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 > Genetically modified crops will cost > Comments

Genetically modified crops will cost : Comments

By James Norman and Louise Sales, published 14/8/2006

The economics and risks associated with genetically engineered crops just don’t add up.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Warning! Warning! Shonk Alert! A GM Corn crop "contaminated" a subsequent Soybean crop? Now hold on, please. Exactly how did this GM material cross the species barrier? One is a grass while the other is a pulse. Surely it could only cross over if Soybean genetic material had been grafted onto the corn.

Bob Browns biographer? Don the wellys and brace for the shower of proverbial.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 14 August 2006 11:16:50 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
Perseus, the Food and Drug Administration found the GE corn growing in two soybean plots in the states of Iowa and Nebraska. The GE corn had germinated from seeds left from 2001 plantings by the Texas-based company ProdiGene. The company was required to screen and remove these plants as part of its government permit. As Jane Rissler from the Union of Concerned Scientists puts it: "This is a failure at an elementary level...They couldn't distinguish corn from soybeans and remove them from a field. That's like failing nursery school."
Posted by Louise Sales, Monday, 14 August 2006 12:02:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greenpeace has shot itself in the foot yet again, they have admitted that the opposition to GM crops, which they promote, will cost farmers money. How about stopping the anti GM propaganda Greenpeace.

Bet nobody can tell me the difference between the canola oil I cook my chips in and a GM version of the same.
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 14 August 2006 12:05:12 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
I'll admit, I have a lot of concerns about GM food, but most tend to relate to ownership issues - i.e. crops designed to die after so many years, and farmers who can't plant their crop without considering the patent requirements. Then there are the license fees.

This article is reasonably well written in terms of the finance costs - but what I really want is unbiased information regarding the actual health effects of GM crops.

There are various kinds of crops - you have your herbicide tolerant (so you can spray poisons and kill weeds but not the crop) insecticide tolerant, and even strains that are resistant to bacteria.

Some scientists have theorised that bacterial resistant GM foods could cause problems with digestion - where bacteria is a key part of the digestion process. The other health concerns relate to people with allergies, in the event that genes from one food are transposed to another - i.e. being allergic to peanut and eating an apple with some peanut genes causing a reaction.

By and large these concerns have yet to be realised, but some instances of outcrossing have been documented in the US, where GM strains have mingled with wild ones. This opens up a world of risks.

I suppose my only real problem with this article is it doesn't mention any of the positives - there is awesome potential here and it is worth examining more closely without the kneejerk 'hate it' response.

Also, it's worth mentioning it's not just crops now. Check out the 'monsanto choice' section of the monsanto website - the GM genepacker pig range has more litters of piglets and more surviving piglets in each one. Bold stuff.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 14 August 2006 12:06:50 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
Hullo TurnRightThenLeft,
Some of the scientific evidence you seek about the risks and hazards of foods produced using Genetic Manipulation technologies is summaised at:
http://www.geneethics.org/WhatsNews/Media/tabid/92/Default.aspx
A pdf there called "GM foods may not be safe" also gives some references.
Posted by Bob Phelps, Monday, 14 August 2006 4:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Steve Madden,

Congratulations to the state governments which deserve full credit for the 'Canola Price Boom' (Front Page, Weekly Times 9/8/06). Government moratoria on commercial Genetically Manipulated (GM) canola since 2003 are responsible for the $65/tonne premium that European buyers now pay for our GM-free canola. Canada supplied the European canola market until it became a GM producer and we now supply it!

Australia's unique GM-free status gives us a competitive advantage which is irreplaceable and should be protected at all cost. This is why the GeneEthics network advocates turning the present GM moratoria into permanent bans. We also call on the Commonwealth government to also back the state GM bans, rather than seeking to undermine them.

Monsanto and Bayer - the main winners if Australia grew GM canola - are pressuring farmers groups and governments to reverse their present policies and adopt GM. Only short-sighted fools will swallow their wild promises, now the benefits of staying GM-free are so obvious.
Posted by Bob Phelps, Monday, 14 August 2006 4:37:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Bet nobody can tell me the difference between the canola oil I cook my chips in and a GM version of the same."

Gee, Steve, that's the bloody point. GM designers, or Greenpeace for that matter, siimply don't know everything GM does to genes.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 14 August 2006 6:40:06 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
Thank you very much for this article, which expresses a situation that, when aired, is regularly shouted down. The Victorian food biotech sector seems vastly oversubsidised when you consider (1) the public doesn't want its products, and (2) it is yet to produce anything of value (I'm talking solely food, here — not other crops or pharmaceuticals.)

As you write, why should taxpayers, then, foot the bill for these talkfests? This seems inherently undemocratic.

And especially since many economists and agronomists have published empirical studies that refute the claim that GM food crops lower water and pesticide use.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gm-a-case-of-good-crop-bad-crop/2006/03/27/1143441085229.html http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/More-GMOs-Less-Pesticide.htm

Economic studies (see www.biotech-info.net/costs.html) also refute the claim that GM crops have increased yields and export markets. The Network of Concerned Farmers and sections of the SA Farmers' Federation have also expressed concerns about these claims, only to be shouted down. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/13/australias-new-chief-scientist-a-conflict-of-interest/
Posted by Katherine Wilson, Monday, 14 August 2006 7:43:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note comments from Steve Madden, Monday 14 Aug 06

"Greenpeace has shot itself in the foot yet again, they have admitted that the opposition to GM crops, which they promote, will cost farmers money. How about stopping the anti GM propaganda Greenpeace.

Bet nobody can tell me the difference between the canola oil I cook my chips in and a GM version of the same."

I suggest you do a little research for yourself before critising Greenpeace who are doing a wonderful job alerting the public to this draconian technology. If you are happy to cook your chips in oil designed for motor vehicle use, go for it. Ignorance is bliss. I have read many scientific papers and spoken to scientists regarding this technology and I do my best to avoid consuming it which is not always easy since there are no labels. I rely on the integrity of some producers who are prepared to source GE free ingredients. I try and grow my own food, that way I have control of what I eat.
Posted by Emily W, Monday, 14 August 2006 11:21:00 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
The biggest lobby in the US against Monsanto and GM seeds including wheat, corn and soy seeds is not Greenpeace: It is the US farming lobby.

US farmers are going bankrupt due to patented seeds from GM crops invading their properties. This usually happens via wind or birds.

After 2001, the US Supreme court decided that genetically modified life forms of any kind can by privately patented, owned. The Corporations can demand royalties on their lifeforms. This includes body parts.

Monsanto have a habit of trespassing onto farms and finding samples of their migrating seeds. They then file law suits against the farmers for not paying royalties or patent fees. The farmers can't afford to protect themselves, and Monsanto end up claiming their farms by court action. US farmers are going bankrupt not because they purchased the seeds, but because the US legal system, forces the farmers to pay royalties. Even if farmers fight to get the wretched seeds off their property, after a while, the battle is relentless.

Mexico is very concerned as their maize is of cultural significance, and their customs have a hard time trying to keep US GM seeds out of Mexico.

The other problem is that the only way you can genetically modify the DNA in a cell is to cause a carcinogenetic cyst. There is no other way a DNA graft can penetrate and graft onto the gene. There is a probability that such malignancy is part of the DNA, and the GM products could logically cause cancer. The basis of the graft is carcinogenic.

The problem is patents, the US supreme courts rendering all property of GM products have limitless patents and royalties, and few farmers can control the spread of this corporate take-over. This take-over could also cause more cancer in health and destroy cultures of food world wide.

Forget about Greenpeace, this concern belongs to Australian farmers. Infact it concerns our economy and our health.
Posted by saintfletcher, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:45:51 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
My concerns with GM is the point expressed in Saintfletcher’s post re farmers and their exposure to legal disputes with companies like Monsanto.

The first thing, the responsibility for control of what amounts to contamination by GMs should never be left with the farmer whose crop is contaminated.

Second, being a firm believer in the strength of diversity and avoidance of centralist policy decision making (and in single supply of seed grain), I have serious reservations re the concentration of all production into one or a very few crop strains due to the catastrophe possibility, if something should be found a problem or flaw.

Thirdly, US are usually pretty good at working out patent law, provided the monopoly lobbyists (like Monsanto) are prevented from extending the period of patent protection, then things will be fine but if monopoly corporations do extend patent protections, disaster will ensue. This applies equally to patents on aspects of human DNA, which is not invented but discovered. I hope the US FTC (a strong advocate against monopolies) prevail.

