The Forum > Article Comments > The case for GM food > Comments
The case for GM food : Comments
By David Tribe, published 22/11/2005David Tribe argues that GM foods deserve a fair hearing.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Page 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- ...
- 73
- 74
- 75
-
- All
Posted by d, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 7:13:03 AM
| |
"Abnormally sensitive?!" The GM activists can't set tolerance levels for unwanted GM contamination that don't comply with law or market demand and where there is no workable field test to make tolerance levels operational. How exactly do you see tolerance levels work? Who should pay when those tolerance levels are exceeded? Non-GM farmers are not interested in subsidising the GM industry.
Why are you against independent health tests? Why shouldn’t someone other than the GM license holder do health tests? What are you afraid of? David, do you think the bread labels sprouting the health benefits of Omega 3 due to the linseed added is false and misleading? More to counter Rebels claim that "Subsidies don’t exist in Argentina, Brazil, India, China or South Africa, but they have adopted GM anyway." National Cotton Council of America President "My problem with world cotton subsidies is the whole world subsidizes except Australia." http://www.cotton.org/news/meetings/2004annual/dunavant-III-report.cfm China failed to give a committment to WTO Subsidies Committee http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2005/05_01_21_china_inthe_wto.htm but December 2005 China agreed to dropping subsides to a maximum level of 8.5% of the value of production. http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2001/0615/epf502.htm A correction from Bill Crabtree, the information I received from an agronomist was obviously incorrect. Bill emailed and said he didn't take twice as long to get his degree, so I retract that statement with an apology to Bill. Rebel, the point of my chemical article was that any health concerns can be dragged up on chemicals, but the safety to consumers eating canola derived from triazine- tolerant varieties pose no more risk than the varieties proposed. I also gave the APVMA Q&A on residues to allay consumer fears. My GRDC quote was what "I believe", not a referenced quote. Agronomist, the link about you and a paid consultant was purely guessing who you were. Since then though I recognise the “attack by misrepresentation” style of Chris Preston. A question for you if you are Chris: Why did you misquote and use quotes I had removed from the website around 9 months before when attacking my article on yields for Agbioview? Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:14:24 AM
| |
You have no right to demand that I trust scientists tinkering with my food. Excuse me but no I will not trust you. If you are not willing to do the tests previously stated then I am sorry, that just gives me more reason to not trust you at all. You have done a fantastic PR game with the populace and they are all confused as to what GM is compared to non-GM and in some categories what they think is GM is actually non-GM. You have purposely got people to say “Whatever… we have no choice as it’s coming in anyway”. This is wrong as people should have a choice and they should know the facts. You are hiding them and I will not trust any scientist or Corporation that says “Trust me” until they have given me proof from scientists that are non judgemental and renowned to not be paid by these large corporations to say what you want them to say. What other pesticides like DDT and Thalidomide has been said before “Trust us, it is safe”. This will affect everyone and I mean everyone in the future. But then like I’ve said before, it may just be that you are trying to reduce the population to save the world’s resources so the rich Companies can strip the planet dry.
We now have a choice and I personally am fighting for my choice to stop this “She’ll be right mate, just eat it” attitude. If it is found that GM is unsafe years down the track like DDT or Thalidomide, you will not be able to recall a potential time bomb and if it is found to be extremely unsafe, then you have wiped the world of humanity. Or are you just so caught up in the money that you cannot see this Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 1:18:46 PM
| |
Dear Julie NonGM farmer:
On 7 December 2005, you described Charles Benbrook as a “top agronomic adviser in the US for many years”, but now seem remarkably uninterested about his sacking, or any independent assessment of his reputation. Why not? Have your lawyers advised you that you can follow a French trial judge’s precedents in Australia? You claim that Crabtree “has settled”. Can you describe for us the terms of this settlement, including any agreements you made? The following link does not open a site. Chinese subsidies on cotton: http://www.l21.com.au/downloads/L21%20Worth%20Noting%20Volume%20III%20Issue%2 Can you be more specific? Australian farmers grow GM cotton without subsidies and have increased their use to more than 80% of the crop. Are they fools or ignorant? US farmers also don’t plant a chemical resistant crop if ALL the weeds were resistant to the chemical. The point is that, despite resistance to a few species of weeds in some areas, Roundup Ready crops still provide superior weed control. Will you keep using TT canola if atrazine resistance is found in annual ryegrass on your property? Who is against independent health tests? I think they are great as long as they are run by experienced and scientifically competent, peer reviewed labs. Do you think Judy Carmen and her two friends qualify? If so, can you please outline their relevant qualifications, and why this work should be done in Adelaiide instead of WA? Speaking of Brazil, Reuters reported yesterday that biotech soy's share of Brazil's 2006 harvest area this year grew to about 40 percent from 30 percent. It’s also been reported that “Third generation British farmer, Paul Temple provided a European farmer's perspective to the gathering, describing biotech crop cultivation as "precision farming at its best". Speaking from personal experience, Mr. Temple said that "science was the future of sustainable farming". "I used to be a sceptic, but having seen the benefits of biotechnology, I am now a convert," he said. "I used less fuel, saw an increase in wildlife habitats on my farm and had less troublesome weeds which are very expensive to control." Posted by Rebel, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 5:21:55 PM
| |
What statement don't you agree with regarding human health?
