As per article from GeneEthics:
Most Australians, including farmers, support GEfree
policies to protect public health, the environment
and our markets. Surveys show majority
support for bans on genetically engineered (GE)
crops, and full labelling of all foods made using GE
processes and products.More to be found here:
http://www.geneethics.org/Portals/3/Tabloid%20final%20mono.pdf

Our foodstuff should be free of manipulation, the ban on GM should stand for all time. Food grown as naturally as possible is the safest food and the contamination risk is too high.
Countries buy our products because they are the grown in the safest possible way.I know I try to avoid food grown out of Australia because I do not know the conditions it is cultivated under.

The fact is that most of the claims in that "article" (actually a funding advertisement for "gene ethics"- note the please support us with your credit card number at the bottom!) are not support by any real data.

There is no data or analysis to support just about any statement in the whole document. Most farmers groups are actually voting to lift the moratorium on GM crops. The Irina Ermakova "study" as well as others that are talked about never seems to have been published despite being performed over 2 years ago! A lot of the other rhetoric is trying to prove that GM is a failed technology despite being taken up by millions (yes, millions) of farmers worldwide (including Australia) who aren't complaining about yields or costs.

Also, discussing "failed" research (research that does not make it to market) is a bit like talking about how the motor industry is a failure because most of their prototypes never get sold. Or that some products get withdrawn when improvements are made indicates a failure? How silly is that?

The whole document is basically a summary of every argument that gets rehashed over and over again when they (Gene Ethics and other anti-GM organisations) want some money and public support, despite having being debunked many times over, often years ago.

For more information on some of the more well known participants and issues take a look at this thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6042

Firstly, most farmers in Australia do not support the GE bans. It is only the minority group Network of Concerned Farmers, composed mainly of organic farmers (and interestingly 1 organic retailer), that supports the bans. State Farmers Federations now have policies to overturn the bans, as do the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria. Only today, the WAFF charged the Western Australian Government to fast track commercial sized trails of GM crops. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/17/1980441.htm

I did like Bob Phelp’s idea of GM crops stalling. This has been a concept he has pushed every year for more than a decade. But to claim they are stalled now, he needs to use the excuse that there are no more crop species since 1996. “Not one new commercial crop or trait has been released since 1996.” Even in this he is wrong as GM alfalfa, GM squash and GM papaya have all been released since then, and GM papaya and GM squash are virus tolerant. What Bob ignores in his stalling is that more than 10 million farmers across 5 continents grew 100 million hectares of GM crops last year.

Of course you are welcome to believe what you want about GM crops and can avoid them if you wish because products are labelled, but you don’t have the right to tell farmers what they can and cannot do based on a pack of untruths. Nor does Bob Phelps.

If farmers want to grow them, they should be able to. As for the food trade not wanting to use GM ingredients, then why did the crushers import GM canola from Canada last year? And guess what, nobody really cared.

if you stop long enough to think: who will decide?

(not me. some pollie.)

how will he decide?

(some one will give him a persuasive sum of money.)

presto, opinion comes out:

"why should i ,and you, waste time on this?"

The reasoning behind GM foods is simple greed and nothing else.

The corporation pushing this stuff onto farmers and consumers and insisting that it is 100% safe, is the same company who brought us the miracle of DDT not so long ago.

Actually there are many foods that we are already consuming that contain GM products.

I don't recall seeing any labelling on them.

Proper labelling would at least give the consumer the power to choose, rather than be forced to eat them by stealth.

What are the GM producers afraid of?

The problem is that companies like Monsanto own the Intectual Property Rights to these carcenegenic GM seeds. You can of only buy a contract to grow their seeds. The contract only lasts for a year. If you don't update the contract for the seeds, Monsanto will return with a summons. Your crop will be considered stolen property, you pay annual IPR patents.

If you never wanted Monsanto seeds, you are not "off-the-hook". The seeds blow in the wind, or birds fly them into your farm.

Thousands of farmers across the USA have been bombarded by private investigators. These Monsanto investigaters trespass on farmer's land testing to see that if any stray "Monsanto" IPR GM plants are "stolen" onto your farm.

They usually find the evidence of the infection. So, the farmer is sued a huge amount of money for stolen property rights. Monsanto uses the best lawyers. Can't afford that amount? Often, Monsanto confiscates the farm in settlement.

Infection of these new seeds has crossed the borders of Canada and Mexico and is causing many legal headaches. Farmers are worried about being infected, then sued, and therefore losing their farms to the multinationals.

The second problem is the process of genetic modification itself. The science deliberately causes a carcinogen puncturing the surface of the cell so that the DNA spiral can be modified.

Malignancy is necessary for the process of the genetic modification to be possible in the first place. So where does the malignancy end? Plant DNA is mixed with animal DNA. Fish mixed with strawberries, moths with potatoes and so on.

Look at what is happening in the US. (My apologies for the U Tube site: UFO logo. The information is copied for another site more reputable site).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9SywTI3jsI

GM and Aspartame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0cwT0fsQ1Y

Cancer causing technology creeps from behind as the Governments and Monsanto will do everything they can to dumb you down and make you believe that this is actually "green friendly". It is not.

It is only corporate friendly and hostile to small farmers and possibly to the natural health of our bodies.

Saintfletcher, you're right on the money, but could I add one more very important function of certain GM food crops. I believe that some GM crops are basically non-viable, that is, will not reproduce. Much like the hybrid garden vegetable crops sold by large corporation brands such as Yates and Hortico. GM seed will travel and it will contaminate any crops it comes in contact with. If, eventually, it contaminates enough of our basic food crops, available seed will only be able to be sourced from the major supplier/companies. Then those companies own every person on the face of the planet. You have to buy from them, or starve.

GM is simply and purely a money making exercise for large commercial entities.

In answer to the original question, my opinion is that we should definitely NOT support GM crop production in Australia and do all in our power NOT to support any farming organisations that support GM production.

BUGSY: I prefer to read scientific reports from way back to present.

