…….The key question is whether the transgenic pea would have been flagged by current internationally recognized CODEX food standards. The answer appears to be yes. Such assessments are based on sequence homology to known allergens or serum IgE screening with sera from patients allergic to the source of the gene (or sources showing significant homology). A search of a database of known allergens (http://www.allergenonline.com/) reveals limited amino acid sequence identity (approx35-39%) between the P. vulgaris alpha-amylase inhibitor and minor allergens of peanut and soybean. ……it thus seems very unlikely that the protein would have sailed through the CODEX process.

All this would probably be a scientific sidenote if it weren't for the fact that a senior Western Australian official took it upon himself to use the pea study as pretext to go on the offensive against genetically modified (GM) food. No sooner had CSIRO released its results than Minister Kim Chance announced the setting up of an "independent study" to review the possibility that "when a gene is taken out of one organism and put into another, the protein expressed in that gene may be different." The study was needed, Chance said, to investigate the propensity of rats fed Bt transgenic corn to develop "cancerous and pre-cancerous growths" and the potential of "GM DNA to enter animal bodies." A few days later, the Western Australian newspaper reported that Chance had awarded the funding for the study to the IHER in Adelaide (http://www.iher.org.au/). This institute consists of three people with no scientific expertise in long-term feeding studies and a clear agenda against anything remotely connected to a transgene. So much for an independent study.

Chance is entitled to his opinion. But the day must come when he, and politicians like him, realize that absolute proof for the safety of GM (or any other) food is a scientific impossibility. We have in place a reliable assessment process to flag potentially allergenic recombinant proteins on a case-by-case basis. With so many other priorities competing for taxpayer money, one must question whether the best interests of the Western Australian public have really been served.

Rick, the ABARE statistics are statistics, not quotes that can be misunderstood.
I'm not an organic grower so organics is not my area of expertise. If what you say is true, why then would someone funded by the GM industry be making these statements in WA at a meeting held specifically for the agricultural industry to promote GM. I have not got the time at the moment but I did keep a copy of the Countryman/Farm Weekly that reported what he said about tolerances.

The report was not well researched as the GM pea had little to do with the decision for the WA government to grant funding for further research. It was only the timing of the announcement that was linked.
Of course the ire of the Biotechnology industry is upset with anyone standing in their way. Who is really getting embarrassed here and why? The GM industry is pushing their way through each country and it appears to be a failure for those involved that don't get their way without risk management.

You mention I need proof that Monsanto or Bayer would harm the community. Recent point “Trasylol”. How many people got blood clots in the brain and died before they realized that it was Trasylol? Will Bayer bring victims back to life or reverse their strokes?
The full paper from Finland you have mentioned on “Proteomic..unintend effects in Genetically Modified crops” I have found that there are points in the research are relative to this argument. This 9 page document which took time to go through shows the comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties and genetically modified lines. You base your argument that the differences are not significant enough that the analysed samples of the proteins in DNA and found they are not much different than natural. We need to look closer at this report. A problem is that they have used a principle components analysis which groups things together and looks for the variables. This type of research is factor analysis. Sample size is small (4 potatoes of each variety) this paper does not reflect the potato at a later stage within the human gut. The other thing “it would require observation over years and is not conclusive. It would need more study over longer periods” was quoted in this report. The 2DE equipment that was used in analysis is limited as a promising tool and is not yet in routine use in assessing the safety of GM products.

This is a good research paper but has its drawbacks as mentioned. If you wish to give me research to look at to convince me that GM is safe, please give me a detailed research that has long term studies and large sample sizes. Otherwise I will continually believe that GM is a biohazard.
“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”. It’s obvious they rely on the paper trail not the GM testing.

Dear Ms Newman:

Like any statistics, those from ABARE can be taken out of context and used against irrelevant baselines.

In any case, my original comment was “You have largely focused on claims that anti-GM activists make rather than checking out the facts for yourself.” It remains the case that you quote extensively from anti-GM activists.