I agree with your final comment saintfletcher, it does seriously concern our entire economy
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 2:02:35 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
I am glad that farmers are getting a premium for their crops. This is only because of the "Frankenstein Food" scare. This was based on bad science that has been discredited.

This scare campaign makes recycled sewage pale into insignificance.

saintfletcher

"The other problem is that the only way you can genetically modify the DNA in a cell is to cause a carcinogenetic cyst. There is no other way a DNA graft can penetrate and graft onto the gene. There is a probability that such malignancy is part of the DNA, and the GM products could logically cause cancer. The basis of the graft is carcinogenic."

What a load of psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo. EVERY human produces cancerous cells EVERY day, these are killed by CD8+ CD4+ T Cells. GM foods no more logically cause cancer than water.

Patenting of organisms exists regardless of whether or not they are GM, I bought patented turf for my lawn last weekend.

Scare campaigns are easy facts are not. I await someone who can answer the question I put in my earlier post.

EmilyW I have done more research on this over the past 8 years than you can imagine, that is why I asked.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 6:33:09 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
Scare campaigns are justified when -
1. GM done in the controls of a laboratory are not recognised in the wiles of nature
2. there is very little independant scientifically-controlled testing (and how can it be controlled outside the lab?)of these GE organisms.
3. Where would the GE pea, under development by CSIRO which was withdrawn after affecting mice, be now if left in the hands companies of the likes of Monsanto?
Put food production back in the hands of local farmers. There are enough old varieties of naturally-selected food plants in the world to feed the population. Leave well enough alone (and watch the documentary 'The Food Of The Future')
Posted by JudyC, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:14:46 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
So, Louise, the genetic material was merely left behind from the previous crop. It did not, as the author has allowed people to assume, jump from the corn crop to contaminate the genetic material of the Soybeans. So the GM Corn was only a "contaminant" of the Soybean crop in the sense that weeds contaminate my lawn or any other crop.

The term 'contaminate a crop' has been used to imply that the corn matured and was harvested with the soybeans and then sold within the beans. But this is pure bull$hit as the two crops grow at different rates and it would need two entirely different harvesters. In fact, the few corn stems would, at best, provide a free feed for birds if they hadn't already been pushed over during the tending of the soybean crop.

But even if corn did make it into the soybean silo, it would only be classed as a "contaminant" in the sense that dust, grit or leaf material could be classed as a contaminant prior to it being rinsed before cooking. Well, I have news for you. All your vegies are "contaminated" in this way, even organic ones. That is why we wash them before using them.

Once again the anti-GM zealots have been exposed for grossly exagerated spin from an entirely benign initial fact.
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 10:36:14 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
Perseus, the corn did contaminate the soybean harvest. As a result, 500,000 bushels (175,000 cubic meters) of soybeans had to be destroyed and 55 acres (63 hectares) of corn surrounding the site had to be burned.

I would hardly call the presence of GE pharma corn in a food crop benign. The corn was genetically engineered to produce a pig vaccine and was not intended for human consumption.

Even GE advocates, such as CropGen and the Grocery Manufacturers of America, condemned the incident.
Posted by Louise Sales, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 11:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can’t believe the simplistic crud being spouted here. CSIRO field peas were stopped because alpha-amylase inhibitor-1 caused an antigen mediated immune response.

OK from this why don’t we ban all foods that cause an antigen mediated immune response (allergy). Lets see, peanuts, tomatoes, seafood etc. etc.

The mice that were used at JCSMR were bred to be allergic to amylase inhibitors, guess what they were.

Six performance trials were conducted under field conditions between 1996 and 2001. Results showed the alpha-amylase inhibitor GM peas provided 99.5 per cent protection against the pea weevil.

Peas are self pollinating and it is unlikely gene flow would occur between GM and non-GM peas. However CSIRO conducted gene flow studies to test this assumption. The results of the work showed that gene flow did not occur between GM and non-GM field peas.

The reason the research was stopped was because CSIRO could not show improved yields using this specific pea. The technology is still in use today.

Come on give me some facts, and I don’t mean dud spud research or failed pea research. The fact is that most Australians eat GM soy products everyday (soy meal in processed foods).

Farmers make an economic decision about what crop to sew and where to source the seed given the expected return for the crop. The anti-GM lobby led by Greenpeace has led to the fall in profits for US growers to the advantage of Australian growers but this has nothing to do with the safety of the foods. Greenpeace is manipulating the world market.

Still waiting for an answer to my rhetorical question about Canola, I know the answer, just trying to find out if anyone else does.

GM cotton in Australia. The crop has been a phenomenal success with 90% of cotton growers planting the stuff and pesticide application rates down an average 88%. Cotton has been exempt from the bans on GM food crops on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre. Never mind that 35% of the vegetable oil we eat in Australia is from cotton seed
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:11:31 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
How strange people are - gleefully eating GM food and claiming it to be safe. Do you GM gourmands realise there has NEVER been a human trial of GM food, and its safety or otherwise proven, that has been published for the general public to debate? You wouldn't take a new drug unless approved by the TGA - you would wait for it to be declared "safe". So why do you declare GM food is safe when there is no scientific proof to state that it IS? If you have had the good fortune to read some clarifying research on the safety of human consumption of GM food - then please, alert me to it for me to peruse. It would be grand to KNOW just how "safe" GM really is. I can't help being a trifle suspicious as to why there are no debatable articles in the public domain.
Posted by Dot, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:27:12 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
The problem that I see with GM is that I am allergic to cucumber. Now if the GM company decided to put in the cucumber gene into wheat or canola or something else to make it look shiny or the shape of the cucumber, then how do I know to avoid it. It does not look different than any other grain and grain is imbedded into just about everything on the supermarket shelves. If there is no labelling on the food that says "This product may contain traces of the gene cucumber in it" then how the heck am I meant to know to avoid it? You think being allergic to something is easy? What a load of rubbish. If I even eat a tiny bit (like someone using the same knife that they cut cucumber with as the tomato I am eating) then I go into anaphyletic shock and end up comatose in a hospital.

You GM'ers have to get real and understand the implications of what you are putting into our food.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 4:53:39 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
Economics of GM crops:
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/
How about $27 billion of increased income to farmers and $15 billion to farmers in the developing world in their first ten years?

“GM crops: the global socio-economic and environmental impact — the first nine years 1996–2004,” reported that biotech crops contributed to significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 1.8 billion litres in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced ploughing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 10 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or removing 5 million cars — one-fifth of the cars registered in the United Kingdom — from the road for one year.

Biotech crops have reduced the volume of pesticide spraying globally by 6 percent since 1996, equivalent to a decrease of 172.5 million kg, according to the study. That’s equivalent to eliminating 1,514 rail cars of pesticide’s active ingredient. The largest environmental gains from changes in pesticide spraying have been from biotech soybeans and cotton, which have reduced the associated environmental footprint by 19 percent and 17 percent, respectively. The global pesticide usage savings in 2004 were equivalent to about one third of total pesticide active ingredient used on European arable crops.

Rural poverty in India was dramatically decreased by the Green Revolutions. and a new revolution is occurring with GM cotton, with Three Consecutive Records For India Cotton Output in the last few seasons.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/wap/circular/2006/06-06/Wap%2006-06.pdf
The dramatic jump in cotton yields (approaching 50%) is due to widespread use of cotton hybrid and GM varieties.
In each year since 2002, Monsanto GM seed sales have more than doubled, to reach levels for 3.2 million hectares for the coming 2006/07 season, and as a result the India is anticipating a boom in raw cotton exports.
Posted by d, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 7:23:54 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
I would suggest that Louise Sales and James Norman have a good look at the tripe they have served up here about the Canadian canola industry. I assume they either didn't bother to check what they were told or thought that Australians would have no idea and would believe anything served up. Lets be clear, the Canadians have never produced 97% of the world's canola since the 1970s when they invented it. A quick perusal of the canola/oilseed rape production statistics would show that China and Europe are both large producers of canola/rapeseed. Canada did not lose their European market in 1998. The European market was always sporadic and was artificially high because of (then) record production in 1994 and 1995. Prior to 1994, very little canola was sold to Europe (5,000 tonnes in each of 1990-1991 and 1991-1992. Australia likewise has found the European canola market to be sporadic. Canada has simply sold its canola to other markets like Japan, Mexico, China nad the US. In the 10 months from August 2005 to May 2006, Canada had sold 4.56 million tonnes of GM canola seed (http://www.canola-council.org/currseedexp.html). Of that 1.7 million tonnes has gone to Japan and 0.6 million to China.

