RADIO DISCUSSION ON THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL RELEASE OF GM CROPS.
RURAL REPORT Time: 06:47 AM ABC SOUTH EAST SA Date: 01/04/2004

DAVID CLAUGHTON INTERVIEWER

....CLAUGHTON:
They'd be looking for leadership, wouldn't they? And the leadership, as far as the agricultural sector goes, would come from the South Australian Farmers' Federation. How have they performed, do you think, in terms of representing farmers' views on this issue?
NIC KENTISH, NETWORK OF CONCERNERD FARMERS
I think that the South Australian Farmers' Federation formed their own opinion and then tried to get the views of their members to suit their opinion. And it didn't really work entirely very well. And they had an 80% negative response to their question, did they think that genetically modified canola should be released in South Australia.
I believe, in this instance, that the South Australian Farmers' Federation are way out of touch. There are many other instances that they are right on the money. But on this one, they got it really badly wrong, and refused to listen to members, hoping that members would come to their way of thinking sooner or later. I don't think it'll work this time. And that sort of arrogance, on behalf of Farmers' Federation is extremely dangerous.
The other alternative is to talk about the Network of Concerned Farmers as a bunch of leaders, partially supported by Greenpeace, doesn’t gel too well with most farmers. It's a paradigm shift they can't cope with. Farmers aren't supposed to get along with Greenpeace or their attitudes and beliefs.

Non-GM Farmer said: “I also think GM is not significantly different enough to be registered as a patent rather than the normal plant breeder rights. A patent is not designed for self replicating plants.”

Yet you consider GM is significantly different enough to rail about potential health risks. You should investigate these things yourself instead of parroting ill-informed people. It is the process that is patented not specifically the plant itself.

“I would like to see scientists know alot more about the DNA and the implications of forcing a gene in a place that may interrupt the current association between genes.” Techniques should be alot more precise than presently available (so that multiple genes, bits of genes etc are not added) and should not rely on active virus' and invasive bacteria (such as e-coli) to transmit the genes.”

Your ignorance of the process is so great that you don’t even know how much is known. What specific gaps do you want scientists to find out?

For plants, active viruses and E. coli are not used to transmit genes. The two preferred means are the gene gun and a disarmed Agrobacterium. Naturally viruses are leaving bits of DNA in plants all the time and gene insertions and re-arrangements occur catalysed by transposons and other factors. GMOPundit has a long series on these natural genetic modifications. I suggest you read it and you will find out just how much scientists do know about these processes.

Agronomist (Bill Crabtree) Your mate Scott confirms what I have been saying - Canada does not rely heavily on pre-emergent chemicals like we do. Australia’s weed burden needs to be controlled in the pre-emergent phase or we will have a massive drop in yield due to competition on emergence. It is misleading to claim Australian farmers can adopt Canadian practises when conditions and weeds are so different. It is also misleading to claim tillage practises are any different to normal non-GM chemical resistant canola.
How did Scott get 20 years of experience growing GM crops when they have not been out that long?

CSIRO even admitted scientists only know about 95% of what the DNA does so you can't possibly say it is well informed science.
The gun is used, but not always and is a relatively new technique. Most of the varieties available have used the cauliflower mosaic virus CMV35S. When we were doing the GM technique in the CSIRO course, we used e-coli. The whole idea is to get an invasive carrier to invade the DNA and carry the gene. If you have done GM work, you would know that you are not isolating one gene and you are not precisely planting the gene in a particular place in the DNA.
If it was good science, you would not have so many failures and deformed outcomes.

Bill, you should look at who is "parroting ill-informed people". Yes, the processes are patented and the plant and its progeny is too. I suggest you contact the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture for more information rather than resort to immediate name calling.
"Significantly different": Using Roundup Ready plants for example, only one gene in around 30,000 is the different GM gene, why then should the whole plant and all its progeny gain a patent rather than the standard plant breeder rights?