It looks to me, having studied all your comments that you might represent a pestcontrol/chemical firm and being paid handsomely for your remarks. Besides that, why not do your homework and study a site like:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmBacteriaFieldtest.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

....and BUGSY for your info about Dr. Irina Ermakova see the following
http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=77176
http://irina-ermakova.by.ru/eng/articles.html

happy studying:-)

If scientific reports are what you want, I-SIS is not the place to go for them. The creator of I-SIS, Mae-wan Ho, believes that quantum jazz is responsible for the operation or organisms rather than chemical reactions. This whole idea is based on the fact that pond organisms look coloured down a polarising microscope. There is no more experimental evidence than that for a new theory that tosses out every understanding of biology, chemistry and physics we have developed over 400 years. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.

The following will give you some better quality information
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/new_documents/
http://www.royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1216
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/biotechnology/index.shtml
http://www.agbioforum.org/
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/gmo.html
http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/index.html

And on Ermakova, see the ACNFP http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfpgmsoya.pdf

EFTFNC, I did already take a look for Ermakova's publications on the GM study and found, surprise surprise- there are none! Just press releases, letters etc....it's like an urban myth that keeps getting repeated over and over again. If it had potential, why didn't Greenpeace (or Gene Ethics or any other anti-GM groups for that matter) sponsor her to do a properly controlled trial? Perhaps it has something more to do with advertising and memberships than actual science?

And if you prefer to read "scientific reports" from way back to present, then at least have the decency to be up-to-date with them and read actual science reports, not political websites like those you have directed us to.

I am not on the payroll of any pest control/chemical company, but if they pay handsomely then do you know who to contact to get on it? I'm giving this stuff away for free here! (D'OH!)

Oh, and thanks Agronomist for the links, I was beginning to wonder about the ISIS website when they couldn't make the distinction between protozoa and fungus (when discussing Colony Collapse Disorder)!

The high death rates in the (non-GM) control groups of Ermakova's experiments are abnormal - 10 to 15-fold greater than in well run labs. They indicate her general lab conditions are unsuitable for rats and that animal ethics oversight is appropriate. In simple terms, this is lab cruelty, and whether or not the GM rations are causing deaths is not established. PETA should be called in to argue for more humane lab conditions.

The use of such low numbers of rats also prevents useful conclusions. The standard practice is to used groups of 20 rats. Statistics on low numbers has little power to answer questions of causes.

Agronomist:
Of one of your sites (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11319) suggested:
"6 One potential application of GM technology is to
improve the nutritional quality of crops."

(Yep that is just suggesting, we need more money for research)

It is possible that GM technology could lead to unpredicted harmful
changes in the nutritional status of foods (MRC, 2000).
Such alterations might also occur in the course of
conventional breeding.
Nutritional assessments are made as part of the safety assessment of GM crops,( Where is the unbiased research?)
but more detailed guidelines would be beneficial.(would be?)
Vulnerable groups such as infants need special
guidelines. To date no GM food for use in infant
products has been submitted for approval.(to right is it not?) Detailed guidelines and legislation already exist for infant
formulas and follow-on foods but it is not clear how
they interact with GM food regulations. Therefore we
recommend that both the Government and the
European Commission should ensure that these two
sets of regulations are complementary. Guidelines such
as those described by COMA (1996) for nutritional
assessment of infant formulas and more recently by
Aggett et al. (2001) should be adopted for both novel
and GM foods.
7 There is at present no evidence that GM foods cause
allergic reactions.( Is that so? How about those people and animals of poorer farming communities of India dying?) The allergenic risks posed by GM plants are in principle no greater than those posed by
conventionally derived crops or by plants introduced
from other areas of the world.(Yeh right.Is that what you believe?)
One shortcoming (Oh really? I call it a disaster)in current screening methods, which applies to both conventional and GM foods, is that there is no formal assessment of the allergenic risks posed by inhalation of pollen and dusts. We therefore recommend that
current decision trees be expanded to encompass inhalant as well as food allergies.
See next:

from previous:
8 Plant viral DNA sequences are commonly used in the
construction of the genes inserted into GM plants, and concern has been expressed about this.
Having reviewed the scientific evidence we conclude that the
risks to human health associated with the use of
specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible.(Does this count when Nano-tech. is applied as well)
9 One concern associated with GM foods is the possibility that genes introduced into GM plants might become incorporated into the consumer’s genetic make-up. (So here it is)
Since the Royal Society’s 1998 report various
The Royal Society Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update | February 2002| 3
Of course this an old report.Where is the NEW report? Why does it take so long to appear on that site?
This was the newest report from just one site.

But coming back to the original question: It doesn't say where you stand on this,would you feed it unknowingly to your family and take the risk of distroying your progeny and altering micro-organisms and unbalancing earth whilst you are at it?

It's a timely article.

Recently I was surprised to be told by a powerfull member of the very pro GM Victorian Farmers' Federation that, "If you are not pro GM, you either know nothing about the science, or you're a F..k Wit!!" .

There is plenty of interesting reading on the www.ofa.org.au website to give me at least some reluctance to go with the pro GM stance at this point of research knowledge.

Most farmers want to cut down on hebicide and increase production but how to do it in a responsible manner, with no dangerous long term environmental and health consequences may mean it will take more time for the research to be done thoroughly and then considered carefully.

It looks as though the VFF have closed their inquiring ? minds on Genetically Modified crops and by GM feed ingestion, the changed status of the animals that eat the GM crops and residues .

This is not good for Australia .

And just Who will pick up the Tab for compensation if there is accidental contamination of your "Clean Green " conventional or organic crop be it in the paddock or on the wharf?

Certainly not the Federal or State Governments , Monsanto or the VFF.

The Organic Farmers of Australia site for their side of the GM story is http://www.ofa.com.au
cheers.

EFTFNC: Nutritional assessments are made as part of the safety assessment of GM crops,( Where is the unbiased research?)

All good scientific research is unbiased. Scientific research seeks to find the answer and can only be well conducted (good) or poorly conducted (bad), not biased.

EFTFNC: There is at present no evidence that GM foods cause allergic reactions.(Is that so? How about those people and animals of poorer farming communities of India dying?)

None died from allergies. Recently there has been a focus on Indian farmers committing suicide, and attempting to blame this on GM crops. In fact, the causes relate to financial issues caused by too many families trying to live off one farm, dowry inflation and increased cost of labour. The animal deaths are vastly exaggerated and again are not related to GM crops. Gossypol present in cotton trash fed to monogastrics and immature ruminants can cause toxicity. Grazing animals on cotton trash needs to be conducted carefully at all times.

EFTFNC: The allergenic risks posed by GM plants are in principle no greater than those posed by conventionally derived crops or by plants introduced from other areas of the world.(Yeh right.Is that what you believe?)

Absolutely. There are well known allergens in many foods we consume, kiwifruit, peanuts, eggs, shellfish, Brazil nuts to name a few. If kiwifruit were regulated under the same rules as a GM food, it would never be approved because of the allergins present.

EFTFNC: But coming back to the original question: It doesn't say where you stand on this,would you feed it unknowingly to your family and take the risk of distroying your progeny and altering micro-organisms and unbalancing earth whilst you are at it?

I have been happily eating foods from GM organisms for more than a decade. I have looked at the risk assessments and I am happy that the products we consume are as safe, if not safer than non-GM food. In fact, I make a point of searching out corn products from the US because I know they contain much lower concentrations of mycotoxins, because they are GM.

Agronomist:

(All good scientific research is unbiased. Scientific research seeks to find the answer and can only be well conducted (good) or poorly conducted (bad), not biased.)
**Collins dic.(bias) ref.5.Statistics,a latent influence that disturbs an analysis.**

This smells so much like spin-doctoring.(Like the sites you try to point us to)
Agronomist I think you are a wolf in sheeps clothing.

kartiya jim:
The website is:
http://www.ofa.org.au
Other nice sites:
http://www.bfa.com.au/_files/27.10.05%20Org%20Farm%20Deplore%20Ministerial%20GM%20Decision.pdf
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=8626

Eftfnc, Thanks .

It's interesting to hear that many farmers support GM crops.

Many farmers support open-ditch irrigation in dry lands, which causes salination.

Many farmers support excessive application of fertilisers, which cause algal blooms in rivers.

Manny farmers support overgrazing.

Many farmers supported bringing in cane toads.

Many farmers supported the AWB giving bribes to Saddam Hussein.

Many farmers, indeed, support things which they think will give them a nice bit of cash today, but will be bad for the country tomorrow. "She'll be right, mate."

"Many farmers support open-ditch irrigation in dry lands, which causes salination." Few support it, just cant get enough income from their produce to invest in piping.

"Many farmers support excessive application of fertilisers, which cause algal blooms in rivers." Seen the price of fertiliser lately? Most simply apply what their agronomists advise them to (who usually have a vested interest in selling the stuff)

"Manny farmers support overgrazing." No, most support using country to its productive capacity, within best known parameters. Eg sometimes rainfalls dont come when expected and overgrazing can pccur as a result.

"Many farmers supported bringing in cane toads" A few sugar farmers might have, based in info given to them by the CSIRO

"Many farmers supported the AWB giving bribes to Saddam Hussein." Most are pretty pissed off about it. Its caused great upheaval since becoming known.

"Many farmers, indeed, support things which they think will give them a nice bit of cash today, but will be bad for the country tomorrow." Farmers are mostly in the industry for the long term. Returns are very volatile and usually poor. I would be more worried about corporate farm investors, as they ARE there simply to get a return for their shareholders.

Spot-on Country Gal

It is the opinion of people on the land which (should) carry the weight.
I did email/invite the above url's for their opinion and I hope they will take me up on it.
This subject is too important to have it nullified by a few pro-GM lovers who don't know what this means to have our food chain manipulated by the corporate sector. It is "connecting the dots" what we need people to see and understand what goes on behind secret meetings between "vested" interests. If Nano-tech takes it's hold well and truly, we can say goodbye to all life as we know it.Poisons you can still handle (just) but when the particles are getting so small it can finish up in every life form.Just imagine...where does the average person find a filter to filter out those miniscule particles?
So where is the protection if something goes wrong with that technology? It's the usual,I'm afraid,make it first test it by a biased scientist,put it on the market....and if nobody dies within three months it is ok to push it further.Sounds a bit like those toads, did they ever research a safetynet first? Yeh right!
You think a gas mask can filter out Nano particles? Water filter maybe? No way! Only look at the fluorine/fluoride problem.Where is a filter for that? This GM,Nano thing stinks to hell.We don't need this stuff and neither do our small fry and theirs and theirs.
Your on the button Country gal, keep it coming!

eftfnc, nice dictionary definition, but statistical bias is something good scientists rigorously avoid. Statistical bias does not make the research "biased", just bad.

You can't claim that research is biased, just because you don't agree with the outcomes. They did that back in Darwin's day and some still do so over evolution, but the facts remain the same. There is only one set of facts here and those facts are that GM per se is not dangerous.

Ah the cane toad. Funny how people never bother to look up the information on these topics. The cane toad was introduced into Australia with no testing and against the advice of scientists with knowledge in the area.

agro" Read it again.
**Collins dic.(bias) ref.5.Statistics,a latent influence that disturbs an analysis.**
(Bias) when used in connection with Statistics, Latent means: 'hidden',
Influence could mean: secret payments/pressure from 'vested interests'
Get my drift?

http://www.honestfoodguide.org/
http://www.newstarget.com/future_of_food.html

Agro: Here is the opposite: an 'UNBIASED" research on mercury.
http://www.iaomt.org/videos/

Here is another:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TransgenicPlumUSDA.php

and if anyone looked at page 19 'The Weekly Times' july25 2007, you'll see a Biased wish for a review on GM, from a commercial point of view.
Quote:" They have push-polled Australians to dishonestly inflate support for GM" I believe that!
"GCA chairman M.Jones said Australia's grain growers were losing markets to competitors who were using GM crops" Yeah right! Which markets is he talking about? Not the Arab countries for sure,maybe the poor African countries were the US has been DUMPING GM stuff for god knows how long? Surely EU wouldn't have a bar of it! So here goes again,Spin-doctoring is the norm again.

