More for Newman

Contrary to your claims of leniency, Canada’s rules are clearly and explicitly defined at the site you gave (http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/032_310/standard-e.html ): “Genetically engineered and/or modified organisms (GEO/GMO), or their products, are not compatible with the principles of organic production and are prohibited from use in any aspect of organic production, processing or manufacturing.” No GM!

Further, even if the official standards allowed GM, organic growers and American consumers have explicitly rejected GM at any level in organic food. Check out the parent organization of Benbrook’s employer at http://www.ota.com or the California organic certifiers at www.ccof.org. The only leniency is that a farm in the US will not necessarily lose certification if GM content is found for reasons outside its control, though they will almost certainly lose the sale as organic of any product found to have GM.

In implying that Canadian or American organic farmers or consumers are more lax than Australian growers, you insult both Canadian and American organic farmers and consumers.

I don’t have time to get heavily involved in your debate on this site, but point out that Henry Daniell (who is a professor of molecular biology at a non-ag university whose expertise is on plant chloroplasts, not agronomy) is not only wrong on the facts, as Agronomist has noted, but can claim only that glyphosate “may interfere” with yields. Again, you should actually ask real agronomists and farmers in the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil about this.

The clearest evidence that there are no detectable yield penalties is that Roundup Ready soy was 30% of Brazil’s crop before it was legal to grow it there. That is, the farmers saw the advantages and bootlegged the seed from Argentina before it was legal, and with no promotion. I was in Argentina in Sept, and RR soy is seen by everyone, except a very few overseas-sponsored activists, as a great success.

Everyone except perhaps other herbicide companies, that is, who figure they have lost a $300 million per year market because the bills for glyphosate are much lower than the herbicides they replaced

You have said that Omega 3 is so wonderful that you are happy putting it in your GM food. I can’t figure out from what you have said how you are going to do this as you have changed your mind from saying that instead of putting it in as a gene you are putting it in an oil. There are recent findings (25/1/06) on this oil that are being produced http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_29297.html Omega 3 is not a panacea as you so marvellously try to sell it, they are finding that it is a risk for certain types of cancers including skin cancers. You are not looking at the studies showing that there are problems with too much of a good thing. I am not denying that Omega 3 has its good points in small quantities but I am more interested in large quantities because that has potential for biohazard contamination.

I want a choice to deny having your GM food as I can see potential hazards from having too much Omega 3 or Vitamin A or whatever you are planning to put in my food. Can you give it to me? Can you support non-GM farmers so that there is no risk of having any GM in their crop? GM scientists are bombarding their way through any red tape that the government has put up and I believe that is totally wrong. What part of moratorium don’t they understand. They sneak their way into back doors and get our farmers to plant GM contaminated crops. This is wrong and the government should be putting their foot down and stopping it. But you just laugh it off knowing that the way you have changed the rules to meet your criteria the world’s food supply is contaminated and you cannot be sued and be justified for the actions of causing biohazard problems if it comes out that GM is a potential disaster.

The issue for farmers is that it is pretty obvious that GM canola can not live up to the hype of 30% increase in yields.

A scientific study by Fulton and Keyowski found Roundup Ready canola in Canada was associated with lower yields of around 7.5%.

But then some do see an increase in some studies.

The Australian Productivity Commission analysed Canadian GM canola and reported a 1% productivity increase with little evidence of cost reduction.

Thats why we need independent studies to find out what yield penalty or yield advantage there is.

Farmers also need to know how much this technology is going to cost.

Without this information, it is impossible to say that a farmer is making an informed decision to want to grow GM canola in Australia.

We as non-GM farmers are certainly making an informed decision that we do not want to market as GM and do not want additional costs and liabilities imposed on us.

ISITSAFE"I am not denying that Omega 3 has its good points ...has potential for biohazard contamination".

## I expect that whatever I say, you will still have your concerns, so the best I can do is honestly state my opinion and continue to be open to questions.

I don’t propose that people be forced to take GM oils. I am myself sensitive to olive oil, but can avoid it quite easily by buying other oils. In the same way, any GM sourced omega 3 can be made available so that people who want to take advantages of it, especially to avoid the risk of Mercury toxicity in fish sources of omega 3, can exercise that option, and people who don't like GM can avoid it too. They can eat fish oil, or be unhealthy, and avoid fish oil too if they like.

