do not want to learn what is real in the GM debate.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Thursday, 1 January 2009 8:03:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Canadian Organic farmers are taking action in the courts as they have lost the ability to grow organic canola in Canada due to contamination by GM canola.Their Lawyer said this"This case seeks to ask whether biotechnology companies incur responsibility when their patented genetically modified seed, pollen and plants infiltrate farmland, causing harm. While Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser confirmed that these companies have significant exclusive rights to GMO seed and plants -- the question remains whether they have any corresponding duties.
The case involves legal questions of significant importance to the public, namely liability and rights associated with the development, marketing, sale and dispersal of GMOs, as well as public access to justice through class certification. The prevalence of open-pollinating GM crops on the landscape is a matter of significant environmental and public interest. These issues transcend provincial or territorial boundaries, as organic farmers in Saskatchewan can no longer grow and sell certified organic canola as a crop.”
By the way Organic corn can only be grown in Canada by planting very late to ensure that tasselling occurs later than neighbouring (GM) crops. I guess this is onerous for the organic farmer who is squeezed out of the optimum planting time and risks crop failure due to frost arrival. Organic farmers will seek redress for losses due to the virtual elimination of organic canola in Canada as a crop due to widespread contamination of seed stock, as well as for losses due to unwanted GMO canola plants contaminating organic fields growing other crops. “

Terry Redman , Western Australias agriculture minister,says he will only allow trials of GM canola into W.A. if he has confidence in assurances that Western Australia will still be able to supply non GM canola to those customers who require it. Seeing as he has announced the release of GM canola in that state 2 days before Christmas (under cover of Christmas as Bob Phelps points out) he must have received his assurances from the likes of Rob from Canada and Agronomist.
Far Out Brussell Sprout.
Posted by Merri bee, Thursday, 1 January 2009 3:46:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh I do hope the Indian government ban GM seeds Bronwyn. Saw a great movie about Peter Proctor going to live in India where he is teaching farmers how to grow bio Dynamic and organic crops. The results are beautiful and there are no purchased fertiliser or pesticides or herbicides involved. The Indians are turning to organic agriculture in droves and their health, the community and the environment are benefiting. Then you saw places where the BT cotton was rife and newspaper articles saying "Farmers sell kidneys to pay for next years seed" How reprehensible that Indian farmers are lied to by Monsanto salesmen saying that the yields will be greater when the opposite is true.
Sorry Agro, I am looking at a photo of the stomach linings of rats fed either GM potato or normal potato in the Puzstai experiments. The stomach lining of the GM fed rats shows proliferative cell growth, the others are normal on a potatoe diet.Get that :normal ON a POTATO DIET .As Michael Antoniou, molecular genetisit says , to this day, this study is the best designed and carefully controlled study of its type. Compared to industry studies it is leagues apart.

As for Mutagenisis, Rob sent the link which will reveal how many crops I am growing on my organic farm which have been bred in this way.A list of 2,275 varieties of 175 species! I read them all and discovered I grow none. In fact there are alot of flowers and non food crops listed, and I believe there was only one food crop commercially grown on the list ...a sunflower which has been grown in the U.S.!
Once again I've waded through your smokescreens of useless information. GM and mutagenisis are not comparable methods of plant breeding
Posted by Merri bee, Thursday, 1 January 2009 4:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rob[from your first-lin

[a different quote for perspective]>>Glenn Davis Stone conducts research on political ecology and agricultural change>>

<<I do not oppose GM crops in general;in fact,I recently took a leave to participate in the genetic modification of cassava>>

<<For Monsanto and Shiva,Warangal is a means of promoting polarized views on GM crops>>

>>I cannot see how Warangal can offer any lessons on biotechnology until the case is understood on its own merits.>>

so is'warangal'the WHOLE of india[or you picking the best cherry?
the article writen 2002[why you quoting 1998 figures}

your next link?>>Back in 2002,Gagrana village’s Mewa Singh was on the verge of commiting suicide<<...ONLY THEN did monsanto introduce bollard cotton[paid for no doudt quote my previous point[you didnt reply to..LOL>>the cost of GM seed is staggering:modified seeds cost one thousand times more[than'traditional'cotton-seeds.]>>

next link<<The full text electronic article is available for purchase$42>>BUT look at what we get<<The epidemiology of suicide in India from 1975–1994 was explored>>...LOL mate

next/PROOF?>>highest number of suicides committed in 2007>>oh you neatly skipped over the dates[your quoting both sides of pre 2002 WHY?

[it makes your case?]

noting the figures are for'only'four_states in india<<Even though Maharashtra recorded the highest number of suicides committed in 2007; 15,184 of the top six states with the highest suicide rates are from South India.

While Andhra Pradesh recorded 14,882 suicide deaths,Tamil Nadu registered 13,811 deaths followed by Karnataka(12,304)and Kerala (8,962).<<

its a typical deception[you never replied ALL the points in my previous post

<<The death of thousands of goats and sheep that are grazing on post-harvest GM cotton plants>>

<<agricultural workers are also experiencing allergic reactions when they are exposed to GM cotton.>>

>>they cannot save seeds and replant them<<
>>To help promote the use of GM cotton,many government seed banks banned the sale of traditional seed.<<
>>Many of the farmers have lost their crops,not just once but twice.
With the crop failures come lost livelihoods,loss of land,and disgrace<<

>>the Indian Ministry of Agriculture confirms that more than 1,000[farmers]commit suicide each month.<<

>>in debt,having signed their life/land away to buy fertiliser/seed/roundup upfront,then the crop fails.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 1 January 2009 9:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri Bee

Lets first discuss how canola came to be created. It was the result of using artificial means to combine two entire genomes. That is genetic engineering on a grand scale. The notion there is something called "organic canola" is false.

Do you know what hybrid seeds require. Purchase of new seed each year.

Second the attempts to gain class action status was denied. Therefore no lawsuit.

A type of agriculture that comprises roughly two percent of world production makes a set of rules that govern itself. Then this small group decide their rules must be protected and therefore they can dictate how the other 98 percent of the world grow food. Seems a bit rediculous doesn`t it.

Somehow you missed the rice, barley, wheat etc that were made by randon ionizing radiation mutagenesis. There are even more that were created with random chemical mutagenesis. Your denial is irrelevant.