I see eftfnc, research is biased if you don’t agree with it and unbiased if you do. At least that makes life simple for you. Though, I would suggest it is a silly way of operating, but that is your choice.

Oh, what happens if you agree with some of it and disagree with some? Is the research then both biased and unbiased?

While you are working on answers to those, I would like to comment on the video you directed me to. I must admit I didn’t watch it as I am on dialup and it takes too long to download. Instead, I looked at the organisation behind it IOAMT. Two things worry me about them. Firstly, they set out to sponsor research to show amalgam fillings were dangerous. The trouble with this is they have already biased the research by stating what the results need to be before the test is conducted. I don’t have a position on the toxicity or otherwise of amalgam fillings as I have not looked into the issue in depth, but these sorts of statements immediately make me dismissive of this group.

Secondly, they believe fluoridation of water provides no health benefit. This is at variance with both a large number of studies and 50 years of experience. Until the last decade, dental caries in communities with fluoridated water had decreased to very low levels. I was the product of such public health intervention. Dental caries are increasing now in response to the consumption of bottled as opposed to tap water. I didn’t read their report in detail, but one of their arguments seemed to be that ingestion of water didn’t help because only topical application of fluoride helps. They forget that in order to be ingested, water goes past your teeth providing topical application on the way down.

As for Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins and their comments on GM Plums, the pair of them seem to have no understanding of the fate of unprotected nucleic acids on digestion. Their comments on the topic are total rubbish.

Agro: You are using the "Delphi" principle on me?
Let me explain myself on the bias thing. Research has been known to be paid for by Companies who have vested interest in the product,whether it is inside research or by a so called unbiased outside lab. Now the reports will be written up in both cases by researchers/Labs.If a company decides the results don't look favourable to present to the authorities(TGA/FDA etc) for approval they will pay the researcher to rewrite it or they change the results themselves with the name of the researcher still in place. You see that you or I don't come in to this? (unless you are on the payroll yourself) You basically don't agree with common sence displayed in above remarks, so I won't even go into any depth with you unless you can display some decent arguments why YOU are for GM and show us proof and research that GM is the way to go for Australia or the world for that matter.

All research is funded by groups who have a vested interest of some sort in the outcome, including Government-funded research. If that is your only criteria for bias, then all research is biased. The true test for research is the scientific method. This creates an hypothesis based on all observed observations, the hypothesis is tested and if found wanting, a new hypothesis is created including the new findings and tested. Once scientific results are published they are then repeated by others. It is only once they have been repeated, that research is accepted. Faulty research is usually quickly discovered.

Perhaps you should investigate these issues: What is the penalty for a company providing falsified health information to a regulator? What would be the benefit to a company to falsify health research in order to get an unsafe product on the market when the product will later be discovered as unsafe? Why do you think researchers would not complain if their research was doctored by a company?

I am not pro-GM, just anti-anti-GM. GM is just another breeding technique. It has its own benefits and problems, just like all other breeding techniques. To me being anti-GM is just plain silly. It is like being anti-fork. You can choose not to use a fork if you wish, but to claim forks are the root of all evil because they are manufactured by cutlery companies is ludicrous.

I see some GM tools as exceptionally valuable. Bt cotton for example has revolutionized Chinese cotton growing, greatly reducing pesticide use and saving the lives of about 400 Chinese cotton farmers a year. Bt cotton has also greatly changed the Australian cotton industry, reducing pesticide use and decreasing the amount of fossil fuels burned to treat cotton crops for insecticides. Roundup Ready soybeans in the Americas has precipitated the adoption of no-till agriculture, saving millions of tons of topsoil from erosion and improving the health of waterways and estuaries.

Here is a great result for/from China:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/Bt.cotton.China.ssl.html
Here is a great result from India:
http://www.genecampaign.org/home/GmWindow/GM-window.htm
http://www.genecampaign.org/Publication/Article/BT%20Cotton/A-disaster-called-btcotton.htm

What possibly could be wrong with the bees where they grow bt-anything?
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070728/bob9.asp
What happens when pollen from a GM'd crop (like bt-cotton)is selfproducing insecticide, would it not blow on to a different crop like Bee-visiting canola and being picked up by bees anyhow?

GM spells disaster for nature and the food chain, the longer we'll wait for more timetested results from daring overseas countries the better for Australia to stay pure.

LOL eftfnc, do you even read the links you post?

They are good links, for sure.
For example, the Chinese link is concerned with the effects of secondary pests taking over as a result of GM cotton being successful and the pesticide use decreasing. It has such quotes as:' "These results should send a very strong signal to researchers and governments that they need to come up with remedial actions for the Bt-cotton farmers. Otherwise, these farmers will stop using Bt cotton, and that would be very unfortunate," said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell, and the 2001 Food Prize laureate. Bt cotton, he said, can help reduce poverty and undernourishment problems in developing countries if properly used.'

The Indian link is more concerned with regulation than the GM technology itself. Quote:" What will it take to get a policy on GM crops in this country that work for the farmers, not against them? If Bt cotton is a technology that could benefit our farmers, it should be developed for Indian conditions, farmers must be adequately trained in the use of this complex and alien technology and provisions for compensation in the event of crop failure must be rigorously enforced."

And as for the Bee link, they don't think that GM has much of a role to play at all! In fact, most of the evidence seems to point towards an infective agent, since CCD is occurring in non-GM areas and parts of Europe as well as the US.

Read the articles you post, please.

If you think of agriculture in Australia as 'pure', then you seem to be under some very unfortunate misapprehensions.

Bugsy, I do read before I post,thank you!

I just try to prove that there are certainly two sides to this coin,it is as I see it the natural side versus the unnatural side. "Progress" as has too long been a favoured expression of the few and should be closely looked at if it is really the progress we need on this earth as you can appreciate the disasters which have been covered up for so long. Quess what...it is our kids who will pay the price for our irresponsible behaviour,as we pay the price for our forefathers' behaviour. Here again it is follow the money i.e. means not our health and that of all living things!