By the way Steve Madden, the answer to your question is that you cannot tell whether the oil comes from GM or non-GM canola.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:08:23 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
So tell me Louise, how did a tall corn plant manage to produce mature corn cobs at the same time as low soybean shrubs and then end up in the same harvester? My guess is that the only "contaminant" was of a purely cognitive nature.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:02:19 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
Genes code for the production of specific proteins. All proteins consist of amino acids. Proteins differ from one another based on the sequence of the amino acids.

When humans consume a GM food that has had a gene spliced into its genetic structure, we are then consuming that protein. Once we have ingested the protein, the genetically modified organism digests in the same way every other protein we consume. When it reaches the stomach, the stomach acid straightens and unwinds the protein. Concurrently, the stomach acid activates pepsin, which is an enzyme that breaks the protein apart into smaller amino acid sequences. The partially broken down protein then enters the small intestines where it is broken down to smaller peptides by the enzymes, trypsin, chymotrypsin, and carboxypeptidases A & B.

Finally, the peptides are cleaved into individual amino acids by aminopeptidases when they come in contact with the cells that line the intestines. The body then takes up the amino acids. The body, in effect, breaks down all bonds and subsequently uses the amino acids. The human body cells cannot discern what is a gene from a “natural” or genetically modified organism because they are completely unbound from the original plant.

There was a trial in Newcastle England that attempted to show that people without a small intestine or with a colostomy may not break down the DNA and this may lead to gene flow to gut flora. This research is now universally discredited and its results were found to be not reproducible.

60 -70% of Australians eat GM food, I haven’t noticed anyone growing two heads 10 years later how’s that for a clinical trial.

Louise is doing the normal Greenpeace half-truth game. She knows that bio pharming has been banned in the USA in food producing areas since 2002. ProdiGene bought the crop that was “contaminated” by a “tiny” amount of corn. It was NOT producing a Pig Vaccine this is an outright lie, it was grown to produce trypsin which labs can now buy by the litre
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 7:19:48 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
Oh wow! Back to the growing of two heads. How immature. So basically the last 10 years has been an experiment with the population on GM. How idiotic. How do we know that the increase in allergic responses in the general community is not from GM? How do we know that the increase in abortive babies is not from GM? How do we know that the general population is not getting sicker because of GM? How do we know that the increase in psychological illnesses is not from GM? We don't because it is hidden and there are no reporting facilities available for this.

See, there is no backlash to the GM Companies because the consumers don't know that what they eat may be causing health issues. There is no backlash to GM because who do we report to if we feel sick? The local doctor does not ask us if we eat GM because GM is so hidden in the general food sections that we don't know that we are eating GM at all. I would prefer and I know a lot of others in the population would to, to have GM on the listing of ingredients the same as any possible allergen, i.e. this may contain traces of GM. Now that would be a big shock to the farmers when all of a sudden the general population does not buy that product because they have a choice. Who paid who to stop this happening?

A wonderful world for the GM companies as they have manipulated all of the rules to suit them even "testing" their product on the general population.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 11:29:04 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
Future food allergy treatments might include selection of "less allergenic" fruit cultivars, and genetic silencing of major allergens.

How about that “is it really safe?” GM peanuts and cucumber that you can eat. Would you agree to a GM peanut that would solve your autoimmune problem and prevent it in others?

Antigens that cause food allergies are well known and all GM foods are tested for these, guess what, they found none. (I’m talking about regulatory bodies not Monsanto).

You may wish to dismiss that GM foods will help people with food allergies and dysfunctional immune complement systems but I don’t.

Get off your soapbox, stop calling people immature and read the facts – moron.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 1:27:36 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
I really think the easiest solution to the whole GM debate is this:
labels. Make it compulsory for the GM content in a product to appear on a label on every food. After all Mr Steve Madden and some others are 100% sure GM is safe - so put it on the label. This way the public has the informed choice to buy or not to buy. Mr Madden do you have a list of foods containing GM? Please post it if you do, as labelling may take some time to implement (the GM companies seem a wee bit reluctant in this area) and then we, the public, can make our choice. Put your money where your mouth is sir - let's see how much GM food is actually bought by the public, knowingly. I for one would gladly print your list and pass it around. I assume you do know exactly what foods do contain GM? You are convinced you are eating it by bucketload with impunity. So how about it?
Posted by Dot, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 1:34:58 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
Don't panic Dot. In Australia, there is legislation ensuring that GM products containing more than 1% GM product are indeed labelled. You can find them at the supermarket if you wish. In North America hundreds of millions of people have been eating GM food for a decade. Surely if significant health problems had turned up it would have been obvious by now. That is whatever problems caused by GM would be at much greater levels in North America than in Europe where very little GM food is available. In addition to people, thousands of millions of animals in North America, Japan, China, South America, Europe and Australia have been fed diets high in GM foods. If there were significant problems, how come nobody has noticed anything after a decade? And don't tell me that nobody is looking. This product is being scrutinized more closely than any other food product in history.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 7:48:30 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
Yo Steve Madden - labelling people morons isn't going to help, and it isn't going to contribute to a constructive debate.

The point made by 'is it really safe' really relates to what kind of awareness we have of the effects of GM food - and he/she is right in saying that we can't really judge long term effects this soon.

One item that is coming to light is that young women are undergoing puberty and menstruation earlier than ever before - some have pointed to a rise in hormones used in certain foods to promote growth.

Is this the case? we don't know. But something is happening, and we don't have the answer. So before you go calling people morons, you may want to acknowledge that we don't know everything, and neither do you.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 18 August 2006 12:00:17 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
Thank you TurnRightThenLeft. That is exactly what I am trying to point out. We do not know the full impact of what GM is doing. We are starting to see different problems with health and we do not have any way of knowing if that is linked.

For example, there has been a doubling of asthma sufferers in the last 10 years. Is this from GM? How would we know as there are no controlling influences and reporting happening.

I want someone I can trust to do the health testing. I don't want a so called independent testing done and yet when you backtrack these so called independent and self funding institutions, you find, lo and behold that they have funds through Monsanto or some of the big players in the GM field. I have found that anyone that shows some report that GM is bad is quickly and thoroughly beaten down by the Companies and sacked or bullied out of the scientific field. Why is that? Billions of dollars have been spent on this research and they want to contaminate the world with their product in the name of the $.

If you don't believe me, check out the website of Monsanto and deep down in their site you will find that they have put money aside for legal reasons to pay for any costs associated with health issues and have warned their shareholders about it and how much they have put aside and how much they intend to.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 18 August 2006 6:50:22 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
You might also add that there has been an increase in the average life expectancy in the past 10 years. You might like to also blame that on GM foods. You could pretty simply look at the broad epidemiology of such conditions and ask whether they are more prevelent in Canada where a lot of GM food products are consumed or in Europe where much less is consumed. Guess what? They occur in both places.

What are the causes? One theory of earlier puberty in females suggests it is due to better nutrition. Lack of nutritional stress allows development to proceed earlier. One theory of the increase in asthma is the result of too clean a lifestyle. Children need to be exposed to some microbes so their bodies understand the difference between self and non-self. Asthma is largely a disease of affluent Western societies.

And of course anybody who doesn't agree with you must have been paid off by Monsanto.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 18 August 2006 8:27:51 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
I will quote from Bruce Lipton pHD who knows more about genetics than me. "We want to believe that genetic engineers are the new medical magicians who can cure diseases and while they're at it create more Einsteins and Mozarts as well. But the metaphor does not equate with scientific truth. Nijhout summarizes the truth: "When a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not an emergent proterty of the gene itself, activates expression of that gene". In other words, when it comes to genetic control, "It's the environment, stupid".

