Thanks Jeremy, a great article that makes sense and uses a rational argument unlike the popcorn that Marohasy continues to churn out. At the rate Marohasy is going she won't get a job working anywhere but in the PR department of someone like Monsanto or Walmart.

You mean Jennifer is NOT in the PR department of someone like Monsanto or Walmart? Are you sure? And how could we tell?

For someone who proclaims an interest in the environment, it does seem passing strange that there doesn't appear to one part of the natural ecosytem that Ms Marohasy thinks wouldn't be improved by some chemicals, genetically modification or slashing, burning, chopping, cropping and generally destroying any old how you can. Guess there's not much point having dominion of a planet if that doesn't allow you to bugger it up.

>>Jeremy Tager argues there is a body of scientific work which raises concerns about health and environmental impacts of GE.<<

This is a good, attractive byline. As someone who is entirely uncommitted on the topic, I was looking forward to an insight into this side of the argument. What did I find?

"There is now a substantial body of scientific work - peer reviewed - that raises serious concerns about both health and environmental impacts of GE."

And that was pretty much it.

It was followed by a single, unenlightening reference to an incident in Germany, but what did that case show? Is the Monsanto product they talk about actually being used in the world? In Australia? How many people have died? Is the report now public? What did it contain? How significant are its findings?

Why only one example?

Why is it that even in an article that is supposed to fire me up about the evils of GE I can get so little real information?

Pericles
At the end of his article, Jeremy invites anyone who wants sources or data on claims to contact him. So it is not really fair to blame for the fact that it is not all contained in the published article. Go ahead and contact him if you want more details

Sorry Rossco, that's a cop-out.

The article makes too many assumptions for it to have credibility. I Googled the sole example that Mr Tager included and found that there is some lively scientific debate around the Greenpeace contentions. Which is just as one would expect. To be invited to contact the writer for further information only ensures I hear more of one side of the discussions, when I am more interested in the extent of the problem.

If you look again at the article, and try to see past the indignant language - "genetic contamination", "rubber stamp regulator", "driven by corporate motives", "Topas scandal" etc. there are very few useful facts.

On the face of it, there should be much to write about - we are after all extremely concerned about what we eat and its effect on our health. But articles like this, with its air of breathless hysteria and its sneering references to those it opposes, advances the cause not one jot, whit or tittle.

Greenpeace is anti progress driven by idology not facts.

There was another 'fact' in the article Pericles - "This year Canada’s canola sales to Europe were zero: Zero seed. Zero oil. Zero meal."

That would be interesting if they used to sell masses of canola to Europe. But a quick check of some Canadian stats and we find that in 1997 they sold so little seed to Europe that it gets put in the 'Other' column and 1.4% of meal exports went to Europe. Europe wasn't buying Canadian canola long before GE varieties were introduced.

Not selling to Europe isn't going to cause Canadian canola growers to loose any sleep. In the period 1995 to 2004 world-wide Canadian exports of meal have increased by 29.4%, canola oil by 89% and seed by 34%. So growing GE canola has not affected their export markets in any discernable way.

So it is a little disingenuous to claim that Canada not selling to Europe has any real meaning for us. Tager might as well point out that they haven't sold anything to Outer Mongolia.

The claim is completely accurate, completely irrelevant and completely misleading. I suspect we could apply the same description to most of the other calims in the article.

Pericles
So you won't seek to get more information from Jeremy because you don't want to be exposed to facts which don't confirm to your already determined opinion. We will really get a long way on exploring this issue with that sort of attitude.

If there was any truth in the claimed benefits of GM, we would have a well referenced balance sheet showing farmers will benefit but it is obvious that both GM and non-GM farmers will be far worse off. Many details are hidden behind commercial in confidence but it is very obvious that the GM company and patent owner will be the main beneficiary in permanently contaminating the worlds food supply with a patented product not wanted by the majority of consumers and farmers.
Consumers will not have a choice because it will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to market as GM-free as contamination can not be controlled.
When we talk of markets and market loss, little is ever said about the fact that all farmers are expected to market as GM.
EU is on average around 13% of our export market and we will lose that market if we adopt GM. Japan is Australia's biggest customer and many Japanese customers have made it clear to the Australian Barley Board that the only reason they buy from Australia is because we are GM-free. Who is going to compensate farmers for loss of markets?
Lets be sensible, who do you think should be liable for the economic, health or environmental loss caused by a GM product?
The non-GM grower (as proposed), the GM grower (recommended legal recourse is for non-GM farmers to sue GM farmers although the outcome is doubtful), the state government (who have the legislated authority to assess economics), the Federal government (with inadequate legislative protection) or the GM company (who own the product and know the risk)?
In order for consumers to have the choice, farmers must be able to be able to grow a GM-free product and it is essential that we adopt a strict liability regime to legislation to ensure the GM company is liable for any costs for testing, recalls etc caused by their product.
Non-GM farmers do not want to compensate the GM industry by paying for losses caused by a product we do not want and do not need

Rossco, as I pointed out before, I have an entirely open mind on this issue. I am not part of the food industry, I have no vested interest in any particular outcome, I am simply interested in the arguments that are presented. I stand by my statement that as an introduction to the issues, this article did a very poor job. So poor, in fact, that it gave me the impression that the arguments it claimed to have might not exist, or might not be as strong as the language in the article suggests.