The Federal regulatory bodies, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) do not do any testing, they rely on data supplied by the GM company. The OGTR is mainly looking at impact on workers dealing in GM, not on human health from consumption. There are no guidelines regarding what would fail approval, it is at the discretion of the regulator. There is clear evidence that by transferring one gene to the DNA of another, it could perform differently or release allergens. Despite the pro-GM claims that the CSIRO peas showed how the regulatory process worked, the regulatory bodies were not involved in the decision to withdraw the license as they did not receive the tests for review. The regulatory authority might have approved the CSIRO peas despite the allergenic response in rodent testing (answer pending). GM canola oil, the part consumers consume has not been tested. GM canola meal has been tested for market impact for stock fed GM meal and when liver weights were found to be increased by around 16% after only a few weeks it was not considered a problem. If a health problem was found after commercial release, it would be virtually impossible to recall the product. Consumers do not trust the information derived from the companies wanting approval for release. Undertaking independent health testing would reassure consumers more than denying them. Did Chuck Benbrook actually say anything you didn't agree with? More "settled" in responses and attitudes - less volatile. Following the French trial is not legal advise, just an interesting twist in the legal debate. The "point the mister over the fence and kill it" solution was what one of our neighbours suggested. One thing for sure, there will be neighbourly unrest over GM if it does come in without fair risk management. If there is no legal protection, what do you suggest? Posted by NonGMFarmer, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:27:43 PM
| |
"Are health claims that are made for bread labels containing omega-3 from linseed oil false and misleading?"
I'm glad you bought this up Julie, because I've been interested in this for a while now and have written about it elswhere. eg http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/opportunities-and-threats-to.html It is really pleased to find out linseed oil is going into some sliced breads. As you know contains the essential fatty acid ALA that is a nutrient needed for human diets and is healthier for some people to eat this bread especially if they don't often eat fish or vegetable oils like olive oil. But whether the bread label is misleading or not about health advantages, depends on what exactly is on the label of the particular “omega-3” bread. They are unlikely to say this on the bread label: Fish oil is good for the heart, but linseed doesn’t cut the mustard. We use linseed oil because it’s cheaper, and to people who don't know much biochemistry, it sounds good to just say "omega-3". Besides there wasn't room on the label to qualify the implied claim with: “Linseed oil has ALA omega-3 but fish oil also has EPA and DHA omega-3 and this difference matters for health benefits.” This doesn’t really sound like a good advertising pitch to me, but I'd say it’s nearer the truth. In short, there are two dietary important omega-3 fatty acid nutrients called EPA and DHA that are found in fish oils, but which are essentially absent from linseed oil. Only the most discerning health freak (or a Pundit) would go to the trouble of checking whether linseed has EPA and DHA. http://www.omega-3info.com/importance.htm http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/genetically-modified-oils-with-omega-3.html Of course, GM oilseeds such as Brassica's (now available) containing EPA and DHA will be high value products that would sell at a premium. Australian canola growers will have them years after their North American competitors. Posted by d, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 6:17:39 AM
|
Strict liability
A number of individuals who oppose the introduction of GM crops in Australia have advocated the introduction of a ‘strict liability’ regime. The Australian Government has chosen not to implement a strict liability regime for possible damage caused by GM organisms, and nor have the United States, New Zealand, Canadian or United Kingdom Governments.
Strict liability is a tortious common law principle which imposes liability at law to a third party for the actions of another party, without proof of fault in their own actions. In other words, strict liability is liability regardless of fault, rather than without fault.
However, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, after discussing a range of case law, concluded that the doctrine has “no place in Australian law”.
The Australian courts resistance to strict liability is also partly explained by the difficulty the courts may face in defining what an extra hazardous activity is. Defining GM crops as extra hazardous would mean that the courts are over turning the OGTR approval process.
In the US ‘there is no strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff’s activity ’.
It may be difficult for the organics industry to claim damages under ‘strict liability’ on the basis that GM crops are ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ as it would be difficult to establish that these farmers’ tolerance of GM crops was not abnormally sensitive, given that other areas of their activities allow quite generous tolerances of the use of non organic inputs in comparison.
The National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia Limited (NASAA), which has developed one of Australia’s leading organic standards and provides certification services for many Australian organic farmers, has established that organic labelling and the use of the NASAA logo is permitted at 95% purity. See National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia (2004), Organic Standard 2004, sections 2.20.4 and 2.20