What I am saying is that we have about 100,000 plus proteins (or linked amino acid molecules)and by changing just one of these, we will find that diseases will occur. If you are bombarding the DNA molecules within structures of what we eat and they transfer to our DNA structure, diseases will occur. There is no research done on these type of transferences. How do we know that the tampering of what we eat will not affect us in the long term? There are no long term experiments that have effectively shown us that GM is safe when you are tampering with the DNA and proteins of the human body. Where do you look and what are you looking for? If you don't look for a problem within the microscopic world you do not find a problem
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 19 August 2006 3:22:48 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
If you are going to quote Bruce Lipton, do not misquote what he was saying about the "mind body connection" and extrapolate that to "the environment"

A study of nearly 700,000 medical records has revealed that the rate of asthma attacks in the UK has fallen. A steady increase in attacks during the 1980s reached a peak in 1993, making England one of the worst affected countries in Europe with one in five children suffering from the condition.

Doctors are puzzled as to the cause of the recent decline in attacks, since common causes like poor air quality have not noticeably improved. A number of possible reasons have been suggested, including milder winters and changes in treatment. One lead may be that viruses like the common cold have mutated, making them less likely to trigger an attack.

Dr Martyn Partridge, chief medical adviser to the National Asthma Campaign, welcomed the news but added that it still leaves 3.4 million people in Britain suffering from asthma.

Next dud theory?
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 21 August 2006 12:05:34 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
I did not misquote. Bruce Lipton seems to be concerned about genetically modified foods as when you change any gene in the environment then you change the structure of the DNA. If you are bombarding DNA with a gene then you can expect problems with it if it is not stable and scientists do not know for sure exactly what GM consequences there are yet as it is a new science. If someone says they know for sure what the consequences are then they are lying as there is no way they could test the miriad of different circumstances outlying an unstable gene when it is attached to a DNA string.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 21 August 2006 1:01:52 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
To put it into another scientist's words:-
"We're in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure out."
Richard Strohman, Ph.D.,
Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkele
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 21 August 2006 1:10:11 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
Here's one topic discussed at ABIC where Jorge Meyer mentioned very encouraging recent priminary results indicating very good biological availability of pro-vitamin A in the Golden rice. Greenpeace have actively mislead the public about this rice, but fortunately it moves along to those who could benefit in spite of Greenpeace irresponsibility

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/view.php?hidDate=2006-07-30&hidType=NAT&hidRecord=0000000000000000120164

Efforts on for production of golden rice: experts
- Bangladesh Observer

Intense efforts are underway for commercial production of golden rice, a genetically modified rice rich in Vitamin-A, to meet nutrition needs of the people in the country, reports BSS.

Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) is conducting the research that is now in "advance level" to develop the variety of golden rice through transferring gene of beta-carotene from daffodil flowers into BRRI Dhan-29, the highest yielding rice variety, said Dr. Mosharraf Hossain, chief scientific officer of BRRI.

Talking to BSS on Thursday, he said, "We are hopeful that research for developing golden rice variety likely to be completed by 2010 and after that limited cultivation of the new rice variety would be possible following government permission."

He said extensive experiments are going on to ensure biosafety so that the variety could not pose any health hazards.

Due to transfer of beta-carotene content, the rice looks yellow in colour and hence called golden rice.

The beta-carotene, after consumption, produces Vitamin-A in the body, he said, adding that the BRRI scientists are carrying out the research for producing golden rice to provide Vitamin-A to the rice-dependent nation.

Apart from Bangladesh, research on commercial production of golden rice is going on in Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and China.

When asked about safety aspects of the rice variety, Dr. Shamsher Ali, Head of Biotechnology Division of BRRI, said, "The variety will undergo food safety test and environment safety test before starting commercial cultivation to avoid controversy and ensure biosafety."

The golden rice will provide 17 times the amount of Vitamin-A present in other high-yielding rice varieties available in the country.

According to statistics, about 125 million children, most of the developing countries, suffer Vitamin-A deficiency.
Posted by d, Monday, 21 August 2006 1:38:51 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
I have read The Biology Of Belief: Unleashing The Power Of Consciousness, Matter And Miracles and I understand your misquote fully, Lipton was refering to the micro-environment, not protiens.

Richard Strohman, Ph.D., don't believe everything you read at safefood.org. This is the same guy who said AIDS was not caused by HIV.

If we use your twisted logic we should all join the Amish and never invent anything because all it needs is a lobby group with no science to back them saying it may be bad 10 years in the future.

Waffle I say.
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 21 August 2006 1:47:04 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
Though it appears that GM crops do not affect humanbeing or animal as GM protein breaks down in the digestive system in to amino acids but we don't have much studies whether it can affect the different micro-organisms existing in the human or animal body which in turns might be harmful ultimately.
Posted by DR.PRABIR, Monday, 21 August 2006 1:53:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A central belief of Bruce Lipton is that genes are relatively unimportant. Life is influenced not by genes, but by the environment. Not only is he a believer in Lamarkian evolution, but also seems to believe that the activity of genes and gene products can be controlled by thoughts. In Bruce Lipton's world, changing genes may not be dangerous at all, you could simply will them to work like they did before. You could also will yourself not to be allergic.

Unfortunately, the ideas of Richard Strohman and Peter Duesberg have indirectly led to incredible suffering as it allows Governments in certain places to take the attitude that because it is uncertain that HIV causes AIDS, no action should be taken to try and prevent HIV infection. Strohman is effectively saying that the impact of genetic changes are more complicated than we initially thought because a variety of post-transcriptional and post-translational modifications can occur to gene products. This is why testing of the products is done.

Talking about testing, it has been more than 9 months since the WA Government announced a grant to Judy Carmen to conduct feeding tests on GM foods. Are there any results yet?
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 21 August 2006 8:57:54 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
The power of thought you seem to give little credit to but every single test on humans has to have a placebo effect allotted into the test. But this is getting way off the track of GM isn't it as you don't want to know about people like Ian Gawler and the way he has created a foundation on the power of thought to cure cancers.

I am not a scientist as I have said before and you know that. But I do know that the type of research that is being done by Judy Carmen requires a lot of time and also the testing by other scientists to check her work so that it can be in scientific papers. This may be years and you know that. So get off my back for it.

I am not a scientist or farmer just a consumer and I don't want GM as I don't trust it. I am waiting for these tests to show me what is safe or not. My guess is that GM is just a biohazard that the Corporations have spend millions possibly billions in a very good advertising campaign to manipulate the world food and possible fuel supply so that all farmers have to grow GM as it will be contaminated anyway and it's all about the $ and they don't really care about safety as long as they have that $.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 25 August 2006 3:15:37 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
Very few clinical trials are using randomised control arms (placebos) in Oncology almost none, they are comparing a new drug in terms of complete response and progression free survival using historical controls.

I recently listened to an interview with Ian Gawler on ABC radio Brisbane, I was appalled he was “blaming the victim”. Saying that people get cancer because of their thought patterns. I feel for him getting bone cancer and loosing his leg, but he was cured by conventional chemotherapy and surgery.

I have incurable cancer of my immune system (B –Lymphocytes) and GM food in no way worries me, we eat animal and plant proteins everyday without any issues (apart from allergies) just because we eat a pork chop does not mean our DNA will be damaged by piggy genes.
Ionizing radiation is a much more dangerous beast, this can and does cause some cancers. Uranium mining is a problem of infinitely larger proportions than GM.

I totally understand your desire for labelling of GM produce, informed choice should be paramount.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 25 August 2006 1:19:14 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
See, you don't know that your tumour has been caused by eating GM do you as you have not even thought of that as you think it is so safe. There is no way of finding out. This is what I am talking about. There is no repercussion of the GM industry because there is no way that you know and no reporting of it.

I'm sorry for your incurable disease and I am not saying that Ian Gawler is the bees knees. It's more that there is more out there that is unexplainable that the scientists don't know about. Placebos work in certain cases and there is no denying that as it has been tried and tested.

What I am saying is that the scientific world thinks they know everything about the gene pool but in reality they only know a miniscule amount and that is dangerous knowledge. Manipulating something that they don't know the long term effects is basically stupid. Where are the long term human studies? There are none.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 26 August 2006 10:54:49 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 placebo effect is well known; however, it usually occurs with self-reporting. If people believe that a ‘medication’ will do something, they look for signs of that occurring. One of the outcomes is that placebos are producing more and more reported side effects. This occurs because people believe that medicines produce side effects. Even if they don’t get the medicine, they still get the side effect. People are very suggestible and there are plenty of studies out there showing this is the case. This is why the astrology columns in newspapers are so popular.

