Protagoras “Astonishingly, user agreements drawn up by companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta explicitly forbid the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails or whether GM crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.”

That is truly amazing, because I have done farmer-funded trials on GM crops. All I had to do was submit the protocol to Monsanto and get their approval. It really was as simple as that. But I see now that according to you such trials could never have happened.

David Schubert has conducted no research on GM food. All he has done is write cherry picked articles on the matter. Schubert in any case is wrong. The data on GM food is reviewed by the regulatory agencies and by independent scientists they consult before the product is allowed on the market. More than is done for any other sort of food.

Agronomist – It was clear from the information I provided that Schubert’s paper, to which I referred, was an investigation into the failure to adequately test GM organisms in plants and animals and the lack of regulation.

However, Schubert has published over 200 reviewed manuscripts in the areas of molecular genetics, cell biology, and protein chemistry and has written and lectured on the potential health hazards associated with genetically modified crops. Alas for you Agronomist, his credentials in the area of human health, unintentionally place you at the bottom of the pile.

Subsequent to Schubert’s findings, Elson J Shields at Cornell University, the spokesperson for a group of 24 leading corn insect scientists, found during their research in 2009 (published by Scientific American) that some papers on genetically modified seeds are indeed published, but only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of day.

In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.

“It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Shields, in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops in the US), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

Consequently Agronomist, that places you, a GM proponent, at the top of the pile but only with the seed companies - albeit bereft of any credibility.

FOE’s 2010 report on global GM crops found that:

“GM crops are also not feeding the world. They remain confined to about 2.6% of agricultural land worldwide, and 99% are grown for animal feed and fuels rather than for food crops.

“The US, Argentina, Brazil, India, Canada and China grew over 94% of GM crops in 2008, with the first three accounting for 79% of the total:

http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/who_benefits_full_report_2010.pdf