For those people who believe that GM is the Bees-Knees (no pun intended but highly appropiate) of science, should try to manipulate their own genes first to prove it is safe for all, like the doktors being offered $75000 to take their own mercury laden injections, NO takers so far! Why is that? mmmmmm..let me guess!

While there may be "two sides to every coin", those links of yours don't appear to be on your side. GM has nothing to do with the bees. Someone suggested a link once, along with mobile phone transmissions and global warming and on and on, however the pollen link has been disproved. Bt toxin does not affect bees, it only affects Lepidopterans (butterflies and moths), some Bt varieties (as bacteria) affect some beetles as well, but none affect bees or any other order of insects.

As for "mercury laden injections", I would suggest that you go take a good lie down. It's a bit off topic but if there were no takers, it was probably because noone knew about it. Try a google news search for it and see what you find....

New research published by an international group of scientists has revealed serious flaws in the gene theory underpinning the billion-dollar genetic engineering industry. The research findings, published in the leading scientific journal Nature, raise serious questions about the basis for GE patents and the methods that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) uses to assess the safety of GE foods.See:
http://sites.greenpeace.org.au/truefood/news2.html?mode=aust&newsid=359

I disagree with this potential biohazard coming into Australia.

From 1996 to 1999, pest management in GE corn, soybeans, and cotton was relatively simple and effective, and engineered crops needed less pesticide than conventional varieties. By 2000, however, a contrary trend appeared—an increase in herbicide use on HT varieties over conventional varieties. That trend has continued and even accelerated in the last four years. Now, nine years of data on GE crops and pesticide use indicate that a total of 122 million more pounds of pesticides have been used on engineered crops than on conventional ones over that period.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-crops-pesticide-use.html I am concerned with the increase in body weight in Monsanto's tests is because if the body weight increases with 26% GM that they tested, what happens when it becomes 100%? Would you be concerned if you multiplied the test results x 4? I have not always been a non-GM person, but this debate when I challenged (as my name suggests) "Is it really safe" then the test results that you pro GM lobby gave me, showed that they were not totally conclusive, I became concerned. When I challenged this, you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about. Well I am just a consumer but you have not shown me unequivocal proof yet.

If you do not know what you are looking for in science then you will be looking in a haystack with a fork and hoping you don't find anything as I have said before in other forum debates.

then the test results that you pro GM lobby gave me, showed that they were not totally conclusive, I became concerned. When I challenged this, you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about. Well I am just a consumer but you have not shown me unequivocal proof yet.

"is it really safe" thanks for your input.
(you pro GM lobby)
I hope you don't mean me:-)

(you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about.)

I never did attack you,sorry!

I think you know what you're talking about,as I can see that you're doing your homework and try to connect the dots.
I don't think it takes a science-wizzard to see what is going wrong here with this GM stuff. Again...follow the money trail, that is what the average bloke is up against.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912 shows bribes in Indonesia November 2006 It also shows:-

The cotton’s agronomic performance is also erratic. When Monsanto’s GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other unexpected problems. Monsanto paid out millions in settlements.[4] When Bt cotton was tested in Indonesia, widespread pest infestation and drought damage forced withdrawal of the crop, despite the fact that Monsanto had been bribing at least 140 individuals for years, trying to gain approval.[5] In India, inconsistent performance has resulted in more than $80 million dollars in losses in each of two states.[6] Thousands of indebted Bt cotton farmers have committed suicide. In Vidarbha, in north east Maharashtra, from June through August 2006, farmers committed suicide at a rate of about one every eight hours.[7] (The list of adverse reactions reported from other GM crops, in lab animals, livestock and humans, is considerably longer.)

According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, Monsanto pursues hundreds of new investigative leads a year, 600 in 2003 for example, aimed at farmers.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto%27s_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers "The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments".

Eftfnc, (thanks for your input by the way) I only mean the pro-GM sector that attack me saying "I can pick organic or olive oil" which is false due to contamination. They cannot see the reality that more needs to be done and tested before this possible biohazard is even allowed into Australia.

The risks are too high for anyone to be blindfolded.

Agronomist (Ian Edwards), you are extremely misleading but I think your bitterness against those opposing GM is more about your history of losing profit making potential by losing investors in your GM wheat (since sold).
The Network of Concerned Farmers is NOT "composed mainly of organic farmers" as you claim, we mainly farm conventionally. I am the National Spokesperson for NCF and we farm 10,000ha and had a crop spraying business for around 20 years.
Most farm lobby groups change their anti-GM to a pro-GM stance because the misleading information is not countered.
Who are farmers listening to when they vote to support GM?
1. Government organisations who have promised a path to market in exchange for the corporate sector taking over the public plant breeding role.
2. Researchers who are desperate for funding and funding alliances because government is withdrawing from funding.
3. Seed industry who plan to profit big time with farmers being forced to replant our own seed with GM (USDA survey showed the seed sector was the key beneficiary of GM crops)
4. R&D institutes who have alliances and own tradeable profitable intectual property.
5. The GM industry who have formed alliances and cut deal with plant breeding institutes. Commercialisation allows the GM industry to withdraw from funding and start collecting significant returns on their investment.
Who is at risk?
Farmers because only farmers pay for the additional costs to support all the above. Those not wishing to grow GM will not have the option to market as non-GM as it will be too difficult and too expensive.
Consumers as the consumer issues have not been resolved and they will be denied the GM-free choice. Oils derived from GM canola is NOT labelled as claimed and not tested either.
Further debate regarding misleading "benefits": http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6042
GM benefits are a furphy but unfortunately farmers are being misled by industry parasites.

SAFE: You may have been criticised for your scientific reasoning in other threads, but I hardly think that it constitutes an ‘attack’. If a university student was criticised by a professor for voicing an ill formed opinion because it was clear that he had no read the literature that opinion was about, and was also clear that the student had limited background in the subject, in this case toxicology and feeding experiments, then would that constitute an attack? Or merely a criticism?