And finally, the cries of BAN, BAN, BAN come from a small percentage of world agriculture. It would appear they are saying `its our way only, hmmm. India has granted approval to about 50 GM varieties and has many more in the pipeline. China has completed over 1000 successful field trials and will very soon open their agriculture to GM crops in a very big way. It is the future. Now the best thing to do is make sure proper regulations minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of this technology. There is no such thing as risk free anything.

Of course the reality is all forms of agriculture will be needed to help feed the world without ploughing under the remaining wilderness. We simply do not have the luxury of banning a type of agriculture for ideological reasons.

Have a nice life.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Friday, 2 January 2009 5:20:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn <<Even in the decade up until 2006 though, the figures nonetheless showed more than a doubling of the suicide rate in the main BT cotton growing regions, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.>>

Just a tad misleading. The vast majority of that increase occurred prior to 2002 when BT cotton was grown for the first time. In fact the rate of increase in suicides in Maharashtra has declined since the introduction of BT cotton. In Madhya Pradesh (which has a higher percentage of cotton grown as BT than Maharashta), suicides have gone down. In Andhra Pradesh, there was a major increase in suicides in the drought of 2004, when only a small percentage of framers grew BT cotton. The suicide rate has stayed constant since (and rainfall has been better) despite much larger adoption of BT cotton in this state.

Merri bee, the Canadian organic farmer lawsuit has been disallowed by the courts. I had a look through the link Rob posted. It is not a complete list because it relies on plant breeders providing the information voluntarily. I did notice for Australia, lupins, blue lupins, oats – all grain crops grown in Western Australia, I believe. You also need to consider whether the crops you are growing have been bred from varieties grown in the UK, Germany, Canada or US, so the list of crops may also include beans, lettuce, spinach, barley and wheat.

As to Pusztai and his rats, you can look at photos all you like, but it is the data that really matters. This is what the NZ Royal Commission had to say about the research http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Pusztai/Pusztai-Myth-Royal-Comm-NZ.pdf It is certainly far from the best study carried out. For detail it would not come close to this very extensive study http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/products/fullratstudy863.pdf (large file).
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 2 January 2009 8:32:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/gmo.html
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html

>>Terminator..the agribusiness dream of controlling world food production.No longer would they need to'hire'expensive detectives to spy on whether farmers were re-using Monsanto or other GMO patented seed.

Terminator corn or soybeans or cotton seeds could be genetically modified to‘commit suicide’after one harvest season.That would automatically prevent farmers from saving and re-using the seed for the next harvest.

The'technology'is a means of enforcing'Monsanto'or other GMO patent rights,and forcing payment of farmer ][through]'use-fees'

With'Terminator/patent-rights,once a country opened its doors to the spread of GMO patented seeds among its farmers,their food security would be potentially be...hostage to a'private'-multinational/foreign 'company'..INC..ltd

a company which,for whatever reasons,especially given its intimate ties to the US Government,might decide to use food as a weapon’to compel a US-friendly policy from that country or group of countries.



Sound far-fetched? Go back to what then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did in countries like Allende’s Chile to force a regime change to a‘US-friendly’Pinochet dictatorship by withholding USAID and private food exports to Chile.

Kissinger dubbed it‘food as a weapon.’Terminator is merely the logical next step in food weapon technology..As Kissinger said back in the 1970’s,

‘'Control the oil and you can control entire Continents.
Control food and you control people…’'

The USDA was open about their reasons:They wanted to get Terminator seeds into the[developing]world where the Rockefeller Foundation had made eventual proliferation of genetically engineered crops the heart of its GMO strategy from the beginnings of its rice genome project in 1984.

USDA’s Phelps stated that the US Government’s goal in fostering the widest possible development of Terminator technology was‘to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries.’

Under WTO rules on free trade in agriculture,countries are forbidden to impose their own national health restrictions on GMO imports ..arbitrary powers over world agriculture trade.

It all fits into a neat picture of patented seeds, forced on reluctant WTO member nations,under threat of WTO sanctions,and now of Terminator or suicide seeds
Posted by one under god, Friday, 2 January 2009 1:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob :The whole red herring of mutagenisis is irrelevant to the topic of GM.You mention hybrid breeding. Not relevant either.I have no problem with traditional plant breeding of hybrid plants. I have a big problem with genetic engineering though,because that is where one species is combined with another in a way that could never happen in nature, not even in a million years. Again, we see the deception , the claims that GMO’s are nothing new. “We’ve been improving plants for centuries” say Pro GM.
Rob said “ Lets first discuss how canola came to be created. It was the result of using artificial means to combine two entire genomes. That is genetic engineering on a grand scale. The notion there is something called "organic canola" is false.”
I referr Rob to Wikapedia:
“Canola is one of two cultivars of rapeseed or Brassica campestris (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.).[1] Their seeds are used to .....
Canola was originally NATURALLY BRED ( emphasis mine) from rapeseed in Canada by Keith Downey and Baldur R. Stefansson in the early 1970s,[3][4] but it has a very different nutritional profile in addition to much less erucic acid.[5] The name "canola" was derived from "Canadian oil, low acid" in 1978.[6][7] …………
Genetically modified canola which is resistant to herbicide was first introduced to Canada in 1995".Rob, you mislead us.
Unfortunately, organic canola can no longer be grown in Canada because it took only 2 years for that continent to be contaminated. I believe the organic farmers are appealing the disallowance of class action status. We hear of a huge rate of uptake by farmers of GM , but it isn’t because its better ...they simply don’t have a choice any more.
Organic farming has promoted peoples health and has never destroyed anyone elses farming business. Prove to us that your methods will allow co existence of all farmers and that GM foods are harmless. Volunteer yourself and your family members for a human feeding trial of GM food
Posted by Merri bee, Friday, 2 January 2009 6:13:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not mislead you on anything. Here is a reference that demonstrates the genomic composition of Brassica sp.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/pdf/raymer.pdf

You can see from figure one B.napus is a result of the fusion of the entire genomes of B.rapa and B.oleracea. So you can see mixing different species is common. Every gene of two different species were fused to make B.napus. And finally chemical mutagenesis or GE created Herbicide tolerant Canola. In one variety (GE) we know a great deal about the genetics and the other (Chemical mutagenesis)nothing. Those would be the non-GM HT canola grown in Australia.