Of course scientists don’t know everything about genes and their functions. If they did, we wouldn’t be spending millions of dollars on research. But there are ways of testing for adverse effects and this is done. There are a whole swag of feeding studies n GM crop products http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html and they almost all show no differences. A few show minor differences in both directions, but this is to be expected in any large body of statistical work and does not indicate any danger.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 11:31:22 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
University of Nebraska is funded by Novartis and Monsanto

These tests are done on chickens, sheep and cows over periods of 13 weeks or less. Even the mouse testing that was so called proven safety measures was only done on mouse testes as a biomonitor of potential toxic effects over 87 days. By doing that it says that it was concluded that the BT corn had no measurable or observalble effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal or adult testicular development.

So we are to conclude that the safety of GM by investigating the testes of mice. Good grief. You are gambling with the health of humans on the testes of mice? Come on, these tests were done by Brake J, Faust M Stein who are within the Monsanto Scientific Affairs. They are not independent testings which would mean that testings could be falsified or manipulated to suit the GM Companies. These are not independent testings.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 5:39:18 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
Getting a bit desperate here?

What has the University of Nebraska got to do with it? They are one of 100 odd land grant Universities and Colleges in the US whose mandate is to conduct research in agriculture. They are funded from State taxes.

As for your specific allegation, the addresses of the authors are:

J. Brake – Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University
M.A. Faust – Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University
J. Stein – Syngenta Seeds

Not a single person from Monsanto here.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 7:37:12 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
No I am pointing out the facts that scientists can be manipulated at a cost. I am also pointing out that companies like Zeneca have vested interest in GM as in 1996 Zeneca (which was sold to Syngenta) offered the first GM tomato puree to customers. They are a seed company that sells GM therefore they are less likely to show if there are problems with GM are they?

"In January 2006, Syngenta announced an agreement with International Seed Holdings L.P. to acquire Emergent Genetics Vegetable A/S (EGV) based in Odense, Denmark. EGV is an established vegetable seed company specialized in breeding and marketing of selected vegetables crops.

EGV focuses primarily on spinach, cucumber, cabbage and cauliflower. Its products are sold internationally under three well-known brands - “Daehnfeldt™”, “Ohlsens Enke™” and “Hurst™”. For the fiscal year ended in September 2005, EGV reported sales of DKK 100m ($17m). The financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed."

Universities will allow donations to research and I have found that the results are most likely funded by GM Companies and the universities are manipulated for the research grants. Look at the amount of scientists that have been sacked if they find something wrong with GM.

There are large amounts of money involved with these Companies with GM and I do not trust any research that comes from any seed company that sells GM or any research done with money from GM Companies as it can be manipulated and would definately be biased.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 31 August 2006 5:04:11 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
“Universities will allow donations to research and I have found that the results are most likely funded by GM Companies and the universities are manipulated for the research grants.”

Have you found this indeed?

Perhaps you might give examples?

How exactly were the results changed?

Which results and who was responsible?

“Look at the amount of scientists that have been sacked if they find something wrong with GM.” Give us a list.

Given that your claim that Brake, Faust and Stein are within the Monsanto Scientific Affairs has now been shown to be ridiculously wrong, why should we believe anything else you say?
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 31 August 2006 5:51:39 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
www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1728 you will see information about CSIRO relying on corporate investment and this corporate investment appears to be directly linked to approval over G crops. CSIRO announced a lucrative deal with Bayer Cropscience at the same time that Bayer Cropscience was granted Federal approval.

List examples of scientists, well lets start with Dr. Arpad Pusztai. He did a study on GM potatoes and found they alone damaged young rats' organs and immune systems in Oxctober 1999. He went public with his findings before publication in a peer-reviewed journal and was fired and his computer and research data confiscated.

I said that science is manipulated to suit you as I have noted on this forum on this site and 3864 as well and you can look at that again if you are so insistant. When I have studied the full versions of the scientific reports, 90% of the time I see the words "More tests need to be done to fully understand the implications" or something to that affect.

Pat Howard, associate professor of communication, Simon Fraser University quotes "In 2004, people living near a field of Bt corn in Phillippines developed respiratory and gastric illness when the corn flowered. Tests of their blood revealed antibodies to the Bt toxin in the corn pollen, which suggested that it might have caused the illnesses".

Where did these tests go? The public were never allowed to know the full implications of these tests as the results were quickly hidden.

"In Germany, between 2001/2, 12 cows illegally fed a steady diet of Bt corn, mysteriously died. Milk from the herd was tested and found to contain the genes for the bacterial Bt toxin. Neither Canada nor the US conducts tests on milk from cows fed GM feed for the presence of bacterial toxin or viral promoter DNA. How can we know if GM plants are producing dangerous allergens or toxic metaolites as a result of disruptions of plant genomes caused by the insertion of foreign DNA? We are part of one enormous feeding experiment in which none of us have given informed consent".
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 31 August 2006 7:46:29 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
I thought you list might start and end with Arpad Pusztai. Pusztai did make comments about GE and did get the sack, but it was not cause and effect. He got the sack because he spoke publicly without permission and embarrassed his employer. Here is what one of his colleagues said about it. http://silver-server.dur.ac.uk/GM_Plants_Pages/Lancet.html. And one of the UK’s top nutrition scientists http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Arpad-Pusztai-Potato.htm.

What about the CSIRO? Any evidence to back you claims? T.J. Higgins published an article on GM peas pointing out they had modified a bean protein differently that what beans do. Did he get the sack? No.

Pat Howard’s classic misuse of science. There was indeed a cover up involved here, but no GM companies involved. This quote refers to a report made by well-known anti-GM activist Terje Traavik in 2004 at an activist conference. Subsequently, a group of scientists called on Traavik to share the data so it could be reviewed. http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/pr/traavik.html. Traavik has refused to release or publish the data. He has covered up the data himself.

Source of the German cover up – ISIS and Greenpeace. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNAinMilk.php http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2003/Dec/msg00152.html. Notice the ISIS article refers to work that occurred in 2000 and 2001 and was leaked in a report obtained by Greenpeace dated October 2000. Perhaps you are going to suggest that somebody had a time machine and can read the future out of a 2000 report? In Greenpeace’s version they talk about deaths in 2001 and 2002. And the Bt in milk – totally different sudy. This is Mae-Wan Ho’s fantasy about an unpublished report where even the authors stated the Bt DNA fragments did not come from the cow.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 1 September 2006 9:34:45 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
As I am only a consumer concerned about my rights to eat what I want, I serfed the net and found things out about scientists being harrassed when they told the world that GM was possibly dangerous. Unfortunately I did not keep this information and I will get back to you with more names. I did not lie about the Monsanto scientists either so I will have to go back into the site I found. I will get back to you but it may take time. Other non-GM'ers feel free to give us your thoughts.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 2 September 2006 9:53:55 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
We should look at Pusztai in more detail. The book "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith details that case very thoroughly and also how 140,000 pounds was paid into Rowett University by Monsanto at the time Arpad was sacked. I am not saying he is the only one, but his is documented. Fox employees were sacked for preparing a documentary against the GM milk producing product reporting the dangers of the product to consumers. They were offered a 6 figure sum from Monsanto to keep quiet. The US government has invested in GM and owns many of the patents so they are not a passive participant in this technology.

I am a consumer that knew little about the debate before this forum. The more you encourage me to check references and reports, the more seriously concerned I am becoming. I do not want to eat GM food and will do what I can to encourage my friends and family to study more about this issue and avoid GM food.

I now understand the dilemma of farmers and consumers. If farmers can't grow non-GM, consumers will not have a choice.
Consumers want a choice and governments should not be able to remove that choice option from us.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 9 September 2006 9:32:29 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
Is it really safe? The trouble is that you restrict you research exclusively to sources from the anti-GM industry. You parrot their responses without looking deeper at it. When I asked you to qualify your statement about the many scientists sacked because they spoke out about GM food, you could only name Arpad Pusztai. Even after further research, you can only come up with the names of a couple of reporters who claim to have been sacked. Sorry, but they are not scientists. Your original statement parrotted from the anti-GM industry was wrong, as are most of their other statements. They have one goal and one goal only - to stop GM crops. They simply don't care about how they do it and what lies they tell in the process. Unfortunately, they use gullible people like you to spread their message.

