The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case for GM food > Comments

The case for GM food : Comments

By David Tribe, published 22/11/2005

David Tribe argues that GM foods deserve a fair hearing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 73
  10. 74
  11. 75
  12. All
GMO Pundit says : The precautionary approach would say – let’s NOT cause harm by blocking vitamin A enriched rice, by blocking new crops that resist drought, and by penalizing Aussie farmer’s future earnings with cost penalties our trade competitors don’t bear. It especially says, we should worry about the impact of trade bans on food security of developing countries.

NO it wouldn't! That's the economists principle ... not the precautionary principle scientists should follow. And the farmers and consumers don't seem to agree with the economists here either.

The scientific precautionary principle is always far more important. If you don't know the outcome don't take the risk and especially don't hide any health risks or dangers behind some economic advantages spin. So if a drought tolerant seed has the possibility of causing harm we don't use it until it is thoroughly and independently tested. There is no financial benefits to farmers when their lives are ruled by Chemical companies and their product is seen as unsafe by the public. The public won't swallow it...literally

If GM is such a great idea why is the majority of the world against it? They don't trust money driven greed based science. It's unscientific!

If the precautionary principle as laid out in science were used with Agent Orange in the Vietnam war it would never have been used and many of our Viet vets would not be having the problems they are having now.

But the precautionary principle was put to the side through a false justification and the veterans suffered
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2 says "If GM is such a great idea why is the majority of the world against it? They don't trust money driven greed based science. It's unscientific!"

You will find that the same money driven companies researching GM crops also carry out more traditional plant breeding and supply most of the non-GM seeds currently used. If there is no profit in the end product then there would be very little useful science done at all. This would include medical and pharmaceutical research as well as agricultural.

Having seen some of the methods used to create diversity in plant breeding programs (eg. applying mutagenic chemicals to plant embryos to create hopefully useful traits)it is surprising that so much attention is aimed at the far more precise methods of GM technology. That said there is still room for improvement.

There is an issue here though as to why so much mistrust? Companies and governments have brought this on themselves with poor education programs and too little regulation too late. There has been plenty of publicity for GM crops grown for profit and not nearly enough on programs aimed at improving lives in developing countries even though these programs are often run side-by-side in the same laboratories.
Posted by sajo, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two items on the ABC's Radio National programme, pasted below indicate a responsible degree of care in research and eventual abandonment of a GM trial that showed potential danger to humans by our own CSIRO which in my view has been starved for adequate research funding.

The second one concerns me that Corporate muscle is working to remove State's rights to impose Moratoria on commercial GM crops.

I am particularly concerned that the USA believes it has the rights under our so called Free Trade Agreement to pursue States for damages by such actions

Bush Telegraph
Friday 18/11/2005

GM pea trial discontinued -
A research project for genetically modified peas, set up in the early 1990's, has been abandoned by the CSIRO after testing on mice caused lung damage. The trial was originally set up to try and breed a pea resistant to insects, specifically the pea weevil which can cause significant damage to crops. It's only the second time in the world such a trial has been discontinued, and researchers say they're disappointed in the results.

Project leader Dr T J Higgins told Edwina Farley the peas will be destroyed and there are no risks of contamination.

The Gene Technology Regulator Dr Sue Meeks says the study will be wrapped up under contained conditions, all the remaining peas will be destroyed, and that nothing has entered the human food chain.

Bush Telegraph
Thursday 17/11/2005

GM review -
Bayer Cropscience, wants the removal of State powers to impose moratoria on commercial gm crops. Bayer made its bid at a forum of a Federal Government appointed panel which is reviewing the Gene Technology Act. About 60 farmers attended the forum, where anti-gm groups called for increased legal safeguards against gm contamination
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 1:34:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's time GM food is given a fair hearing and I applaud David for his article. GM food will not only benefit third world countries but will have significant benefits for all communities.

Anti-GM campaigners need to take off their anti-globalisation and anti-multinationals blinkers off and step into the real world of food production and food safety.