In the past twelve years both GM crops and organic crops have flourished. The notion that GM crops threaten organic crops is a myth. The IFOAM does not advocate testing for GM content. There is no threshold level that results in decertification of an organic crop. As far as I can determine there have not been any decertification of organic farms for GM content. Please let this forum know if you know otherwise. This is why the class action status was denied. As the organic industry likes to say, organic farming is a method of farming and not a product per se.

Have a look at "The Good found in GURTs" on my website and see how this technology could help alleviate your fears of cross-pollination for the organic industry.

If a farmer chooses hybrid seeds, and most do today, they buy new seed each year. The same as with GM seeds.

There is no such thing as impact free agriculture. Again why should a small percentage (~2%) of farmers make up a set of rules that must be adhered to by all farmers? The world is moving ahead with agricultural biotechnology. It is our best hope to deal with the pressures of the growing population. Having said that it is not a panacea but is the best option for many of the problems agriculture faces today.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Saturday, 3 January 2009 9:49:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pro-GMers deliberately miss the point but this comment regarding organics can easily be applied to the GM industry in reverse:
"A type of agriculture that comprises roughly two percent of world production makes a set of rules that govern itself. Then this small group decide their rules must be protected and therefore they can dictate how the other 98 percent of the world grow food. Seems a bit rediculous doesn`t it."
Yet we have GM agriculture that has designed a set of rules that govern itself by ensuring contamination is widespread, that non-GM farmers lose their ability to market as non-GM and that non-GM farmers can be charged for contamination we do not want. The alliance deals between plant breeders and the GM companies mean that choice of new non-GM varieties will be denied in the future.
Yes, it seems very ridiculous.
This is anti-competitive and ethically and morally wrong.
It should not be up to the non-GM sector to subsidise an industry we do not want to support. Governments need to wake up to this anti-competive practise and stop supporting it.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Saturday, 3 January 2009 11:39:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a lack of clarity of who's liable when non-gm canola is found to be contaminated with genetically modified seed.I don't want your GMOs tresspassing on my land.I want to sell non GM.I don't want to sell food that's untested for human health.
.
Rob states “ A type of Agriculture that comprises roughly 2 % of world production”…..I guess you mean organic.
Nobody is imposing their system on you, but you are definitely imposing your system on the world.
What you will do for a feed in 10 years time when the price of fuel brings agribusiness to a close Rob?
We are seeing the beginning of the end of Agribusiness, the most destructive force on Earth.It often consumes 10 times the calories it produces, destroys wilderness and creates desert.Of course some conventional farmers do it better.The fuel hungry farming system is flawed, and it will not be allowed to continue.
Permaculture is the future.It repays the initial energy used in setting up for generations to come.It means care for the Earth and care for people, and many calories produced per square meter for no input costs.
Rob states that organic agriculture has flourished alongside GM. No wonder people are willing to buy organic now...the food in supermarkets has become tasteless ,low in nutrients and often has chemical on it.Yes organic has flourished as people seek to support less chemicals in the environment.....but for how much longer will it be non GM ? We saw Canada's organic canola industry wiped out in 2 years and other veges will follow.

On the matter of whether canola was GM from its inception as you claim, argue with Wikapedia. Seeing as I note that most stuff emanating from your pen is a lie, I'd rather believe Wikapedia. Pity you are paid to advise our politicians on GM.
Couldn’t you drop this crazy GM stuff and start a garden? A bit of exercise and time away from the computer would do you good?
Posted by Merri bee, Saturday, 3 January 2009 2:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agronomist

"In fact the rate of increase in suicides in Maharashtra has declined since the introduction of BT cotton."

The farmer suicide rate in Mahrashtra was, according to the IFPRI figures linked to by Rob, 1917 in 1997, 3695 in 2002 and, according to the Indian Ministry of Agriculture, around 12000 in 2008. It is patently wrong to claim the rate of increase in suicides in that state has declined. It clearly hasn't.

250 farmers a week are killing themselves in Mahrashtra. It's about time you stopped fudging figures and looking for scapegoats and acknowledged there is a serious problem here.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 3 January 2009 3:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps I was unclear about self imposed rules. It is the organic industry that has set zero tolerance for GM content. This level of adventitious presence is unattainable for any other crop so demanding it for GM is a non-starter. Then claiming harm where none can be demonstrated further weakens your position.

I do agree with you that agriculture threatens wilderness and biodiversity. That is exactly why the world must maximize yields from agriculture. To quote Dr. Norman Borlaug (Nobel prize for agriculture) Organic agriculture can only possibly feed four billion people, I don't see two billion volunteers to disappear.

Now increase that a couple of billion with the coming decades and it becomes even more clear why organic is not the major way forward. It will always have its place but will no longer be the primary means of feeding the world. It actually stopped being that with the green revolution in the 1960's.

As for arguing with Wikipedia, I took your reference and showed you how Canola was from fusing two entirely different species together. Primary literature is usually more detailed.

Yes other veggies are in the pipeline. Imagine poor farmers in India actually getting better yields with less insecticide spraying. Imagine poor Chinese farmers getting far more rice per acre with less insecticide. Imagine poor African farmers growing more bushels of maize per acre with less insecticides. Soon drought tolerance, reduced nitrogen requiring crops, truely viral resistant crops. The list is actually very long. You may not like this type of agriculture but the world has already decided to incorporate agricultural biotechnology into global agriculture.

Oh and I am not payed by anyone except my university. I will leave you with a suggestion for you to read "Tomorrows table" It is written by a husband and wife team, one a molecular biologist and the other an organic farmer. We can all learn from it I would guess.

Have a nice life.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Saturday, 3 January 2009 3:54:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn,
16,632 farmer suicides in all of India in 2007. 4238 in Maharashtra. Both are lower than 2006 figures.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/More_men_committed_suicide_Report/articleshow/3842361.cms

2008 figures are not available. Perhaps you are the one fudging figures?

I happen to know several people involved in agriculture in India and they tell me that farmer suicides, while tragic, are not directly related to BT cotton, but to farmer indebtedness and family factors. In fact, so they tell me, farmers growing BT cotton are more likely to reduce their debt and so not commit suicide. This business about farmers committing suicides on account of BT cotton is simply a hoax perpetrated by the likes of Vandana Shiva and organic farming groups.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 3 January 2009 9:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agronomist

"2008 figures are not available. Perhaps you are the one fudging figures?"

I extrapolated, not fudged, from the following quote -

".. I travelled to the 'suicide belt' in Maharashtra state .. official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month."