The source of your claim that the Rowett Institute was paid 140,000 pounds was the Mail on Sunday, a UK tabloid newspaper. (you can find it on this page http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/rw90216.htm). They quote an unknown source and there are no other corroborating sources. Perhaps they are correct that the Rowett Institute received funding from Monsanto. It would not be surprising as the Rowett Institute does nutrition research and Monsanto needs to get its products tested somewhere. However, such funding would likely be only a percent or two of their total funding. And you are suggesting to me that someone can bribe an Institute with 1% of its normal revenue?
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 9 September 2006 10:41:45 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
It's so typical that you say anti-GM people are completely wrong without looking at the facts yourself. Look at the book "Seeds of deception" and you will find all of the references that I have only touched on. As soon as there is research with Greenpeace you totally ridicule it for no reason. Do you think that they have not done the full research with peer reviews? Come on, get real here. The non-GM advocates are not feeding me information as I am doing this research myself and I have been away this last week without being able to search the net to find what I found before but believe me I will find what I am looking for given time.

The squarking that you are doing is only because you ridicule scientists that find things wrong with GM. Who are you paid by? How many shares have you got in GM? As non-GM farmer has asked you this before and you never answer it, I assume you are being paid by Monsanto or a GM company to keep consumers like me away from facts.

Scientists don't seem to care about the impact of their science in long-term effects as long as it either makes them famous or gives them loads of money. Good examples of this are Cane toads, killer bees, the aids virus (originally smallpox vaccine), etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s896932.htm gives you an idea of how scientists are being stifled. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WSoSCYT.php shows that science does get things wrong. http://www.indsp.org/MMispep.php is about how Genetically Modified is not the best way to go for the future.

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/i-sisnews3.pdf#search=%22scientists%20gm%20stifled%22 is showing that the increase in scientists not wanting GM is growing. Why, as a consumer is what I want to know. What evidence have they found that they are not allowed to tell the general public due to the massive implications of being sued by Monsanto. It should be open research that all are allowed to see. It is a closed research laboratory that is scary for the future of us consumers. We are the guinea pigs of something that is a potential biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Saturday, 9 September 2006 11:33:52 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

Your credibilty is now non existant in my eyes. "the aids virus (originally smallpox vaccine)", where do you drag up such crud?

AIDS is a disease not a virus, it is the HIV virus that causes AIDS, this is a retrovirus. Smallpox is an orthopox virus how does it morph to a different species?

Have you heard that the FDA in the USA has approved the spraying of live bacteriophages (viruses) on food. (August 2006). Bet you oppose this as well.

Your info is also ancient, Monsanto is now using accelerated hybrid technology where desired mutations are created by ionising radiation not gene splicing. The technology has moved on, why don't you keep up.
Posted by Steve Madden, Sunday, 10 September 2006 6:29:08 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
Is it Safe? Steve Madden is correct. If you can't separate the obvious fiction from fact, you won't be taken seriously. With respect to Jeffrey Smith, yes I have looked at the passage about the Rowett Institute and did follow the references back to their source. That is how I know the claim first appeared in the Mail on Sunday. The article did not appear until months after Pusztai was sacked, but Smith has conflated the timeframe for his own ends. Smith is not interested in peer-reviewed research unless it supports his case. For this reason the vast majority of his references do come from internet reports and news articles. His latest article here http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=678. Has some 13 references, of which only one is a peer-reviewed article. So no, I don't share your confidence in Smith doing research from peer-reviewed articles.

I indicated to you on another thread that I am not paid by any of the GM companies. Nor do I have any shares in any of them. I work with farmers. Because of that, I have seen the benefits that farmers can get by growing GM crops. That is not to say all GM is good, neither is it all bad. I get particularly frustrated by the lies told by the anti-GM industry when it is so easy to check the facts and prove they are wrong. Despite this the lies persist.

Of your other statements, it would be better if you read them more clearly. Richard Jefferson says nothing about scientists being stiffled. He complains that patents are stiffling the use of the technology in poor countries. Mae-Wan Ho's increasing list of scientists contains people who's expertise includes: web designer, bach nutritionist, lawyer, economist, business administration, linguist, concerned consumer, organic farmer, editor, corporate trainer and wholistic energy therapist amongst others. All worthy professions perhaps, but not scientists. There are scientists who have signed up, but a minority of the signers would know anything about it.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 10 September 2006 1:36:28 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
I agree with you, GM is an outdated technology superceded by far better plant breeding techniques that consumers and markets are not objecting to.

As for you Agronomist, you are making this a personal attack on me. I am a consumer and the only resources I have is the internet. Even though this listing of scientists has non scientists in it, there is still the concerned scientists that know what they are signing. These should be recognised not the blanket that you are putting on this listing just because there are others that are still concerned but not necessarily scientists. They have a right to speak or do you want to shut them up as well?

What great benefits are there to farmers when they are not given the price cost of what the GM is going to cost them before they sign up for it? How can they look at a total overall long term program when they do not know how much it is going to cost them further down the track and why is the research done not show that there is an increase in pesticide use after each year? How in the long term is this going to help them or the environment if the costs will be great for the first few years and then it will increase with each year after that and are forced to plant their crops at specific times by the Corporations that own the pesticides? Is this just a power play by these corporations to own all possible renewable oil for the future?

How can an American Corporation know when it is the right time to plant in an Australian environment or will they just justify their means by forcing farmers to plant late or early so Australia gets less yield and America gets more? See this is the reason why I am also concerned even though I am not a farmer. What is this going to cost everyone in the long term when we don't know long term results over generations in both farming and our health issues?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 11 September 2006 12:09:04 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
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/testing112403.cfm shows why I have been saying that Monsanto manipulates results to suit their own needs. Proof by scientists that say this. Just one section of this report:-

"The protein Monsanto analysed was from E.coli, not from RoundUp
ready soybeans! Testing assumed the protein expressed in the
bio-engineered soybean has the same amino acid sequence as the soil
bacterium E coliform from which the genetically engineered gene was
extracted. This can only be verified when the soybean-produced
protein is isolated and the amino acid sequence is determined.
Exchanging genes between bacteria and a higher organism can
sometimes result in partial change of amino acid and/or
post-translational modification after expression. It was presumed
Monsanto had determined the amino acid sequence of the GE soybean
but it had not.

Monsanto sequenced only 15 amino acids from the protein that was
expressed in E. coliform. The rest of the sequence was an assumption
about the sequence of the bacterial DNA. They determined only 3.3%
of the expected total of 455 amino acids and the protein is not from
soybeans. The test described in the documents is the only method to
verify antigenic equivalence of proteins. But antigenic similarity
itself does not prove that the amino acid sequences are the same.
The real sequence of the GE protein in the soybean that we are
eating is still unknown".

Japan does not want GM rice or wheat as can be seen on http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Monsanto-Rice-Failed-Japan5dec02.htm because they have tested Monsanto's scientific evidence and found major flaws. 580,000 people signed the petition against it. I am not the only concerned consumer it seems.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 13 September 2006 11:08:02 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
"December 14, 2004
Agence France Presse
TOKYO - Masaharu Kawata, a Yokkaichi University lecturer..."

'safe, please do more research than a rehash of an article of a "paper" published on the internet by a uni lecturer who is associated with Greepeace-Japan.

There are many creditable sites most end with .gov or .ed
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 13 September 2006 12:11:25 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
What site are you looking at? So, according to you, no evidence against GM is allowed in this debate because they may have links to Greenpeace. How idiotic. Masaharu Kawata of Nagoya University, Japan in his own right has no say because he gave his information to Greenpeace because he was concerned. He did his own qualitative and quantitative research and found errors within Monsanto's experiments and then you tell me that only government sites are allowed. Excuse me, I know that Government's are manipulated by Corporations. Have a look at the employer agreements if you think I am wrong. Kawata has shown that there is manipulation by Monsanto in their tests so you personally attack the scientist yet again. Anyone that speaks out (even me) gets attacked because you don't want us to find the truth and now we are seeing it.

Let's look at what the farmers of Australia are expecting. You sign an agreement which states:-
Cannot save and replant Monsanto's genetically engineered seed.
Must use Monsanto's proprietary chemicals.
Must comply with Monsanto's confidentiality statement.
Must pay Monsanto of technology fee of $15 per acre every year.
Must allow Monsanto to monitor the entire farm for three years after using patented seeds.