I would rather eat GM food over an above conventionally bred food any day of the week - it has been tested more thoroughly, is better for the environment and is more likely to leave the farmer with better returns which means more sustainable production.

As David points out in his article while rich Western Countries like ours have the luxury of worrying about hypothetical fears people in third world countries are dying from very real, preventable food hazards. Where has anti-GM groups conscious gone when they bury their head in the sand and campaign so vigorously against GM food? By stopping GM food research, development and production they are denying the third world a real answer to severe nutrition and food production problems.

There is a growing majority voice of Australian farmers who want to be able to grow GM crops which will benefit them, the Australian consumers and our international customers. They are being prohibited from doing so by short sighted state politicians who have no scientific evidence to back up their ban and confuse fear with fact. It’s time we stop this nonsense and allowed GM food production within the suitable regulatory system which we have developed to proceed.
Posted by EJ, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 3:56:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is obvious there is two sides of the debate but those pushing GM crops have not bothered to sit down to try to resolve the problems identified by State governments to lift the moratoriums that are blocking their choice.
If GM is introduced, it is planned that that non-GM farmers are expected to try to keep GM crops out of our crops and pay for any costs in trying to do so and any losses if we can not meet market demands. The commonsense logic is that the GM industry should contain their product and pay for any damages if they can't. The existing reverse onus of responsibility where the polluted pays will deny both consumer and farmer choice.
Don't expect farmers to compensate the multinational companies and don't expect consumers to be forced to eat GM products when they don't want to. If you want GM in, you must take the responsibility for the consequences.
Why so much mistrust? It is precisely because companies and governments are trying to force consumers and farmers in to having this product and refusing to do the testing required (intergenerational feeding studies and autopsy analysis) to ensure it is safe and refusing to accept the liability if it is not.
It is common for those pushing GM's to just bury their head in the sand and say there are no problems when the problems are becoming more and more obvious. Far easier to attack and slander those stating the bleeding obvious!
If there are problems, the liability falls on the farmers and consumers that do not want GM products. If those pushing GM crops truly believe there are no problems (health or economic) then why don't the GM companies accept a strict liability regime? Too frightened to put your money where your mouth is?
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 5:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:31:06 PM
Opinionated’s post claims, in effect, that bans or delays to GM crops only involve economic damage. Opinionated is confused about moral consequences of GM bans. Crops don’t just have economic benefits, and even increased incomes for poor people does more than just satisfy greed. For the extremely poor, more income can save lives.

These potential deaths show that the non-precautionary approach advocated by Opinionated is morally wrong.

Delaying vitamin A kills people and promotes disease. This is not just an economics issue, as implied by Opinionated. Opinionated decries spin doctors, but has proceeded to muddle over the serious moral issue of the thousands of children who die each day from vitamin deficiency, and the welfare benefits the poor get from agricultural research.

Second, in the developing world, economic improvement and farm productivity are more that just the self-gratification that rich Western societies (and Opinionated) are so familiar with. For the poor in Africa, in India, and elsewhere, better farm income saves lives: eradicating poverty saves lives. The poor die more quicky and get sick more often.

Third, in the third world, rural agricultural improvement is one of the best drivers for poverty elimination for the poor, who are mostly rural poor. Crop breeding is not just using technology and economic efficiencies to satisfy greed and make money, but is truly being deeply humanitarian.

The hugely important humanitarian role of agricultural biotechnology is spelt out explicitly by Pedro Sanchez and MS Swaminathan in a Science magazine article, January 2005, Vol 307 p357, called Cutting World Hunger in Half, by several major reports at the IFPRI website http://www.ifpri.org/ , and by R. Evenson and FAO, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity, CABI, 2003.

Mismatch between the preoccupations of wealthy Westerners and the interests of the poor is exactly why I wrote my Opinion piece, and I thank Opinionated for enabling me to highlight this issue again.

I’ll post summaries of these citations at GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by d, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 73
  10. 74
  11. 75
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy