Whenever I hear of Greenpeace I am reminded of an unknown politician called Konrad Henlein, who led the sudeten germans in Czechoslovakia in the nineteen thirties.

Konrad let the cat out of the bag by saying:

"We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

So what has changed?

How many unsubstantiated assumptions can GM supporters make?

1. According to the W.H.O. there's already sufficient food in the world to feed everyone. It isn't a matter of agriculture but politics that keeps people hungry. If there's drought - a cause of much current starvation - it doesn't matter how much you fiddle the genes.

2. No-one can claim with any certainty there are no ill effects from propagating GM crops. Surely one of the the biggest impediments to making a profit from it.

3. Vitamin-A boosted rice is all very nice but you'd need to eat several kg of the stuff to make a difference. (didn't they mention this in the brochure?)

4. Opposition to GM is always from idealogical luddites. GM proponents have only the well-being of others in mind.

If we're going to supplant evolution/nature/god/environmental balance we ought to try it out on something that won't affect other parts of the environment. Grow GM if you want but not where it contaminates non-GM. All of North America, for example. Tasmania reckons there's more benefit in remaining GM-free since that's what people want.

I think people who want to grow GM crops and eat GM foods should be free to do so, if this does not take away the right of others to grow non GM crops and eat non GM foods.

There is evidence to show that it is not possible for GM canola growers to avoid impacting on their neighbouring famers. In some cases farmers have been prosecuted by Monsanto for growing GM crops when they have made every effort to grow non GM crops.

It may not be a good idea to hand over the entire world seed market to half a dozen corporations, and to deny the rights of farmers to harvest and use their own seed.

RE Bennies comments

RE: 1. According to the W.H.O. there's already sufficient food in the world to feed everyone. It isn't a matter of agriculture but politics that keeps people hungry. If there's drought - a cause of much current starvation - it doesn't matter how much you fiddle the genes.

REsponse: China, with population growth, and greater wealth, over the next decades will need much more food but doesnt have any spare farmland. Isnt it good that they try and improve output to meet growing demand and reduce pesticide use using GM and other methods? This takes time. Similar comments apply to other food resource poor countries.
Less efficient farmers who compete with efficient or subsidised countries on world makets can also keep in business by using GM to reduce their costs. Local costs are usually set by world prices. This is pretty tough for poor farmers unless they use the best methods.

BTW did you notice if food supply had stayed at 1960 efficiency levels we wouldnt have enough food now? We have enough because of improvements since 1960 in crop breeding.

RE 3. Vitamin-A boosted rice is all very nice but you'd need to eat several kg of the stuff to make a difference. (didn't they mention this in the brochure?)
RESPONSE: I read the scientific papers found through NCBI website not brochures, These give all the details. Latest results from the scientists involved say 60g of vit A rice is enought to do the job. The Kg figure is Greenpeace misinformation.

Jennifer Marohasy is in a paid position with a company paid by companies such as Monsanto to specifically target groups protesting against products companies such as Monsanto develop.
The general public however want a choice to avoid GM foods as they have concerns about GM foods and as there is no benefit and many identified risks.
Farmers also have rights and farmers want to continue to provide products that consumers prefer. If GM crops are introduced, farmers will lose the ability to market as GM-free or non-GM as contamination will occur and therefore market loss will occur.
Independent trials have proven the claimed "benefits" are little more than a scam. Farmers pay more and get less weed control and no additional yields when compared to non-GM varieties.
We don't mind farmers giving this product a try but we certainly do mind if those farmers that know better are expected to accept the economic loss caused by vandalism of our product.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/outside-view-on-australian-gm-wine_30.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/gmo-wine-in-america.html

Dont forget genetically engineered Kenth beer and wine together create a hangover for brewers and drinkers
GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/