As already explained numerous times, The Network of Concerned Farmers is not, and has never been, supported or funded by Greenpeace. Nic Kentish hasn't been an active member but was involved in organising a meeting in 2002 which was when we established founding members. He joined 2 Greenpeace phone conferences where we explained the farmer problems to them. When Nic mentioned "support" he was referring to assistance they gave him to help handle vehement attacks (he rang them individually). Even Nics statement is a far cry from the lie that the NCF "is guided and in part funded by Greenpeace"

LTryptophan is still only a very small part of the debate as a whole. There will always be ongoing debate on LTryptophan as there are anomalies in the debate for and against. While those for GM claim that the reason that so many died and developed permanent disabilities had more to do with the filters than the increased concentration of GM, those against cite cases that discredit the reasons given by the GM sector.

The GM debate is not, and should not be, totally reliant on so called scientific studies by people who avidly support GM and/or have a vested interest in the technology. I know I can drive a truck through the holes in the ridiculous reports that farmers are supposed to accept, yet the pro-GM activists claim it is true.

How do any of you see the debate progressing? For example, non-GM farmers will not accept liability, so how do you see this being managed? Are you going to try to make non-GM farmers accept this liability by ignoring the problem or are you going to make some headway into addressing the problem and coming to an amicable resolution?

1. Patenting. Monsanto would find it exceptionally difficult to prosecute me for patent breach if I had a pile of RoundupReady seed just sitting in my shed. Only if I were to use them, either by selling or by planting would I be in breach of the patent. The patent is on the process only. The Canadian Supreme Court Judgement on the Percy Schmeiser made this clear.

2. Genetic modification. CMV35S is a promoter. It is a small piece of DNA that allows genes to be transcribed. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting the DNA into the cell or into the genome. You can indeed transform E. coli by putting plasmids containing genes into them. Sometimes you can get them to ‘mate’ with other bacteria and pass the genes along, but the do not infect plants. If you really knew anything about the details of genetic engineering you would know these things.

3. Ignorance. You may have noticed that there are quite a number of areas raised in this debate that I have not strayed into. This is deliberate because I am entirely or mostly ignorant of those areas. You have consistently shown that you understand little of the process of genetic engineering and how it works. Hence, my comment about your ignorance in this area is not “name-calling”, but a statement of fact (see point 2 above).

With every topic I have mentioned on this forum I have looked at the available research, worked out which elements were trustworthy – did they come from a source that should know? Had they been repeated? Was it possible to trace back to the original quotations? Were they in context? For example, I have preferred the Australian Bureau of Statistics over the Australian Oilseed Federation, because the former told me how the data was collected, the latter did not. Likewise, the Canola Council of Canada gets its data from a source (StatCan) that I can check. That is called research.

I have continually asked for research done on humans or similar and it has not been given so I presume that it’s not been done. Why are you opposed to others wanting to do these tests? Is GM so bad that you are hiding it until it is too late?
I looked at Tryptophan and EMS link:
Medical research http://www.nemsn.org/medical.htm “There is little research continuing in the effort to find a cure for EMS. This is due to the fact that the epidemic stopped soon after L-Tryptophan was recalled by the FDA and that the numbers of those infected were relatively small in comparison to victims of other diseases. Additionally, since the genetically engineered bacterium is no longer available, definitive experiments cannot be done to resolve the problem.”
www.nemsn.org/Articles/ems%20abstracts.doc Victor Herbert, professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. “We investigated an animal model of EMS, a disease that occurred in various parts of the United States in 1989, with a view to determining its cause. We speculated that adrenal dysfunction might have potentially contributed to the occurrence of EMS and studied the effects of adrenal dysfunction on the eosinophil count in peripheral blood by using rats and mice whose adrenals had been excised or that had been metyrapone-treated, and giving them L-tryptophan. As a result, a significant increase in the eosinophil count was observed in both animal species. The results suggest that EMS may have been caused, not by L-tryptophan alone, but by the combined effects of adrenal dysfunction and L-tryptophan ingestion”.
This GM pharmaceutical was not a crop and was able to be recalled. But the victims either died or had a permanent disability. Perhaps you should add this to your website non-GM farmer?
Prior reports have said that non-GM is not Greenpeace funded. Get over it, as this is petty.
I was only mildly interested in this debate when I started, but from the venom displayed to those with valid concerns, especially non-GM farmer, I understand now why ordinary citizens, including me now, have become activists against this potential biohazard