So, with an ordinary wheat belt farmer who plants about 3,000 acres of crop will have to up front pay $30,000 before they even plant the seed for "technology fees". Then they have to buy the seed (unknown cost and Monsanto is allowed to increase), buy only Monsanto's chemicals and get your farm monitored by Monsanto by the Monsanto police for three years and not allowed to tell anyone about how bad it is. Makes you think that the millions of dollars spent on manipulative advertising has worked don't you think?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 13 September 2006 1:26:43 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
By the way this is $30,000 American dollars
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 14 September 2006 5:47:50 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
Is it really safe? Can I ask you some questions about your claims?

1) How many Australian farmers plant 3000 acres of canola?
2) Why do Australian farmers need to pay American dollars for the seed? What is wrong with Australian dollars?
3) I understand that Monsanto sells no herbicides in Australia, how can farmers be forced to buy their herbicides from Monsanto?
4) Why is Monsanto allowed to have a Police Force in Australia? Why does the Australian Government allow this?
5) How does Monsanto get away with telling Australian farmers when to plant their crops when they don't anywhere else in the world?

I think you answers might be illuminating.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 14 September 2006 9:27:02 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,

The contract terms you mention are often ones that are quite common in industry, eg for non-GM crops too, or do not really restrict the farmer. For instance:

Can’t save and replant: I defer to Agronomist’s expertise on this, but I believe many farmers of grain crops grow hybrids and buy new seed every year already. Other farmers buy new seed regularly to ensure they have the newest, most productive varieties. (Remember that before – and since – GM seeds were developed, companies such as Pioneer Hi-Bred, Novartis/Syngenta, Advanta, Garst etc made a living developing and selling seed – ie many farmers were buying rather than saving)

Also (this analogy is not perfect, but the principle is the same) – it’s like forbidding you from making copies of DVDs you’ve bought, and selling them; the seed purchase incorporates a technology licence, which allows you to sow the seed and sell the harvest – but not to continue to sow copies (the next generation seed) and sell the harvest for ever more. Software is similarly sold under licence, including terms that you can use but not make copies and sell them.

Must use Monsanto’s chemicals: That’s not true, actually; other companies' chemicals are authorised for use (it says this at least twice on the Tech Use contract). Monsanto does not guarantee success if you use other than Monsanto or authorised products – but that is reasonable; they have developed the technology to use with certain ones, and know it will work; they cannot know if it will work with others. Many companies have similar provisions – eg Holden radio ads recommend Holden parts, otherwise you may void your warranty. (Also, “tying” chemical purchases to the seed in this way could cause problems under the Trade Practices Act – Monsanto’s lawyers would advise against it if other chemicals would also work.)

Confidentiality statement: Standard (and sensible) for companies dealing in cutting-edge technologies when you want to stay ahead of your competitors! You’d have to sign one if eg taking a job in a medical research institute, as well!
Posted by ScienceLaw, Friday, 15 September 2006 2:14:02 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
(Continuation)

Technology fee: You are buying premium seed, with a GM trait. You can choose not to buy GM seed, and so not have to pay the fee – just like you can buy a basic car or pay more and buy the one with all the extras. If farmers feel the profits and convenience of using GM make it worth paying the fee, they will; if not, Monsanto will not sell any seed, or will have to lower the fee – it’s the farmers’ choice.

Monitoring your farm: this is common for non-GM crops, too – eg Growers’ Agreements for fruit trees.

Not allowed to tell anyone how bad it is: This would not be covered by a confidentiality agreement. How can you stop anyone talking eg if their crops failed? (Not sure where this allegation came from – sounds like a bit more Greenpeace/Mae Won misinformation to enrage the gullible)

How can an American company know planting times in Australia: Again, Monsanto and other companies have been selling seed (and plants) to Australia for years. They breed seed to local conditions, otherwise it would not grow and they would not have a business.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Friday, 15 September 2006 2:14:45 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
Newfarm has sole subsidiary for Monsanto's glyphosate and paid coincidentally $10 million for GM technology from Monsanto and by coincidence puchased the largest seed breeding Company in Australia. So Newfarm is the Monsanto for Australia. Australia would have an end point royalty and you would have to pay for it if tested positive as an end product.

The $15 per acre is in American dollars because Monsanto are not giving Australian farmers an open letter saying how much they will have to pay. That's why I have had to get this information from an American site. So it would be converted on the day for the Australian dollar equivalent.

Large farms do plant large amounts of acreage in Australia especially WA because the soil is less fertile.

I don’t know of any closed loop marketing contracts and any contracts signed for seed saving. It is still a dominant option for canola farmers and is an option that farmers want to keep so that at a later date they have a choice to avoid rising costs.

The DVD analogy is perfect. DVD's don't breed by themselves. That's the difference mate. The way around the Trade Practices Act is to give discounts with packaged deals. That's what's happening in GM growing countries at the moment.

Cutting edge technology? That must mean that the weeds developing glyphosate resistance by themselves are cutting edge technology with multinational Companies and scientists.

Car analogy. I want to buy a little white car so I sign up for it to pick it up in the morning. Overnight the expensive GM red car(with so called bells and whistles) with it's wet paint and loose extras contaminates my little white car? In the morning I am shocked that I have to pay the extra changes my little car has to the car dealer and I protest that I did not want the extras and I did not want my car to be red and the car dealer says "Too Bad, it is. Pay up".
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 15 September 2006 4:28:01 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

I really do have an "expensive GM red car(with so called bells and whistles)"

GM Holden SV8 :) 6 litre V8 the greenies hate it.

Sorry couldn't resist :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 15 September 2006 5:58:06 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
Well because you couldn't answer most of them, I will do it for you.

1) How many Australian farmers plant 3000 acres of canola?

Answer: None.

2) Why do Australian farmers need to pay American dollars for the seed? What is wrong with Australian dollars?

Answer: well you gave some of this yourself. You took some material from an American document and tried to insist the same would be done in Australia. The rules in the document no longer apply in America.

3) I understand that Monsanto sells no herbicides in Australia, how can farmers be forced to buy their herbicides from Monsanto?

Answer: They can't. You made this up, copied someone who did or took information from an irrelevant situation.

4) Why is Monsanto allowed to have a Police Force in Australia? Why does the Australian Government allow this?

Answer: You either made this up, or copied it from somebody who did.

5) How does Monsanto get away with telling Australian farmers when to plant their crops when they don't anywhere else in the world?

Answer: They don't. They don't even tell American farmers when to plant. They might provide advice about when to plant to get the most value from their products, but ultimately farmers make their own choices.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 17 September 2006 9:18:53 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
Read it properly Agronomist - I said wheat belt farmer, not canola farmer. If GM canola comes in then the likelihood of GM wheat coming in is high. There are a lot of wheat farmers sowing this amount of seed.

Why if in America the $ value of per acre would be different in Australia? As I said I am taking it from an American document because there are no documents in Australia that tell the farmer how much they will have to pay. They are being conned without the full figures.

Why wouldn't Monsanto treat Australia the same as America? Show me where this document no longer applies in America.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=310 gives you the user agreement that shows that you have to use Monsanto products. "Only Roundup Transorb and Roundup Original are registered for use on Roundup Ready canola".

Monsanto police have not been set up yet in Australia but it would be. There would be investigators out to farms the same as America wouldn't there? The end point royalty has been set up and I am sure just the same as in America, our farmers will be policed. At the moment 2,000 farmers in America and Canada, Monsanto is ready to charge. They have investigated 40,000 farmers in North America. It would be under "Protecting the rights of the copyrighter"

I don't really care and it's your choice if you want a piston slapping, oil burning, excessive fuel burning car. But it's interesting because I have a white car that is fuel efficient but I am not a Greenie which you detest.

In "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture and Corporate Engineering in Public Debate", http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1104_Patel.pdf by Rajeev Patel, Robert Torres, and Peter Rosset analyze Monsanto's efforts to convince the public of the safety of genetically modified crops. The editors conclude that corporate corruption of science is widespread and touches many aspects of our lives, as indicated by the range of articles in the issue

I am a consumer and still believe that GM is a biohazard and now know more about the corruption of the GM companies.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 18 September 2006 8:35:15 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
If the Grower violates any of the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement, the Grower shall forfeit any right to obtain any Agreement in the future and this Agreement may, at Monsanto's option, be terminated immediately. In the event of any use of Roundup Ready canola seed which is not specifically authorised in this Agreement, the Grower agrees that Monsanto will incur a substantial risk of losing control of Roundup Ready canola seed and that it may not be possible to accurately determine the amount of Monsanto's damages. The Grower therefore agrees: a) to pay Monsanto $15.00 per acre for every acre planted with Roundup Ready canola seed not covered by this Agreement.