I have no idea why or if any visitor to WA would make comments claiming that North American organics accepted 5% GM. The point is that rather than relying on such hearsay, one should always check a reputable source, such as with North American organic growers, especially when an area is outside your expertise (as you have freely admitted here). It seems that you have little trouble chasing alternative quotes when something doesn’t agree with your views.

Nature Biotech editorial not well-researched? The Minister’s own media release prominently mentioned the peas but no other example:

http://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/chance/index.cfm?fuseaction=media.main

“Government of Western Australia
Media Statement

Statement Released: 26-Nov-2005

Agriculture Minister Kim Chance today announced…..would fund an independent long-term animal feeding trial to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops…..

Mr Chance said it was concerning that the adverse safety effects associated with a study on a variety of GM pea which caused inflammation of the lungs of mice had only come to light recently, despite 10 years of research and development.

The inflammation was as a result of an allergic response to the protein produced by the GM pea…..

Mr Chance said the results of the GM pea study showed the need for thorough and independent feeding studies on GM foods……”

If in fact the GM pea had little to do with Minister’s decision, it would appear that only those with inside information would know that. Are you that close in Minster Chance’s confidence? Do you communicate so regularly?

The Editorial from Nature Biotechnology was also clearly correct in stating that IHER “consists of three people with no scientific expertise in long-term feeding studies and a clear agenda against anything remotely connected to a transgene” which you seem not to have denied.

Rick, you obviously don't have a case against what I am arguing if you are only using the debate that I am focusing on anti-GM activists claims. When you freely label me as an anti-GM activist, it is difficult to make a statement without you perceiving a bias. Why not settle down and actually concentrate on the debate, not the players.

It was an American organic grower that was reported as accepting a GM tolerance. As a result I researched the organic rules and found that to label organic, only 95% needs to be organic. I have asked Canadian and UK farmer contacts for verification in the meantime.

You only need to read the Ministers previous statements in media and the parliamentary record to see that he is trying to deal with the problems rather than ignore them and he expressed the need for futher health testing. I only had one brief meeting with Mr Chance early last year which is not what you would call overly influential.

I am looking forward to participating in the Ministerial Reference Group as this will be an opportunity to discuss both the for and against debate where references will be checked and countered. I found it very interesting that the PGA (vocally against GM) did not want to participate in this. It is easy to disprove their statements and it is obviously they don't want that found out.

What is the concern about independent testing? Surely if a group such as IHER find nothing wrong with GM, it will help bridge the gap between consumers, farmers and pro-GM activists. Why are you so frightened of IHER doing health testing? They can't find anything wrong if it is not there.

“The quote from the Scientist makes sense to why any post emergent spraying impacts on yield.”

Just because a quote fits your view of the universe doesn’t make it right. If you want you can usually twist any quote to fit your views. I see you are good at this. The facts are:

1) Roundup Ready canola contains two novel proteins. One is a glyphosate tolerant enzyme. The other is an enzyme that degrades glyphosate to non-toxic compounds.

2) Post emergent spraying with any herbicide can affect early growth of the crop. For example, nicosulfuron on corn. This occurs because the herbicide is active until it has been degraded by the plant. Only rarely does this result in yield decreases. Even then, the yield decreases are much lower than would occur if weeds were not controlled.

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

Fulton and Keyowski (http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n2/v2n2a04-fulton.htm) didn’t do a scientific study of yields. They did an economic analysis. If you read the paper, they got their yield data from a Press Release.

“Statistics clearly indicate a reduction in yield, not an increase in yield.”

You are having trouble understanding this one as well. There has been only one year out of 10 (the bad drought of 2002) when average canola yields in Canada were lower than the long-term average before the introduction of GM canola. As I pointed out before, in 60% of years since the introduction of GM canola yields have been higher than they ever were before GM. How on earth can you make a claim for a reduction in yields?

“If there was the 30% yield improvement that we are being told to expect, you would have expected to see a 30% increase in yields in Canada.”

Do the math. If only half the area (e.g. that sown to GM) had a 30% yield increase, you would get a 15% increase in yields overall. BTW yields in 2005 were 42% higher than the long-term average prior to the introduction of GM crops.