While it might not be strictly accurate to extrapolate an annual figure from an unknown quantity of monthly figures, on the basis of all else I've read on the issue I doubt it's too far wide of the mark. It could in fact be an accelerating trend and the annual figure could actually be higher not lower than 12 000.

It is certainly wrong to suggest, as you do, that the fact of thousands of Indian farmers suiciding due to GM crop failure is "a hoax perpetrated by the likes of Vandana Shiva and organic farming groups".

"India's farmers are also starting to fight back. As well as taking GM seed distributors hostage and staging mass protests, one state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds."

These farmers and this state government obviously don't consider it a hoax. I think they might be in a better position to judge than even the best informed of agronomists from across the world, particularly one with a self-declared interest and likely a pecuniary one as well in promoting GM food.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

3rd November, 2008

Yes, I know there are some good news stories, from the point of view of yields and profits, but they are patchy and inconsistent and certainly do not represent the full picture. Quite apart from the unknown long term environmental and health effects of growing GM crops, there is an immediate and very dark picture regarding the tragic plight of thousands of poor farmers involved in this massive on-the-field experiment. It's one you should at the very least acknowledge, rather than callously dismissing it as you have in post after post.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 4 January 2009 6:57:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another one of the many problems created by GM cropping in India and no doubt elsewhere is that of child labour.

"Thousands of children are being trucked across states to work on Bt cottonseed farms during the crucial pollination season. It is the child’s job to pluck the male flowers, granulate them, and then manually cross-fertilise the female flowers that have been emasculated the previous day by slitting the female bud with the fingernails. This is painstaking, labour-intensive work and farmers are finding it cheapest to hire children to do it."

"Agents hire groups of girls and boys who travel unescorted by adult relatives, making the long journey at night in small private jeeps. On the farms they live in makeshift huts, with boys and girls sharing rooms at night. They work for nine to 12 hours in the fields during the two-three-month-long season that begins in July. The pollination season coincides with the new school year, and many children are pulled out of school to go to work. They rarely return to school."

"The surge in demand for Bt seed has pushed the cottonseed farmers of Gujarat to recruit workers from south Rajasthan’s impoverished tribal districts. These districts have traditionally provided agricultural workers to Gujarat. However, the demand for child labour, rather than family labour, is new. An estimated 60,000-100,000 boys and girls migrate seasonally to work on cottonseed farms, says the Dakshini Rajasthan Mazdoor Union."

http://infochangeindia.org/200805267154/Children/Features/The-hi-tech-seeds-of-child-labour.html

May, 2008
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 4 January 2009 7:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou so much for your intelligent posts Bronwyn, and for exposing once again Agronomist's deception on Indian farmer suicide rates.

Agronomist has said twice now re the L tryptophan disaster, the GM food supplement that killed 100 people and caused the disability of 5,000-10,000 more .(I mistakenly under stated the number of victims in an earlier post), that
it was not because of the genetic modifications, but the filtering . However the filter change Agronomist blames occurred in January 1989, years after the EMS epidemic started. It was only due to a series of coincidences that doctors realized that this new disease was contracted only by those who had taken Showa Denko brand GM LTryptophan. The suspect toxins were present at less than 0.1% of the final product.
The GM debate is built on deception, as we have seen all through this thread.Its all on record.
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 4 January 2009 7:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Bronwyn, I actually agree with those Indian farmers.

GM crops should be much cheaper and more freely available to poorer farmers.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 4 January 2009 7:35:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is heartbreaking to think of those poor Indian children, because workers in BT cotton fields are suffering from itchyness and allergies, upper respitory tract problems etc. In the Phillipines BT Corn is grown right alongside villages. The people have to leave their homes to get away from the field at tasselling time. The Pollen smells like pesticide and people are getting sick. They move away for a week, recover and return, only to fall ill again.

Rob, Please spare us the jingles from Monsantos captivating marketing speils..."IMAGINE" "imAGgine"....What a wonderful world playing in the background.Imagine a poor farmer in Africa getting twice the yield with no rain blah blah blha. Imagine if our children suffer autism ( under developed brains) and infertility like the rats do...
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 4 January 2009 7:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will leave this forum with this.

http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=10336

Cheers Folks
Posted by Rob from Canada, Monday, 5 January 2009 6:14:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, so you have taken a monthly estimate for farmer suicides across India, multiplied it by 12 and applied it just to the state of Maharashtra? Glad to see that cleared up. The Indian Ministry of Agriculture does not in fact collect statistics on farmer suicides, that is done by the National Crime Records Bureau. They haven’t provided figures for 2008, because 2008 has just finished. I linked to their 2007 figures (published in December 2008) and these showed farmer suicides declining slightly.

It was not my suggestion that the link of farmer suicides to BT cotton is a hoax. That suggestion was made to me by people working in agriculture in India. Vandana Shiva is not an agriculturalist and has no expertise in agriculture. She is a professional activist.

Governments not infrequently make comments about costs of various products as a way of gaining popularity. I understand that your Government has created campaigns against gas suppliers and supermarkets in recent years. Farmers everywhere would like to reduce the costs of inputs. If farmers think BT cotton seed is too expensive, they can decide not to buy it and grow non-GM instead.

Farmer suicides in India is indeed a tragic situation, but the root cause is indebtedness, not GM crops http://pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=834 . The only major economic failure of GM crops was in the drought of 2003/4 in Andhra Pradesh. Both GM and non-GM suffered, but the higher cost of GM seed meant farmers were further out of pocket. In all other years and situations, BT cotton has performed as well or much better economically than has non-GM. The average cotton farmer profit has more than doubled across India from growing BT cotton. http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=290672

Merri bee, Read the CDC and FDA reports on L-tryptophan http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html, http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ltr3.html . Showa Denko’s GM L-tryptophan was first marketed in the US in late 1988 http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm , so if there was an EMS epidemic years before this, GM L-tryptophan could not be to blame.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 5 January 2009 8:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist

I see the critics of GM crop technology have now gone full circle back to the original alleged evil GM fear story (L-tryptophan story). Though the smelly tassles is one for the quotes book to be sure. If that were true then there must be mass exidus from all organic fields that use Bt bacteria. The allergies myth continues, Big business is evil, etc, etc, etc.

ciao for now

Rob
Posted by Rob from Canada, Monday, 5 January 2009 11:06:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agronomist

“Bronwyn, so you have taken a monthly estimate for farmer suicides across India, multiplied it by 12 and applied it just to the state of Maharashtra?”

