Julie Newman NCF and GMO pundit / Tribe discussed vitamin A enhanced rice (Golden Rice) quite a few entries back.

A recent news report from India:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/golden-rice-near-market-approval-in.html

suggests that this rice - a central part of my essay - is now close to commercial release, which is not the impression Julie had gotten. I really hope the latest news is true.

BTW Re-reading all the comments on my essay, I'm pleased that so few of the comments challenge the arguments and ideas in the original On Line Opinion. And debate about all the rest is just great.

cheers and thanks
GMO Pundit aka David Tribe

Is it safe.
"You don’t seem to understand what GM is if you think GM is natural. Bacteria don’t normally breed with canola nor do fish with tomatos or humans with rice or any other strange unnatural cross-kingdom breeding."

There are two points that can be made- first, natural is no measure of safety.

Second, breeding and conventional sex is not the only way genes move around.

There are natural mechanism to relocate and transmit genes between species and within species. There is solid evidence this occurs frequently in nature, and particularly rich evidence for plants. Many of the mechanisms in natural gene moment have been detected, and many probably are still to be recognised. Viruses are just one mechanism for natural gene movement between species. In the ocean they are the most numerous organism. Natural gene movement is probably a major generator of genetic diversity.

In short, all the noise about GM involving things that never occur in nature is uninformed bunkum. If you believe it, you "should get out more".

Key words to check this: transposon, helitrons, mariner, horizontal gene movement, integrons, conjugation, viruses.

Let’s look at samples of possibility of problems with GM as a biohazard. Let’s look at Omega 3 as you think this would be marvelous to get all the poor countries into having it to stop their deficiencies. I am interested in the long term effects and effects it has if you change the DNA to admit Omega 3 into whatever you are trying to bombard it with. The University of Maryland Medical Center Research on Omega 3 http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Omega3FattyAcidscs.html#HowToTake “However, people who eat more than three grams of omega-3 fatty acids per day (equivalent to 3 servings of fish per day) may be at an increased risk for hemorrhagic stroke, a potentially fatal type of stroke in which an artery in the brain leaks or ruptures”. And another part of the same report “However, in an animal study of rats with metastatic colon cancer (in other words, cancer that has spread to other parts of the body such as the liver), omega-3 fatty acids actually promoted the growth of cancer cells in the liver. Until more information is available, it is best for people with advanced stages of colorectal cancer to avoid omega-3 fatty acid supplements and diets rich in this substance”. Your tests show when you give animals your enriched Omega 3 GM they become healthier. Did you grain feed these animals or let them eat grass as the Omega 3 count is larger in grass eating animals. There are major implications of what you will be bombarding into GM product as there are the problems associated with too much of Omega 3 can cause problems in some people. How would you know if people are not finding that the heart patients are dying off for no particular reasons would not be caused by GM bombardment of Omega 3 into their diet and increasing it to a dangerous level? I want the choice to avoid GM that’s all.

Looking at the statistics it's the same except that Australia had the droughts not Canada. Please provide evidence of Canadian drought of the same severity as the Australian droughts.

Isit Safe: Re Omega3 you misunderstand my remarks, possibly confusing vitamin A and omega3. I do not propose anything other than oils with omega3 in them, which would pose the same health issues as fish oil. As far as your comments about adverse efects of omeg3, anyone reading the link you quote will realise how highly selective your few sentances are, and that your concerns, which in my view are not troublesome, apply equally to GM and non GM omeg3.

New paper in EU J Agronomy: Gm pollen cross-contamination is manageable
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T67-4GFNGCS-1&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2006&_alid=357065127&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5023&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6b5124151af939bf79214d6d8c8898ea

The outcrossing of transgenic oilseed rape in the neighbourhood is of major concern with regard to the actual EU labelling threshold of 0.9% for transgenic contamination in food and feed and the regulations for the co-existence of cultivation of genetically modified crops, conventional and organic farming. In a two-year field trial, the outcrossing frequencies and distribution from plots with different ratios of transgenic plants (100%, 1.0% and 0.1%) containing the pat-gene for resistance towards the broad-range herbicide glufosinate-ammonium were determined in surrounding acceptor plots within a distance of 3–11 m. Randomly distributed outcrossing with isolated pollination events became apparent, and an average gene flow of 0.28%, 0.01% and 0.0065% was detected for 100%, 1.0% and 0.1% transgenic donor plots, respectively. Significant effects on the distribution of outcrossing were found for distance, but not for the prevailing wind direction. The random distribution in combination with the behaviour of honey-bees and bumble-bees gives strong evidence that insects play an important role for short distance gene dispersal. A curve fit assuming an exponential decline was performed with the experimental outcrossing data as a function of distance and was applied to the actual EU labelling threshold. The contamination limit of 0.9% in food and feed could be kept without cultivation distances to the transgenic source. The impact of effective detection limits of analytical methods on the establishment of specific rules for the co-existence is discussed.

Agronomist, you are still ignoring statistics. The yields in Australia are similar to Canada except for depression during droughts.
A graph of the statistics from ABARE and the Canadia statistics make it very clear that there is no evidence of yield improvement linked with the adoption of GM crops in Canada.
Farming practises in Australia have changed over the last 10 years. Rather than canola being a year in year out crop in high yielding areas, it is now a widely adopted crop used in continual cropping. Yields will of course be considerably less in marginal areas and considerably less if it is part of a continual cropping regime rather than as a stand-alone crop or after a legume crop for example.
Pollen is only a small reason for contamination with other causes including storage and handling, farm practises (seeding, harvesting etc), animals (both wild and stock grazing stubbles and carrying GM canola in their faeces to deposit seed miles away) etc etc.
My debate is that the GM grower should be responsible for keeping GM contained, not the non-GM grower responsible for keeping GM out.

Isitsafe makes a very good point regarding GM crops bred for introduction of additives. Some consumers are not deficient in those vitamins or minerals and do not want to be overdosed with them.
Golden Rice producing Vit A for example may be safe for a Vit A deficiency, but explorers on the arctic died with an overdose of Vit A caused by eating the vitamin rich livers of their sled dogs.
There is no control over adding only one gene and many genes may be added and many times the intended dose could be present in the food consumers eat.

The key issue is that consumers should have the right to choose not to eat GM crops (with additives etc) but if it is too expensive and too difficult to segregate, the choice will be denied by both farmers and consumers. There is no recall strategy in place and this should be a condition of license.