Just calling it as I see it. Sorry if I have trodden on someone's bunions in the process.

In fact, having looked again, I am even more adamant that what we have here is a lazy set of half-baked observations masquerading as a contribution to - presumably - an important debate.

But it also occurred to me that Mr T. is somehow conformimg to the accepted house style, which is to write as though you are talking to people who already know what you are going to say, and are totally in support of you. This allows you to forget about anyone who might not be as fanatical as yourself, and might just be looking for some illumination on the topic.

John Stone and David Flint provide an identical service for those who believe Australia is being overrun by Moslem terrorists, as does Peter Sellick for christian evangelists. Is it too much to expect that contributors step back a pace or two from their hobbyhorse and offer a slightly more balanced offering? Or at least to pretend for a moment that not everyone automatically agrees with them. Instead we get sloppy argumentation, fuzzy logic and careless construction, excused on the basis that everyone who is reading is a believer anyway.

A spin-off of this approach is that it also totally polarizes the forum comments. These are either "yay, you're the man" or "you're an idiot" type responses that add nothing to the debate. (Unless of course you are Boaz, who can turn a discussion on absolutely any topic at all into a fireside chat about his religious beliefs.)

There are always two sides to an argument. Even Saddam Hussein had a legitimate grievance with Kuwait when he invaded in 1990, although we seem to prefer not to think too hard about that.

Polemic is fine, but it has to be supported with facts. Buttressing opinions with even more opinions doesn't cut it for me, even though it seems to be a popular pastime.

Unfortunately Pericles has fallen in to the emotive trap of many in the GM debate. I recommend a very interesting book that accurately details some of the concerns regarding GM foods. It is "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith.
It starts detailing how a top scientist called Arpad Pusztai was employed to establish that GM foods were safe. A lucrative government grant allowed his 3 year proposed study to progress but 6 months into that study Mr Pusztai went public with very serious concerns explaining how developing animals fed on GM foods had smaller organ development, larger livers (indicating inability to cope with toxins), blood disorders and changes within the bowel that could be predisposition to tumours. He was praised until he was sacked after a few hundred thousand pounds was paid to Rowett University by Monsanto.
The book does not include Monsanto's adverse health findings recently revealed that showed blood disorders in animals fed GM.
Even our regulatory process allowed Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola to be approved as "safe" after analysis of Monsanto's data despite that data revealing an increase in liver weights of around 16% in only a few weeks.
Some consumers don't see why they should eat GM and some farmers don't see why we can't continue to sell consumer preferred non-GM products. Legally non-GM means zero contamination and this is impossible due to nature and human error.

NonGMfarmer - I am in agreement with the sentiments underlying your post. I am concerned that we are leaping onto the GM bandwagon without sufficient knowledge of the long term effects of playing with the basic building blocks of life - DNA. The GM market appears to be solely $ driven and not based upon in depth knowledge - which we are still to determine. I notice know that the argument has become based upon economic concerns (whether or not we will lose lucrative markets in Europe/Japan) because the only argument that has any merit in this 'rational' economy is the $ value.

Issues of fresh local produce, natural sustainability and long term effects of GM are brushed aside - which is appalling. These are valid concerns yet receive little if any consideration. (Generally placed in the 'Greenie Basket' which now apparently means loony fringe and any merit these arguments have are ignored).

Australia still has the opportunity to provide a GM free alternative to the world market.

I understand where Pericles is coming from vis-a-vis 'preaching to the already converted', while there is a plethora of speechifying on race/religion/colour/creed there is insufficient discussion about GM and its consequences as I have outlined above. Therefore I believe that we need opinion pieces like Tager - we all start from some POV after all. As for the Sells, Flints and Stones - they surely must be losing by the erosive effect of repetition. Therefore Pericles, at least allow some discussion of the GM issue. We really need to think through this one. My next meal is counting on it ;-)

According to a Canadian biotech website “Europe was never a major customer [for Canadian Canola] anyway, buying on average about 300,000 tonnes a year.

Canada exported almost four million tonnes of canola in 1999/2000 and almost five million tonnes in 2000/2001.”

In other words, somewhere between 4% and 7.5% of the Canadian canola exports to Europe have disappeared. And Australia continues to take advantage of the opportunistic markets there, with Europe buying, on a 5 year average, around 15% of Australian canola exports.

I doubt most Australian canola growers would be impressed at the thought of losing any portion of that market for a product that has no benefits.

One last note for Pericles – Tager offered to provide references for claims made. In other words, he’s claiming he can back the claims with original sources.