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. ...
  6. 71
  7. 72
  8. 73
  9. Page 74
  10. 75
  11. All
The stats on the increased are planted were actually released by the Indian Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) – the regulatory authority for biotechnology crops in India – which recently announced that farmers increased the area planted with genetically modified (GM) insect-protected cotton to 8.1 million acres (3.2 million hectares) in 2006, up from 3.1 million acres (1.2 million hectares) in 2005.

And here’s more:

“India Business Insight - 10/16/06

Average yield of cotton in India increased by 50% to 467 kilograms per hectare

The average yield of cotton in India has increased by 50 percent to 467 kilograms per hectare. The average yield had stagnated at 300 kilograms per hectare for 10 years till 3 years ago. The Rs35,000-crore cotton economy of India provides livelihood to more than 50 million persons. ….

The yield per hectare in Gujarat has increased from 317 kilograms to 728 kilograms in the last 3 years.

Gujarat accounts for 23.6 percent of the total area under cotton in India.

In Punjab also, the yield per hectare has increased from 283 kilograms to 640 kilograms in the last 3 years. Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan together account 19 percent of the cotton crop and 18 percent of the area under cotton in India. The 2006-2007 cotton season is likely to yield 260 lakh bales and the yield is expected to be 490 kilograms per hectare.”

Too bad WA growers can’t access Bt cotton when Indian farmers can
Posted by Rebel, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 5:59:05 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
Dear Safe:

Can you give me full reports of 3 generations of major organs of rats that have been force fed raw mushrooms (or anything else you eat) on an easy to read table?

Mushrooms have known carcinogens. So do spices. Peanuts are one of the most serious sources of allergens in our food.

What about kiwifruits, which were not part of the Australian diet even a few decades ago, and carry known allergens and are weedy in New Zealand?

If you are so concerned about food safety, why not demand that all of these be banned from the market, or even banned from being grown so they can’t get into your food accidentally?

For that matter, can you point to any risk assessments, much less feeding studies, for any conventional food that you eat?

At least this has been done for GM crops, and you can get the risk assessments from FSANZ.

No one can claim that any food is absolutely safe; what risk assessments show is that the GM foods that are registered are at least as safe as their conventional counterparts. No other food gets such scrutiny, despite no evidence of risk from GM crops used in foods.

How about demanding a risk assessment for organic foods grown with natural fertilizers? Based on the news coming out of the States, this may not be a pretty picture, and I’ll wager that organic farmers in Australia would not be happy with the same level of scrutiny applied to such organics as is applied now to GM!
Posted by Rick Roush, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 6:16:39 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
The difference with GM is that it denies farmers and consumers a choice. Consumers can choose to eat or not to eat peanuts, kiwi fruit, cucumber or organics but because GM cannot be segregated consumers cannot avoid it. I want to avoid a possible biohazard so should not be denied my rights.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 30 October 2006 11:17:37 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
Dear Is it really safe:

You have dodged the giving a response to Rousch. Following your own line of reasoning, he asked for any evidence you had that would hold the safety assessment of conventional foods to the same standards as GM. The omission in your reply of any such evidence for the safety of conventional foods constitutes an admission that GM is assessed to higher standards than foods you eat all the time.

Instead, you tried to shift the argument to consumer choice. Even there you are wrong. Look on most packets of biscuits and you’ll see a statement to the effect that “may contain nuts” (maybe also egg and other risky ingredients). You can choose not to eat nuts, or any of the allergens included in those statements, only by avoiding all foods with those labels. In contrast, all foods that may carry even more than a minimal level of GM ingredients must carry a label that states unambiguously that they have GM. “May contain GM” is not acceptable under regulation in Australia and New Zealand.

In short, current labeling regulations in Australia mandate that consumers have a choice on GM. In contrast to GM, where no human has ever been shown to have been harmed, the real health threat of nuts gets only “may contain”.

If you were serious about your rights to be protected from a biohazard, you’d campaign on unambiguous labeling and more careful supply and processing segregation for nuts and other allergens. I’m betting you won’t, in which case you’ll prove my point that this is all about an ideological scare campaign that is at odds with the facts that GM foods are extensively assessed for safety, and no health risks are proved or even plausible
Posted by Rebel, Thursday, 2 November 2006 9:14:54 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
The reason I don't answer RR is because I have answered that same question before. But I will repeat it. Mushroom, peanuts, certain spices even MSG is labelled accordingly and I can avoid it by checking the label. This takes time and I willing to do this for my health.

FSANZ when you look on their website to see how they check the safety aspects of GM is by studying the scientific evidence from the GM companies. I refuse that study. I don't care what scientist looks at a study done by GM companies as the reports from them can be falsified. They should have done their own research with their own results and then allowed that into the debate of GM.

I refuse to accept some scientific evidence based on other GM Company controlled scientific evidence.

GM in my eyes is uncontrollable when planted. If you label GM foods with "This product may contain GM products" then how do we know as consumers what gene has been inserted. For example if you GM'ers go and put in cucumber gene into the grains that only say that it may contain traces of "GM" how the heck do I know that it is cucumber which is what I am allergic to. No chance. I'm dead from anaphylactic shock because of the stupidity of the labelling. This is why I am angry that you GM'ers do not see the problem with this biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 2 November 2006 12:48:23 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
Safe, you didn't really answer the question. My understanding is that products in Australia are labelled in the control GM material - so you can avoid it if you choose to do so. The rest of your statement clearly indicates you are opposed to GM crops for ideological reasons and want to force observance of your religion on me.

You are so strong on rights, what about my rights? Or is it a case that only your rights matter?
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 2 November 2006 7:10:34 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. ...
  6. 71
  7. 72
  8. 73
  9. Page 74
  10. 75
  11. All

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