As to why they do not feed rats 100% GM corn, I think it wise for you to read the original paper, I will paste some from the materials and methods (from Hammond et al 2004, same as in Hammond et al 2006):

“Diets containing test, control and reference control grain were formulated by Purina TestDiet (Richmond, IN) to be nutritionally and compositionally comparable to PMI Certified Rodent LabDiet®, 3 5002. Many toxicology laboratories use this diet in rodent feeding studies. Roundup Ready corn, control, and reference control grains were ground and added to diets at levels of approximately 33% w/w, the standard incorporation rate for Certified Rodent LabDiet 5002. Roundup Ready corn and control corn were also added to diets at 11% w/w to assess any potential dose-response of effects that might be observed at the 33% dietary level. To be consistent with all the other diets in the study, corn grain supplied by Purina TestDiet was added at 22% w/w to the 11% w/w corn grain diets to bring the total corn grain content up to 33% w/w, consistent with other diets. Following diet preparation, samples of all diets were analysed (Covance Laboratories, Madison, WI, USA) to confirm formulated diets met PMI specifications for certified 5002 rodent diet.”

cont'd....

It has to pointed out that Seralini et al did not actually find anything themselves, they just reinterpreted the data from Hammond et al. because to quote from their own acknowledgements: “This work was supported by Greenpeace Germany who, in June 2005, won the Appeal Court action against Monsanto, who wanted to keep the data confidential.”

So they get the data, then try and put a different interpretation on it, by looking at body weights over the whole study. However in the original study it was pointed out that the rate of body weight difference happened at week 3, with a slight decrease in week 4, and then no change in the rate of increase was observed. However, the slight increase in week 3 changed the totals over the whole experiment and was not considered biologically significant because the two events were in opposite directions and the increase was not considered biologically significant. That is the trend (for 1 week!) failed to continue, even if it threw the data out slightly. This was not controlled for in the Seralini analysis and the European Commission that reviewed the Seralini paper concluded that it was flawed:

To quote the main conclusions from the European Commission:
• The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.
• EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of MON 863 maize.
• Observed statistically significant differences reported by Monsanto, Séralini et al., and EFSA, were considered not to be biologically relevant. In the absence of any indications that the observed differences are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that this paper raises new issues with respect to the safety of MON 863 maize. Therefore, the GMO Panel sees no reason to revise its previous Opinions that the MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of its proposed use.

This should be after my first post:

In other words, for it to count, they have to be nutritionally similar or the results are meaningless. Rats, like humans are omnivores and 100% corn diets are not nutritionally balanced. You could not even possibly determine proper differences (even in humans) if they were fed on a 100% diet, because they would all be suffering from dietary deficiencies after a couple of weeks! The results would NOT “be multiplied x4” at all, in fact I would be surprised if even the controls survived the full 90 days.

While all this sciency talk might not convince you of anything, it should give you pause before commenting on scientific data that you obviously do not understand. It probably won’t though, because I have “serious concerns” over your sincerity about “not always being a non-GM person” (whatever that is supposed to mean, were you ever a pro-GM person?). I am also a consumer and I think that any technological advance that reduces the amount of pesticide residues on my food and in the environment the better!

Anyways, can we stop banging on about MON863?

I wonder what would happen,if the government would just stamp out ALL GM production here in Oz, and advertise to the world that we are GM free. I'll tell you what will happen..1.The consumers (this is what it is all about) will be very very happy! Farmers are supposed to look after there own country first and then what crop is left over should be put into a Co-op for export.Not the otherway around like "export-dollars" focussed.Old fields can be turned around to organics.
2. The world will knock our doors down for our quality products because they will be eventually healthier then mass produced/chem.fertilised crap what is on the local market now.
One only has to take a Brix measure to any store and see the difference in readings.

...and coming back to the discussion headline I would prefer to get unscientific and common consumers' views on this subject as people in the science world can outspeak non-learneth folks any time and never stop argueing about con or pro sumsing:-)
People who are in the field of science are still in the minority and people wanting to stay healthy as "nature intended" are the majority, so as nature tells you: majority rules!

Safe, I took you through part of the MON 863 study on another thread answering you questions about how much GM was fed to the rats and why the “differences” found were unimportant. I even pointed you to the original data that Monsanto has posted. You have simply come here repeating the same points. This study looked at a whole host of measurements of rats fed diets of GM corn. That there were a few differences is to absolutely expected, given the number of measurements made. However, there were no differences that were outside the range of normal responses, nor any that followed a dose response. Hence the conclusion that there was Mon 863 was safe. This conclusion was supported by EFSA and re-supported after their examination of Seralini’s paper.

With respect to BT cotton, you seem to be repeating old, debunked rumours about the crop. Today, more than 60% of cotton in the US is BT, and over 80% in Australia. If all the claims you are repeating about the crop are true, why are farmers continuing to plant it?

Julie, it seems to me that quite a few of your so-called “members” are organic growers: Sam Statham, Nic Kentish, Gavin Dunn, and Felicity Martin (the last two biodynamic), Then you also have Scott Kinnear (organic retailer and employee of BFA (organic certifying group)) and Pennie Scott (on the BFA board) from the organic industry.

Eftfnc, do you only want uninformed opinions them?

The vast majority of agricultural produce in Australia is not GM and you don’t see the world attempting to beat the doors down to get it do you? It still needs to compete in the international marketplace and much of that marketplace is not discriminatory.

As for the “new research” from the Greenpeace Press Release, we have known about these regulatory agents for many years. What is new seems to be how many of these elements there are in the genome and the fact that they have overlapping functions. Many also appear to be redundant and not well conserved by evolution. This has little bearing on GM products, because at the moment all that is going in is a single gene, or two, driven by its own promoter and not controlled of other regulatory elements.

I'll say it again oh professor,I don't give a hoot how much you are involved in this pro-GE stuff,your next thing will be nano-tech GE/GM applications.
It is customers, consumers, eaters and wearers who have to cope with the survival of their progeny.
No matter what you discuss in other learneth blogs, the majority will rule and we the eaters are the majority. The quickest way to distruction of our system is manipulating it, as the saying goes if it ain't kaput don't effen fix it!

Agronomist , as I understand it the older conventional variety of bi - product cotton seed meal and waste could be fed to livestock .

However I believe the new GM variety cannot, because of the insecticide component in it.

That is probably a regressive step for the producers of this sort of cotton .

Wasn't this consideration worth worrying about .

http://www.proxyinformation.com/monenvrisk1.html Studies that have come out in 2004 and that should be considered for the current shareholder resolution and proxy vote include:

A National Academy of Science report on "Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms" found that preventing contamination of non-GE crops or wild relatives by GE was not possible in most cases with current technology. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309090857/html/

A EPA study showed that GE turf grass had a much greater extent of contamination then Monsanto had predicted. The resulting first-ever full Environmental Impact Statement on a GE crop, currently in process at USDA, and opposition from other U.S. agencies may scuttle this product.

A Union of Concerned Scientists study "Gone to Seed" found that GE DNA is contaminating US seeds of corn, soybeans and canola. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=1315

The organic and conventional papaya industry in Hawaii and Thailand reported widespread contamination from Monsanto's GE papaya.

A recent study showed that the non-Bt refuges designed to prevent Bt resistant insects from developing, was itself found to be contaminated by Bt genes. This could reduce the ability of refuges to prevent resistance.

A study of United States Department of Agriculture data found that pesticide use on GE crops increased by 4% over the last 9 years.

Peer reviewed studies show Roundup-resistant weeds are developing at increasing frequency, and will likely begin to make Roundup Ready crops less attractive. In 2004 Roundup resistant ragweed and hairy fleabane were confirmed and Roundup resistant morning glories reported.

Just last month, 10 university weed scientists issued a statement saying that since 2000, Roundup resistant horseweed has increased from one reported field in Delaware to 11 additional states so far; infesting over 1.5 million acres in Tennessee alone. The scientists also recommend that roundup be rotated with different herbicides. That would likely mean less Roundup used/sold on those crops if followed, because roundup is often now used continuously on RR crops.

Farm Scale studies performed in England determined that Roundup Ready sugar beet and Roundup Ready canola reduce food sources for birds in crop fields. This could imperil approval for planting in Europe.

Why should Australia take on this Biohazard?

As consumers we can do everything to alter the situation by not buying GE suspected products.
You watch,"is it really safe" the info you provided will be bagged!
Soldier on anyhow. For the GE FREE consumers out there here is a great start you can put in your pocket when you are shopping, it is called the TRUE FOOD GUIDE and you can download it here:
http://www.truefood.org.au
It gives a good idea which products are GE free and which company needs prodding.

No, consumers will have very little choice to avoid GM products because it will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to market our produce as non-GM.
If GM canola is introduced, all canola is expected to be sold as GM and canola oil does not need to be labelled as GM.
Don't believe the misleading claims that GM canola has been rigorously tested, the oil (the part consumers eat) has not been tested. Yes, the meal has but even after a few weeks feeding Roundup Ready canola meal to animals showed an increase in liver weights of around 16-17%.
Farmers want to market what consumers want but because of extremely unfair coexistence proposals, non-GM farmers are to bear the cost of trying to keep GM from contaminating our product and to accept full responsibility and the economic loss when we fail.
The pro-GMers are refusing to accept the liability for losses and expect us to believe them when they promote the "no problems mate" mentality.

Kartiya Jim, your sources must be mistaken. BT cottonseed is perfectly acceptable for cattle feed and is widely used in the industry. Cottonseed is not suitable for monogastrics, like pigs, because of the toxic gossypol in it. BT cottonseed has no more gossypol than conventional cotton.

I understand that Bt cotton is fed to dairy cows in several states of Australia, including Victoria.

Julie, you should check your sources

“The second study used only processed canola meal. This study showed a slight increase in liver weights compared to the control, at the highest dietary intake level (15%), but not at the lower level of intake (5%). However, it was noted that the processing of the canola seed from the GM and non-GM control lines was performed at a different time and place, and consequently there were differences in the extent of processing of the canola meal.

The third study was an assessment of the GM (GT73) canola meal, non-GM control lines from around the world, and rat chow as a negative control. On this occasion, all seed samples from the GM and non-GM lines were processed at the same time, and to the same extent. There were no significant differences in body weight, cumulative weight gain, terminal body weights or food consumption for animals fed GM canola meal compared to the non-GM control canola meal. Most importantly, there were also no significant differences in absolute or relative liver or kidney weights between animals fed the GM canola meal compared to the non-GM canola meal, or the population of canola varieties.”
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2004/gmcanolasafetyassess2498.cfm

Also from the same document: “It should be noted that canola oil itself cannot be fed to rats in sufficient quantities to test for adverse effects because this would cause malnutrition and other physiological imbalances. Thus no meaningful information would result from this testing.”

Agronomist ,
Are you saying that BT modified cotton is fine for feeding feedlot cattle in Australia ?

Why aren't we told about it by appropriate labelling if we are eating the beef from them ?

The latest from Monsanto's headoffice:
From now on, staff at the British headquarters of biotech giant Monsanto will be eating only non-genetically modified products on their lunch breaks. Foods containing genetically modified soy and corn are no longer available in the company cafeteria. Granada Food Services, which manages the canteen, is said to be concerned about health risks. Monsanto's press department contends the action was not the result of a boycott initiated by worried employees of the U.S. multinational.

Genetic Engineering News:http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.cfm

Also this scroll to list at: http://www.econexus.info/publications.html#genome

Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease.(a bit lenghty but worthwhile reading)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=678

Kartiya Jim, my understanding is that it is not necessary to label animal products fed GM feed anywhere in the world. I assume Australia is the same. The main reason for this is that you cannot tell the difference with any measure between animals fed GM food and those fed non-GM. No protein or DNA crosses into the products that you eat. The EU, one of the toughest labelling regimes in the world, doesn’t label either. Their report http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/gmo/statements.Par.0002.File.dat/EFSA_statement_DNA_proteins_gastroint.pdf

In fact, I think you will find it is dairy more than feedlot cattle that consume BT cottonseed. Not only that, they have been doing so for 11 years now.