No, I haven’t. The monthly estimate was very clearly stated as being for the state of Maharashtra, NOT for the whole of India. You've misread the quote.

“Vandana Shiva is not an agriculturalist and has no expertise in agriculture. She is a professional activist.”

She doesn't need to be an agriculturalist to recognize human suffering when she sees it. In fact she is probably much better placed, as a direct result of the fact she is not part of the industry, to talk to people on the ground and to properly put events into their big picture perspective, which is something that GM-obsessed agriculturalists fail to do.

“Farmer suicides in India is indeed a tragic situation, but the root cause is indebtedness, not GM crops.”

Of course, it’s indebtedness, but that indebtedness is a consequence of farmers switching to growing BT crops.

These crops require twice the amount of water to those grown previously, which mightn't be a problem in good seasons but will increasingly become one. If their crops do fail, the farmers are now powerless to recoup even part of their costs, as 'terminator technology' prevents them from saving their seed. They’re being ripped off mercilessly by Monsanto and other corporate conglomerates, as well as small time leeches in for their easy take further down the pecking order. They’re been charged exorbitant amounts, both to borrow, and for the seed and other inputs required.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 12:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How sensible is it, in a period of rapidly pending climate change, to introduce Indian farmers to crops that will require of them double the amount of rainfall they once needed?

The scientifically conservative 2007 IPCC report states that the Himalayan glaciers might be gone as early as mid-century. The Himalayas supply as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and the loss of that ice sheet will have a catastrophic impact on agriculture in India, and as well Pakistan and China.

Farmers in these areas need to be introduced to the principles of permaculture if they are to have any hope of reliably raising crops on less water. The last thing they need right now is to be seduced by the hit and miss potential of so-called ‘magic seeds’, which will require much greater and more consistent access to water than will ever be possible due to climate change.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 1:08:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist
“The problem with Showa Denko’s L tryptophan was due to poor filtering, not GM. You can read the reports from the US FDA and CDC http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html, http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ltr3.htm”
.
Agronomist has said twice now re the L tryptophan disaster, the GM food supplement that killed 100 people and caused the disability of 5,000-10,000 more that
it was not because of the genetic modifications, but the filtering . However the filter change Agronomist blames occurred in January 1989, years after the EMS epidemic started.
Then Agronomist said
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html, Showa Denko’s GM L-tryptophan was first marketed in the US in late 1988 so if there was an EMS epidemic years before this, GM L-tryptophan could not be to blame.

This argument is based on the misconception that the first GM strain of bacteria was introduced in1988. Agronomist argues that if there was an epidemic of EMS prior to that,there would have to be a cause other than just the engineering of the strains. Since four earlier GM strains had been used during the 4 years prior to December 1988, this theory is baseless.
Referr to WK Novak and AG Hasleberger, “Substantial equivalence of anti nutrients and inherent plant toxicants in genetically modified foods. Food ChemToxicol.38(2000): 473-483
Im not interested in reading your reports from the FDA, they are riddled with Monsanto people and the Australian counterpart FSANZ are also worse than useless. They don’t have any jurisdiction over animal feed. We find a lot of stockfeed around the world contains otherwise unsaleable GM soy,corn and the like. Beware the factory farmed pork.,..Unspeakably cruel to pigs and the concentration of BT toxin in pork ( and beef from cattle lot fed ) is something we are ignorant of cause FSANZ don’t want to know, they won’t investigate!. Buy pasture fed organic meat for goodness sake.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 2:22:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have organic pigs, I have to take them to the abbotoir on a regular basis. Our pigs are small and hairy compared to their poor factory farmed peers who, at the same age are smooth and huge and ABSOLUTELY DEMENTED. They scream and fight non stop.

My pigs are well adjusted in comparison, and even in this most scary of environments, they are calm and quiet. I believe it is the awful boring conditions the factory pigs are raised in that has caused their obvious distress and dysfunctional behaviour, but could it also be the feed, probably gm soy component?

I know GM soy has been imported into Australia and has been fed to free range poultry. Many experimenters have noted in feeding trials that there is an increased level of fear and aggression to the handler and amongst themselves with the GM fed animals , compared to the controls.
The repercussions for human society would be huge if my suspicion is correct. We need independent ,peer reviewed ,multi generational feeding studies in Australia YESTERDAY.
Agronomist, I didn’t know you weren’t in Australia. Are you writing to us from Missouri? What hourly rate are you on? I am financially suffering by contributing to this post as my farm is going backwards as I spend time researching to counter your false statements .I”ll pre empt your next come back on the L Tryptophan issue and save time.:
Some, including your esteemed FDA argue that L Tryptophan itself was dangerous and responsible for EMS. According to epidemiologist Ed Kilbourne who investigated EMS while at the Center for Disease Control, said if this were true, then all tryptophan products of equal dose produced from different companies would have had the same effect. No evidence supports this.In fact EMS investigator William Crist revealed that in every case where the origins of EMS –associated LT were identified, Showa Denko was the source. Individuals who took this product from other companies other than Showa Denko did not develop EMS.
. Under One, Non GM, Bronwyn, Hats off to your patience. think your you‘re the winners.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 2:28:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is obvious that the GM proponents are not going to convince those consumers with concerns by rudely demanding that GM is safe.
Is there a resolution?
Its pretty obvious, do the independent health tests that consumers want and be sure that consumers can avoid GM until they are satisfied that is safe.
But what are the pro-GM activists so frightened of? Obviously they are well aware of the problems as they would prefer to deny consumers a choice and do everything possible to prevent independent health trials being done.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 11:59:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK just one more because non-GM farmer and I just love to dance.

By FAR the most sceptical consumers of GM ingredient containing food are the europeans. Yet their own food safety agency the EFSA agrees with the rest of the world on the safe evaluations of food safety tests for GM crops. Have a look at my website and see for yourselves, especially you non-GM farmer.
Posted by Rob from Canada, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 2:23:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK just one more.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Non_Scientific_Document/gmo_report_feedingtrials.pdf?ssbinary=true

This entitled: Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials
Report of the EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials

Is that independant enough for you non-GM Farmer?
Posted by Rob from Canada, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 2:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that reference, it is a good reference for explaining the concerns. The report is a collection of tests which explains the need for more studies to be done.