Already we have rapeseed non-food crops that contain toxic compounds. They are grown widely, but are easily kept separate from our food and actually cause no problems. We have dangerous weeds; known toxic ones that are part of normal and particularly part of organic farming. GM risks are much, much less than these existing hazards.

As poor people can benefit from vitaminA, I argued for a fair go. I don’t expect everyone to respond to that call. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but can only state why my judgment is different to yours.

I cannot identify any justification to your fears about overdosing, and I don’t believe they can happen. With rice, vitaminA provides it own colour. Changes would show up as red rice. You can stick to white rice.

“I can see potential hazards from having too much Omega 3 or Vitamin A or whatever you are planning to put in my food.”
###I would not want to put GM materials in your food

They sneak their way... get our farmers to plant GM contaminated crops.
###Easy to say, but where's the proof?

PS Julie Newman: It’s good to get your support on $s and see your sense of humour surface.

Rick, it is very corny to claim I am misquoting ABARE, Canadian Canola Council and Oilseeds Federation when the facts and figures can be obtained from the references I gave. You will find they are accurate but I know it is normal for pro-GM activists to blame the messenger rather than the message.

The quote from the Scientist makes sense to why any post emergent spraying impacts on yield. What farmers need to establish is how much of an impact and we will let scientists continue to debate why.

I became interested in the tolerance levels of GM in organic produce when a pro-GM speaker visited WA and claimed that he grew GM, non-GM and organic corn on his farm. He explained that there was a tolerance level of 3% in organic. No doubt this allows the upstream market to admix up to 2% before liability becomes a problem as 5% is the limit.

Re Canadian references I gave:
"By themselves, organic practices can not ensure that organic products are entirely free of residues of prohibited substances and other contaminants, since exposure to such compounds from the atmosphere, soil, ground water and other sources may be well beyond the control of the operator."

205.671 Exclusion from organic sale. (from the National Organic Program)

When residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.

d, the statement: "people who don't like GM can avoid it too." is what we have been debating. If it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM (and it is unless we get the rules right), farmers will not market as GM-free or non-GM or Omega 3-free. Nature and logistics make it too difficult for farmers to achieve and legally the non-GM farmer is liable. Turn that around and contain the GM product and then farmers and consumers will have a choice to avoid GM.

Ms. Newman:

It’s the truth that you have misquoted (or simply misunderstand) ABARE etc., as anyone who takes the time to research these sources in their entirety will learn. You have illustrated your practice by continuing to misrepresent North American organic standards with some undocumented hearsay from some unnamed farmer, and selective quotes from the organic standards. Your quote from the National Organic Program refers to chemical residues and follows immediately after a paragraph that reads

“If test results indicate a specific agricultural product contains pesticide residues or environmental contaminants that exceed the Food and Drug Administration's or the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory tolerences, the certifying agent must promptly report such data to the Federal health agency whose regulatory tolerance or action level has been exceeded.”

The EPA and FDA do not have tolerances for GM. These are set by the national organic standard, where GM is not allowed (as I indicated in my last message), which in practical terms means that GM has to be below the limits of detection.

Quotes from “The Scientist” are about as reliable as ones you could find in magazines at Woolies or Bi-Lo, and don’t merit further discussion.

By the way, your Minister Chance's contract with the Institute for Health and Environmental Research has attracted the ire of the editorial page of the (truly) internationally respected journal Nature Biotechnology. It is disappointing to see WA held up to such ridicule. I have to trim the full text to fill into the space allotted, but I am sure you find the article. I’ll even email it to you if you provide me your email address, and dare you to put it up on your website.

Editorial
Nature Biotechnology 24, 2 (2006)

Genetically modified mush
January 13, 2006
Nature Biotechnology

It is not often that field peas capture national headlines. ….. Contrary to media reports, the paper did not provide definitive evidence that the transgenic protein was allergenic in humans. Nor were the changes in protein structure particularly shocking or surprising. What was shocking, however, was the political fallout following the study's announcement.