Eftfnc this is old news from 2000. The cafeteria was outsourced and the company chose to use non-GM ingredients for all of its activities. I am unsure as to whether they still have the contract.

As to your other story, here is the view of an Australian scientist on it. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/teaser-for-genetic-roulette-caper.html

You can check the references given and Preston does indeed seem to be right.

More proof? Or is it again hearsay unscientific crap?
...Only 1 percent of the world's genetically modified food is grown in Europe. In contrast, 55 percent of the world's acreage in genetically modified crops is in the United States, where there is no distinction made between genetically modified and traditional varieties. Between 1998 and 2004, the EU had a moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified crops and food, so experts could study the risks involved. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United States, that was lifted.
http://iht.com/articles/2007/07/20/business/wbpotato21.php

Agro..as far as your link "http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/teaser-for-genetic-roulette-caper.html"
is concerned, I have found only one response sofar thru all the blog articles, I wonder why?

From your link eftnc:
"'I just don't like the idea,' said Monika Stahl, 31,",

Another gem:"In one sense, the supreme irony is that Amflora is not a food at all.......<snip> "You would think that this approval would have been easy since this potato has no seeds, no wild relatives to cross with in Europe, and only industrial use," said Ralf-Michael Schmidt, vice president of BASF. "But it didn't turn out that way."

"On a crop-by-crop basis, the scientific recommendations of the European Food Safety Agency are voted on by ministers from the 27 member states. Approvals bounce back and forth and ultimately arrive at the European Commission in Brussels when member states cannot agree.

"As a scientist I have a hard time understanding it, but this is how Europe has chosen to make these decisions," said Susanne Benner, communications director at BASF. "But it's hard when you see an innovative product go through the loops again and again. These decisions are not about science but about politics."

Yes, unscientific claptrap, but surprise surprise, POLITICS!

I still can't understand what point you are trying to make though.

Bugsy:The point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't just listen and look at what scientists are trying to tell us and that the majority is against unnatural approaches to our foodchain.

Is anybody listening?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18168.htm

Agronomist,
Talking to a conventional spray using farmer yesterday I was surprised to hear him say he DIDN'T want GM Monsanto Roundup resistant canola introduced .

He considers Roundup a handy Spray as it kills just about everything he needs to kill in his cropping program .

His Question was "what is going to kill the Roundup resistant canola ??".
He answered his own question by saying that " I will have to spray another type of chemical".

There should be an ALL encompassing inquiry into the Legal Ramifications of cross - contamination and use of GM crops and the associated Costs of Compensation .

In other words -who is going to Pay??

Unless this occurs, NO GM crops should be grown .

If that was the actual point you were trying to make eftnc, then the article you linked to about the potatoes was not a good one for it. I must say though, that the article was a good one and highlights the POLITICAL side to regulation of GM and how it ignores the science.

kartya jim, how much compensation do you think non-GM farmers will need? If they do "suffer losses", how much loss so you think they will suffer?

kartiya jim

Your farmer friend has a simple solution. He doesn’t have to grow Roundup Ready canola in which case he won’t have to use other herbicides to control it.

I suspect he was being disingenuous as he is probably already spraying that other chemical now to control broadleaf brassica weeds within his wheat crop. He will just have to use it at a different time if he wants to grow Roundup Ready canola.

Canadian experience has shown there are virtually no costs associated with cross contamination. There were some early issues when growers forgot they could not control Roundup Ready canola volunteers with Roundup, but they are over that now. GM canola has now got to over 80% of canola in Canada and continuing to climb. Surely if there were major costs associated with GM canola, Canadian growers would not use it? Or do you just think all Canadians are stupid?

Eftfnc

Allow me to say that the article you pointed to was plain silly. Here you have anti-globalization organisations convincing a Third-World farmer to commit suicide in order to make a political point. No wonder the media ignored it. Farmer suicides are occurring in India, but because of economic stresses caused by the splitting of land into smaller parcels, increasing costs of water and dowry inflation. In fact Bt cotton has been quite successful for small farmers significantly increasing yields and returns. http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=290672

Love to put more zest into this conversation.
Any takers? Here is something of interest to ponder over, according to ISIS the FAO is Promoting organic growing.How about that!
see here for the article with links included:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAOPromotesOrganicAgriculture.php

So what is wrong with organic agriculture?

Instead of posting from I-SIS, you might have linked to the FAO, where you get their view on the sector, not what somebody else says about them. ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/CFS-special-forum.pdf

What is it Agro, that you so dislike about what I-sis writes?
It is their profession after all to keep the finger on the pulse and to let interested people know what goes on? What ordinary persons like myself could afford to pay for scientific reports which would cost up to $35 each or more like some of the medical journals?
Let me ask you...why are you so against people seeking knowledge, looking at most of your answers or responses, they do seem to have a negative tinge. As far as organics is concerned,I'm all for it the more widespread it becomes here the better and I think it would serve you more if you'd help turn around the situation of poor agricultural management here in Australia by promoting Non-GM.

My main problem with I-SIS is that much of the material they write is not intended to inform, but to mislead. In addition, the ideas of the founder Mae-Wan Ho are distinctly odd and out of step with 400 years of scientific discovery. Ho makes discoveries that are not there, adds 2 + 2 to make 11 and totally ignores evidence if they do not fit her ideological agenda.

Burcher's article on the FAO position on organic agriculture and food security seems to be at total odds with what FAO says themselves. I can only conclude that Burcher is sourcing from an entirely different, and possibly, mythical paper.

I am not at all against people seeking knowledge. However, I recognise there is knowledge and then there are fairy stories. I try to steer away from the fairy stories.

Apart from cotton, Australia only has non-GM agriculture. If you want to blame an agricultural system for the "situation of poor agricultural management here in Australia" - you would have to blame non-GM agriculture.