It explains the key testing aim of checking for production measures in stock rather than health problems in humans with summaries such as " Feeding of diets containingGMmaize did not significantly influence health, reproduction and performance of quails nor did it affect DNA-transfer and quality of meat and eggs of quails compared with the non-GM counterpart."

Believe it or not, consumer concerns are nothing to do with our ability to keep egg production rolling or measurements such as breast meat depth.

Interesting that the OGTR and FSANZ claim that you can't test canola oil when the Wainwright study was done on canola oil.

"Wainwright et al. (2003) ... Differences that occurred between the groups fed GM canola oil and both other groups included a lower body weight for pups aged 26 days, which, according to the authors, relates to an effect of c-linolenic acid (GLA) that probably had greater bioavailability from GM canola than from borage oil. In addition, n3 fatty acids, including docoshexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n3), were decreased in brains from animals fed GM canola oil, whereas a specific n6 fatty acid (22:4n6) was increased. The effects on fatty acid composition of the diet containing a mixture of GM canola oil were greater than those of borage oil, although both contained similar levels of GLA. Similarly to Liu et al. (2004), these authors linked the observed effects with the increased bioavailability of GLA from GM canola oil."
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 4:22:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, it is an unfortunate juxtaposition by the journalist and I don’t know if it was deliberate or not, but to conclude there were 12,000 farmer suicides in Maharashtra state in 2008. Suicides have been about 3000 to 4000 per year from 2000 through 2007. To imagine they have jumped 3-fold in one year with nobody but a Daily Mail journalist noticing is unbelievable. There has been nothing in the Indian Press indicating such a large increase.

You do know what an agronomist does don’t you? They talk a lot to farmers. Agronomists probably have more understanding of an areas farming issues than anyone else – even if I say so myself.

BT cotton does not require twice the water of non-BT cotton. In fact it can use less water. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pjr8.pdf http://cottonnews.com.au/index.cfm?sID=38&iID=305&aID=837 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ip/ooa/2003/00000032/00000002/art00008

Terminator technology does not exist in cotton (or any other crop for that matter). The Terminator technology was a patent from USDA that has never been commercialized.

Seed of BT cotton costs more, but yields are on average twice as much. Farmer income has been higher for BT cotton growers in India in every state and every year, except Andhra Pradesh in the first two years (caused by unsuitable varieties and drought).

Merri bee, the first L-tryptophan from a GM bacterium was marketed in the US at the end of 1988. I looked at Novak and Hasleberger and found no reference to L-tryptophan anywhere in the paper. In fact GM bacteria are not mentioned at all. William Crist is a writer, not an EMS Investigator.

EMS occurred before and has occurred since the Showa Denko product went to market. It also occurs with 5-hydroxy-tryptophan http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10721089

Some more http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/2/1029 http://www.springerlink.com/content/v44hl3mrpk043466/ http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/3/15
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 9:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trial results just in from GRDC trials of GM canola in Eastern States reveal that GM yields were 17% lower than non gm varieties of canola. Independent trials and investigations always show that GM is not worth the extra seed costs, nor the royalties, and puts everybodies markets and health at risk.Monsanto get out of Australia. We do not want you here.
Posted by Merri bee, Sunday, 25 January 2009 1:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri Bee, unfortunately not so. The National Variety Trials are available for all to check. In Horsham, the Roundup Ready varieties performed slightly lower than the atrazine-resistant and Clearfield varieties http://www.nvtonline.com.au/_literature_33753/PDF_Results_-_VIC_2008_-_Canola_05012009 In Forbes on the other hand, the Roundup Ready varieties performed slightly better than the Clearfield varieties and nearly 20% better than the atrazine-resistant varieties http://www.nvtonline.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=33366 David Tribe’s discussion can be found here http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/katherine-wilson-famous-quadrant.html

Julie Newman has clearly fudged the numbers in her press release. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2942 Sad the lengths some people will go to isn't it?
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 25 January 2009 1:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"GM canola trials come a cropper
16-January-09 by Heather Bennett

Genetically modified canola crops in Victoria have performed no better than their non-genetically modified counterparts as Western Australia prepares to hold trials later this year.

Results from Grains Research and Development Council showed the yields, from the first independent trial crops in Horsham and Forbes in Victoria, were 0.7 tonne per hectare for GM and 0.8t/ha ha for non-GM.

The results are not good news for those wanting to farm GM canola, as to break even with the technology, profits must increase by up to 16 per cent."
Why are all the papers saying this agronomist? Maybe its you who's fudging the figures.
And why did 400 scientists report back to the UN that GM had no improved yields, in fact they were less than non-gm in many cases? .
Posted by Merri bee, Monday, 26 January 2009 12:26:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee, this article, like your previous comment, is largely copied Julie Newman's press release. Even to the point of copying the quotes exactly out of the press release. Sometimes lazy journalists will do such things and won't bother to check whether the press release is correct or not.

I have provided links to the NVT data, it is publically available and everyone can check, sadly Heather Bennett didn't bother to do so.

I don't know anything about 400 scientists reporting to the UN on GM crop yields, so I can't answer that question.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 26 January 2009 7:59:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, your usual defence tactic is to slam anyone that tells the truth.
The press release I put out was in response to the exact wording of the announcement of trial data results from GRDC on the ABC Country Hour.

http://www.nvtonline.com.au/state-news-vic.htm
5 trials were done, 3 failed - 2 to drought and 1 to spraydrift
4 GM varieties were pitted against 24 non-GM varieties in Horsham, Vic and 4 GM against 22 non-GM vareties in Forbes, NSW.
The Best GM varieties and the Best Non-GM varieties were:

Victoria: 0.73tonne/ha GM versus 0.82tonne/ha for non-GM. 12% less yield when a 14% increase in yield is required to pay for the additional "discounted" costs. This is a loss of income amounting to 26% of the value of the harvested crop. (the worst yield for GM was only .52tonne/ha which would equate to 48% less income.)

New South Wales: Best yield of GM was 1.15tonne/ha versus best non-GM yield of 1.26tonne/ha when a 10% higher yield is required for the additional "discounted" costs. This equates to a loss of 20% less income.

The pro-GM camp are getting desperate. One of the comments was that it was not fair as GM is using old varieties when this is not true. The GM RR gene was added to new top yielding non-GM hybrids and still couldn't perform.

Agronomically and economically, GM canola does not stack up. The grass control that is considered the best "advantage" of GM canola is achieved by the application of trifluralin, not glyphosate as a residual grass control is needed and RR only allows farmers to spray glyphosate from the 2-6 leaf stage.

Truth too hot to handle?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 9:25:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The failure of GM to increase yield potential was emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report [47]. This report on the future of farming, authored by 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, concluded that GM is not likely to contribute significantly to increasing yield potential in the future."
Theres another direct quote for you Agronomist, and like last time Ive put it in quotation marks.
I can stare at the trial results for hours, it wont do me any good as I dont know a GM from a non GM variety and they are not indicated on the chart. I shall have to rely on the interpretations of those in the know at the ABC Country Hour, and Julie Newman, both reputable, reliable sources.
Sorry Ive started you off again , I'm sure every one has better things to do than to answer the claims of a professional liar like yourself . Sorry your GM has been a flop, but you can let go and move on now .Strange that your Lancet link is still saying "try again later" after months.Sad the lengths some people will go to isnt it.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 6:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee, Saturday, 13 December
Could you please tell me exactly what crops I might be growing on my organic farm that have been derived from radiation caused genetic mutations.I have never heard of this.

Pundit replies

Radiation mutagenesis was used to create the durum wheat variety Creso used to make pasta in Italy, the rice variety Amaroo sown to more than 60% of the rice area in Australia, and the Rio Star ® grapefruit popular in the USA (Ahloowalia and others 2004, IAEA 2008, McHuhan 2000;NAS 2004). The extensive changes to chromosomes caused by radiation treatment are thoroughly documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (NAS 2004, Shirley and others 1992) and are known to be similar to those caused by insertion of transgenic DNA (Cellini and others 2004; Gorbunova and Levy 1999).

More than 3000 radiation induced varieties are released commercially.

Radiation is changing DNA all the time. Even wild-plants will have DNA scrambled by it. all crops will be scrambled in their DNA to some extent.Thats life.

Key references
Ahloowalia BS, Maluszynski M, Nichterlein K (2004) Global impact of mutation-derived varieties. Euphytica 135:187–204. Reports at least 2250 mutant varieties of crop have been released. Most frequently they were created by gamma rays or X-rays. Both are known to scramble DNA.

IAEA (2008). Mutant plants can boost yields, resistance: IAEA conference (Vienna, Austria). Reports that some 3000 mutant plant varieties from 170 plant species are catalogued by the International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080812145530.x6uv6k68.html accessed Dec 11 2008

Gorbunova V and Levy AA (1999) How plants make ends meet: DNA double-strand break repair Trends in Plant Science 4(7):263-269. Plants have particularly error-prone mechanisms that join together bits of broken chromosomes. These repair mechanisms scramble the DNA at the site at which the chromosomes are joined together during their repair. Radiation is a common cause of broken chromosomes and triggers these processes which scramble plant DNA and cause mutations.
Posted by GMO Pundit, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 6:44:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The RR GM varieties in the trials are:
GT61 (not a hybrid) yielded 0.59t/ha in Victoria and 1.1t/ha in NSW.
M8032 (a hybrid) yielded 0.73t/ha in Victoria and 1.15t/ha in NSW.
M8265 (a hybrid) yielded 0.63t/ha in Victoria and 1.15t/ha in NSW.
46Y20 (a hybrid) yielded 0.52t/ha in Victoria and 1.13t/ha in NSW.
The highest yielding non-GM was 0.82t/ha in Victoria and 1.26t/ha in NSW.
Certainly does not show that GM yields anything like the promotions in all the economic reports.

Mutagenesis is quite different to GM. With mutagenesis, the mutation does not invade the DNA by forcing a gene into it. Mutation is stimulated by artificial means but the mutated gene/s are controlled by the plant. With GM, the plant has no control over the genes and scientists express concern that the plant reacts against the invasion by releasing toxins.

GM is considered significantly different enough to allow a patent over the living organism and its progeny. I am sure there would not be such a push for GM if this patent was removed.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:31:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Mutagenesis is quite different to GM. With mutagenesis, the mutation does not invade the DNA by forcing a gene into it. Mutation is stimulated by artificial means but the mutated gene/s are controlled by the plant. With GM, the plant has no control over the genes and scientists express concern that the plant reacts against the invasion by releasing toxins."

I would disagree with all of this almost.

I mentioned in the previous comment how it is well-known that radiation mutagenesis scrambles DNA. The scientific papers I posted in the previous item document how the cell repair mechanisms insert random bits of DNA--that is force inserts-- and scramble DNA at the site of radiation mutagenesis using exactly the same cellular mechanisms that insert transgenic DNA. The mechanisms are the same and the overall results are similar. It is wrong to claim that mutation does not force DNA inserts into chromosomes when it does. They forced insertion of DNA is needed to repair broken chromosomes. Portuguese investigators have investigated rice crops and shown that the amount of disruption and insertion change caused by radiation mutation is is more than seen with transgenic crops.

I don't expect non-GM farmer to have read those papers, because they are rather demanding of knowledge about genetics, but why she keeps on making statements about genetics without checking what geneticists know I really don't understand. It's very similar to the way in which Greg Revelle the author of this online opinion piece is inventing genetic fantasies rather than asking scientists about genetics.

These examples of ignorance of modern genetics just confirms that the anti-GM movement in Australia doesnt take the trouble to get their science right.

Another scientific point is that the canola trials need to bear in mind the least significant difference or LSD. The whole design of the trial involves understanding how much background random variation there is. Differences seen between the varieties are less than the LSD. This means that they are meaningless. It is part of background variation from plot to plot
Posted by GMO Pundit, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 2:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the dummy spit comments.
I am very sure that if the results were more favourable of GM canola, they would have been promoted as being a higher yield no matter what.
The trouble with scientists is that they think this debate is only about their little field but its not.
We don't care what you play with as long as you don't adversely impact on our choice or our livelihoods and that is what this debate is about.
We as farmers do not want to be involved in growing or selling as GM. Scientists are so keen to make money out of GM and their alliances with GM companies that they don't care about the impact on others.
Have more respect for others rights and stop trying to force others to compensate you for a product we don't want.
Work out a way where choice is not denied and unfair liability is not imposed on farmers not wanting anything to do with the product.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 4:28:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual , non GM Farmer makes perfect sense. Sure GM Pundit, I am no geneticisist but you dont need to be, to be suspicious of anything sold by Monsanto when you know their history of knowingly poisoning people with their products such a sPCBs , DDT, agent orange and lately roundup. Yes, good old "biodegradable roundup", oh it is safe to drink you know, no trace of it in the soil after 24 hours. Truth is after 28 days only 2 % has broken down. It gives you cancer.More than one judge has found Monsanto guilty of false advertising and ordered them to remove the word biodegradable from the label.Not a Monsanto judge that time was it?
We've dealt with mutagenisis before GM pundit,if you look back over the comments. It turns out to be irrelevant.
Some 600 learned people calling themselves Scientists for Global Responsibilty , deem G.E. to be extremely imprecise and unpredictable, and likely to have very harmful effects on any consumer.They have carefully evaluated the research by independent scientists.. Monsanto science on the other hand seems to have bad science down to a science.And as Non Gm Farmer says, its all about peoples right to choose to eat it or grow it or to give it a wide berth .
Posted by Merri bee, Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:31:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual , non GM Farmer makes perfect sense. Sure GM Pundit, I am no geneticisist but you dont need to be, to be suspicious of anything sold by Monsanto when you know their history of knowingly poisoning people with their products such as PCBs, DDT, agent orange and lately roundup. Yes, good old "biodegradable roundup", oh it is safe to drink you know, no trace of it in the soil after 24 hours. Truth is after 28 days only 2 % has broken down. It gives you cancer.More than one judge has found Monsanto guilty of false advertising and ordered them to remove the word biodegradable from the label.Not a Monsanto judge that time was it?
We've dealt with mutagenisis before GM pundit,if you look back over the comments. It turns out to be irrelevant.
Some 600 learned people calling themselves Scientists for Global Responsibilty , deem G.E. to be extremely imprecise and unpredictable, and likely to have very harmful effects on any consumer.They have carefully evaluated the research by independent scientists.. Monsanto science on the other hand seems to have bad science down to a science.And as Non Gm Farmer says, its all about peoples right to choose to eat it or grow it or to give it a wide berth .
Posted by Merri bee, Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:31:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Meri bee
So risks from random changes to DNA are irrelevant?

If so, we can dismiss a lot of objection to GM because they are mostly about risks of random DNA changes.

For any readers are who think ionising radiation induced mutations are the only random disruptive DNA changes in non GM plants consider natural mutants caused by insertions of mobile DNA into soybean genes that make plant chemicals.

I document them here.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/natural-gmos-part-48-worried-about-grey.html

The item explains a 20,000 base DNA insert that disrupted a chemical pigment gene of mutant soybean that sprouted up in a soybean field.

Similar DNA inserts are seen in maize, sorghum, carrots and other flower crops. This shows yet again that Julie Newman's comments that mutations don't have disruptive insertion of DNA are plain wrong in the case of mutations seen in many crops, and the plain wrong when it comes to the 3000 varieties of radiation induced mutant crops that are on the market. All of these crops can be used by organic farmers.

I guess that's what meri bee means that about them being irrelevant. We don't have to worry about them because they aren't a problem. But why worry about them in connection with transgenic crops if they are not a realistic worry?

It would help the debate if those who hate Monsanto would concentrate just on that, rather than irrelevant red-herrings and untruths about genetics.
Posted by GMO Pundit, Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Something I’ve noticed from an early age is that un natural food makes us sick, un natural chemicals make us sick, radiation from elements that remain buried in the ground in nature but have been dug up and processed by man make us sick. Man’s inventions make us sick.Thats why 1 in 3 people will get cancer these days.
I’ve never liked wearing polyester, its a man made fibre that is a danger near fire and stifling to wear compared to natural fibres like wool and cotton.Luv my organic cotton.
Haven’t you noticed that nature knows best GMO Pundit?
I am appalled that man has played around with our food, (whether by radiation induced mutations or by genetic engineering),not told us about it ,and put it in the marketplace masquerading as natural food.
I wish you’d stop playing with our food.
I wish we who want to eat food as our creator intended it to be would just be allowed to grow , sell and eat natural food.
Hundreds of generations of farmers have done wonderful breeding work on plants using natural processes, the simple act of selecting the best fruits , grains and veges to save seed from has brought us a wonderful array of food plants all round the world.
Haven’t you noticed that nature knows best GMO Pundit?
Are you not in awe of nature and do you not realise man doesn’t know much at all? None of us do.The best scientists realise they don’t know much at all.
Up until these trial results came out you might have had farmers believing in your higher yield ,lower input, GM canola that would grow in lower rainfall areas with less fuel inputs. This is exactly what you have got the W.A. Agriculture Minister saying about GM canola in letters to those who write to him expressing their concerns. These trial results have blown all this out of the water haven’t they? Thanks to Non Gm Farmer for printing the results here.
Posted by Merri bee, Friday, 30 January 2009 2:10:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM farmer, “Victoria: 0.73tonne/ha GM versus 0.82tonne/ha for non-GM. 12% less yield“ . Julie, why then did you say in your press release it was 17% less when it was 12% less?

The lsd in this trial was 0.12 t/ha. Do you know what an lsd is used for in statistics? It is used to separate means and determine which might be significantly different. 0.82-0.73 = 0.09. The yields of these two varieties were not significantly different in the trial. Therefore, the difference observed could have occurred by chance. http://nvtonline.com.au/_literature_34796/GM_Canola_Trial_Update The same is true of the Forbes trial where the lsd was 0.23.

I will be the first to admit that the GM canola did not yield more than the non-GM in these two trials. I am not convinced that is the end of the matter though. These trials were droughted. Later-season varieties would have suffered most and hybrid vigor would have little opportunity to show.

Merri bee, it is one of those interesting quirks of fate that many authors on the IAASTD report were not scientists, but members of NGOs and other organisations. In fact, there were relatively few leading agricultural scientists among the authors. They are entitled to their opinion, which was that GM crops could contribute, but may not be that useful in third-world countries. To some extent this opinion flies in the face of reality where BT crops in particular have proved very useful in countries like China, India, Philippines, and South Africa. The report you cite rather spins the IAASTD opinion.

Merri bee, I have told you how to access the Lancet paper. But because you can’t understand directions, here is another link to the abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1053386
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 30 January 2009 7:10:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All

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