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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 73
  11. 74
  12. 75
  13. All
The Golden Rice fairy story again! Children would have to eat several pounds of rice a day to get the Vitamin A from Golden Rice. The cure for Vitamin A deficiency is daily green vegetables. The reason why these children do not now have access to these once common foods is that their lands and agriculture were taken over in the 1970's, in the Green Revolution. That Green Revolution earned lots of money for manufacturers of farm machinery and chemical sprays and monocultural seeds. The people in the poor countries lost their food diversity and access to once common foods which grew on small farms.
I am tired of hearing people like David Tribe rant on about lost opportunities, when there are many reputable scientists who have exposed the problems with GE foods. One of the most scary problems is that in inserting foreign genes or even man made ones, the resulting GE foods become unstable, and have been proven in some cases to have completely different characteristics from when they were licensed! Not only this, it is common knowledge that both Monsanto and Bayer have had many occasions when they have broken laws made to protect people's health and safety, and they have been fined and convicted. As a food grower I am concerned that these companies are able to sue people whose crops have been contaminated by GE pollen. This can be compared to a man who rapes women and then goes to court and sues them for the privelege of carrying his genes. The law is an Ass if it continues to allow this state of affairs, with the offenders being put in the posiiton of being above the law.
Posted by Food Producer, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:15:54 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
Strict liability exists when a defendant brings or does something on his land that is abnormally dangerous or not natural and the “abnormally dangerous” or “not natural” something causes harm to the person or property of plaintiff.

Let’s be totally clear about this. The herbicide resistant Bayer canola, Topas 19, has received regulatory clearance and has been judged to be as safe to the environment and public health as conventional canola by the Federally appointed Gene Technology Regulator. Consequently there is no case for strict liability.

Where is the harm done to the public health and environment by the findings of trace levels of Topas 19? It is only because the testing methodology has reached another level of sensibility that we can detect the 0.1 to 0.01 % trace levels. Zero tolerance is unrealistic, unsustainable and most of all unscientific.

The setting of standards and tolerances for accidental presence of GM canola in conventional canola (or in the case in Western Victoria one herbicide resistant canola in another) must be based on practical limits of good agricultural practices and not the technical ability to detect.
Posted by sten, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:20:51 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
State governments have authority over economics and markets and hence they have called a ban. Topas 19/2 contamination occurred pre OGTR approval (late 1990's) by what was obviously mismanagement of Tasmanian trials in the same area that the non-GM seed variety Grace was bulked up.
Any market loss and any testing regime is now paid for by farmers that did not want to accept the risk.
Strict liability is only a problem to the industry if the product causes economic loss or is dangerous and needs recall. If the pro-GM industry believed their own propaganda about "no risk" they would not be refusing liability.
I apologise for a previous error regarding the costing of the GM minerals/vitamins. The cost of non-GM coating seed with vitamins and minerals cost less than a cigarette/per person/per year (not per day) which is extremely cheap.
GMO Pundit response re GM "Once the farmers have the seed, there are no extra costs..." Sorry but one of the "benefits" for investors and the seed industry is that farmers lose the right to replant our own seed, we must buy seed every year rather than plant our own and farmers are to pay a "user fee" when delivering the harvested crop. Even non-GM farmers are expected to have a huge hike in costs if GM is introduced.
I spoke to the scientist who developed Golden Rice last year and it is nowhere near trial stage because it will never make it through the regulatory process - the particular backcross constructs involved do not fit in with the prerequisites of the regulatory process. It is worth keeping in mind that it was Monsanto that applied to the US FDA to first get the regulatory process established and they suggested the regulatory requirements that have been adopted globally (not the USFDA setting the rules for Monsanto). Perhaps if the regulatory rules were more in tune with truly assessing for risks to human health and not in providing a pathway to market that deflects liability, this public ralations nightmare could have been prevented.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:56:06 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
NonGMFarmer: "If GM is so good, you would think that after decades of research farmers would be offered more than crops that are chemical resistant ..."

Are you (NonGMFarmer) advocating canola farmers continue using the TT varieties? Could I suggest you cannot be a canola grower if you think that. Atrazine, the chemical these canola varieties are resistant to is highly toxic and is known to leach into ground water. By contrast the GM variety is resistant to Roundup which is inert on contact with the ground and is much more environmentally friendly.

maracas: "Whilst Monsanto can monopolise the production of such GM modified grains I want nothing to do with them."

The problem I see here, and with all the other multinational bashing that goes on, is that bans in Australia on GM foods act as a huge disensentive to Australian researchers. So we end up with Monsanto and Bayer dominating the GM research because nobody else can afford to take the risks on the science AND the political environment.

More generally, as a canola, wheat and barley farmer, I resent the attitude of many opposed to GM that farmers somehow aren't competent to make choices about what sort of seed they buy. We currently buy all our canola and wheat seed fresh each year because we want to use the most up to date and profitable varieties.

If GM varieties were available we would make decisions whether to use them based on OUR estimate of the profitability of doing so. I really resent the attitude that somehow I would be forced to use GM if it wasn't banned or that I must be dumb in thinking it can help me lower my costs of herbicides so I make more money. I look at Canada where 90% of canola grown is GM and wonder why we have to compete against them with one hand tied behind our backs.
Posted by GreenFarmer, Thursday, 24 November 2005 9:16:37 AM
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
An incredibly narrow perspective on this issue. The debate over GM food is much more than "safety concerns from focusing on unintended damage to human health from eating the new food and avoids discussion of the unintended harm from preventing its use."

No mention of the fact the world has easily enough food already, but lacks the poliltical will to distribute it;

No consideration given to the possible effects of contaminating naturally-occurring strains with GM;

It deliberatety overlooks the fact vitamin-enriched rice has no more benefit to health than a vitamin A pill. The micronutrients that accompany foods high in vitamin A are still missing;

Re: the argument GM compliments rather than competes with naturally occurring strains - what, evolution not enough? There are no parallels between GM and natural crops. I've yet to see a fish mate with a corncob. Or rice with a pill.

Humankind has evolved in tandem with the many varieties of rice/wheat/maize/soybean available. Where starvation exists it is not simply due to poor agriculture, but masks a much wider problem. Will boosted rice do anything about what causes famine in the first place?

If GM was introduced for altruistic reasons alone I'd have a little more faith in the claims put forward by agribusiness. Remove the profit motive and you're on a winner
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 24 November 2005 3:27:20 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
Bennie

There is no such thing as a natural crop and if we were waiting for one to evolve we would all have died out thousands of years ago.
Posted by sajo, Thursday, 24 November 2005 4:06:01 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 73
  11. 74
  12. 75
  13. All

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