'safe, what part of "If the Grower violates any of the Terms and Conditions..." do you not understand. You are deliberately misquoting in your previous post.

I note you have given up on the safety aspects of GM.

Next...
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 18 September 2006 9:54:04 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
"I said wheat belt farmer, not canola farmer." I understand that Monsanto is only interested in bringing Roundup Ready canola to Australia. The Roundup Ready wheat program has been shelved. Therefore, at present there is no possibility of Roundup Ready wheat. Wheat acreages are irrelevent, unless you are trying to scare farmers.

"Why wouldn't Monsanto treat Australia the same as America? Show me where this document no longer applies in America.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=310 gives you the user agreement that shows that you have to use Monsanto products. "Only Roundup Transorb and Roundup Original are registered for use on Roundup Ready canola"."

Here is the current document http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/content/stewardship/tug/springCanola.pdf. If you read it it will say: "You may use another glyphosate herbicide". The 2006 agreement can be found at: http://www.dahlcoseeds.com/images/forms/2006techagreement.pdf

Do you know how end point royalties work? If so, you might explain to me why investigators would be needed on farms to police end point royalties.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 18 September 2006 10:09:36 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
Let's get a few things straight here. Number 1 is that I have definately not given up on the safety aspects of GM. The reason why I don't bother at the moment is because I am waiting for the true and reliable data of GM tests being done when I know the scientist or the results are not manipulated. With every question or comment I have given you so far in your GM tests you don't answer me or try and change the subject onto something that I am not familiar with like the farming aspects. I am not a farmer, greenie or whatever you think I am. I am a concerned consumer. That's it, no more.

Every safety document that you have given me I have found flaws with and they don't show qualitive and quantitive results. It has been a generalization of all results. There is no triangulation and validity of the research methods. The reports are so biased that it becomes ethnocentric to the non scientist.

The updated version of your Monsanto document is for the American farmer. There is no report on any Australian farmer agreement. If there is, show it to me and stop hiding the real figures that Australian farmers will have to pay. If you want to fight to say how little the farmer is going to have to pay then give the full figures not some rehashed American agreement.

This sort of thing in scientific reports concerns me: - "The last years have also witnessed the appearance of the first reports linking genetically altered polyamine metabolism to human diseases".

This is why I continue to say that GM is a potential biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 4:41:04 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
http://www.jcmm.org/en/pdf/9/4/jcmm009.004.09.pdf

If you have not read the full report, mices and people are different but I still see no frankenstein food.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 5:39:54 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
Change of subject again. This research is done on genetically modified mice not mice fed genetically modified grain. Is this correct? How does that make a difference in this debate? I don't want to know what they are doing with stem cell research, I want to know what you GM'ers are trying to put in our food and what effect it has on us.

"The experimental approaches include an activation of polyamine biosynthesis and catabolism, transgenic expression of ODC antizyme and gene-disruption technology applied to the biosynthetic and catabolic enzymes of the polyamines. Studies with genetically modified rodents have revealed a plethora of diverse phenotypic changes, many of them relevant to human disease conditions. The latter include, among others, tumorigenesis, skin pathophysiology, lipid metabolism, male and female reproduction, integrity of pancreas, liver, heart and central nervous system as well as embryogenesis."

Just this statement alone is ethnocentric to the non scientist. Give us a well written, able to be looked at critically by a non-scientist so they understand easily, in plain speak for the everyday person, report and research done on pigs or humans that have been fed GM that is quantifiable and qualifiable. This is what I ask. Show us without predjudice that GM is safe with the full report not hacked and slashed by the GM companies. Every last word from a non-judgemental, totally uncommitted to GM, scientist that has not got blinkers on or blindfolded by the GM industry has to be given with his non-judgemental views. So far every scientist that has shown that GM is unsafe has been sacked and told that if they say anything it comes under "privacy agreement" under Monsanto rules. I don't need to give you all the names as you know them.

Until then GM is a biohazard in my eyes.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 6:53:59 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
Your request: "Why wouldn't Monsanto treat Australia the same as America? Show me where this document no longer applies in America."

I simply answered this request by showing you the 2006 agreement.

Your quote: This sort of thing in scientific reports concerns me: - "The last years have also witnessed the appearance of the first reports linking genetically altered polyamine metabolism to human diseases".

I have read the paper this comes from. It has nothing at all to do with GM food. The genetically altered polyamine metabolism referred to in relation to human disease is that which occurs naturally in some genetically inherited medical conditions. Look for this quote at the end of the paper: "The last few years have witnessed the appearance of the first reports of human disease conditions caused by mutations or rearrangements of genes involved in polyamine metabolism." Janne et al. (2005) Animal disease models generated by genetic engineering of polyamine metabolism. J. Cell Mol. Med. 9 865-882.

If you insist on picking this stuff of the anti-GM industry websites without checking its background, don't be surprised if we do the checks for you and demonstrate the nonsense you are talking.

By the way you are the one who brought up farming information on your post of 13th September, by again copying material from anti-GM industry websites without checking it.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 7:06:37 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
"Change of subject again. This research is done on genetically modified mice not mice fed genetically modified grain. Is this correct? How does that make a difference in this debate? I don't want to know what they are doing with stem cell research, I want to know what you GM'ers are trying to put in our food and what effect it has on us."

Careful what you post may come back and bite you on the bum. You raised this "quote" I showed where it originated. I am sure you are an intelligent person, admit this "quote" was embelished by anti-GM forces. :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 7:44:02 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
Again the defamation of my character seems to run into this forum. All I am asking in the farming sector is the full agreement for Australia and you deny me this access. I don't want to know about the American agreement. I am sure that others that read this article and are afraid to be attacked by you, want to know too what the real agreement says about what the Australian farmers will have to pay.

Yes I go onto different websites and I should have a right for you to explain to me what they are saying in your words if you believe there is another explanation. You attack me when you give me the explanation saying that I am unworthy to be on this forum by attacking my questions and me. As I have said before I am not a scientist either and when I come across these type of articles I want to know what they mean. Instead you give me articles that are so confusing for the average person that I have no idea what it's going on about. Give me the scientific reports asked for before that are easy to read not something that takes me a week to go through the dictionary to figure out.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 21 September 2006 12:58:20 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 don’t take things so personally. You have insisted that GM food is unsafe, you have posted excerpts from all the existing anti-GM lobby misinformation (I think you missed BSE-mad cow disease, prions and folded proteins). Your claims were not new, many were discredited years ago.

I attempted to educate you as to how DNA could not enter a human via eating food. You bought up the issue of antigen presenting proteins (allergies) a valid point except all of these are known to be of a specific molecular weight range. In other words this research has furthered the knowledge into allergies and may eventually save lives (but not if anti-GM hysteria abounds).

GM food is safe.

A scientific report that is easy to read ! Well that all depends on your level of comprehension. How can complex concepts be translated into layman’s terms without being open to misinterpretation.

Basically you have stated that GM food is unsafe because there are no studies in layman’s terms to prove it is safe. (There are plenty of scientific reports at the FDA website).

Remember too much water will kill you as will too many tubs of ice cream. Your concerns are misplaced. Maybe you should be pushing for a GM cucumber you can eat.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 21 September 2006 3:11:15 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
I find your arrogance disgusts me. You may think you are too clever and therefore you are prepared to eat GM but there are numerous clever people and laymen people that don't find GM any better or unsafe and want the opportunity to avoid GM. This is not unreasonable. You are bullying and expecting consumers to eat it. Discreddited by who? You're not smart you're a fool. The supposed discreditted reports have been discreddtited themselves. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that there is an increase an allergies especially in the GM states of the US.

What about the holes that I have found in your scientific papers that you choose to change the subject on? There are contamination problems and it increases each year and that's in the reports that you try to say the contamination does not exist. There are increases in insecticide usage after the first two years and they increase each year thereafter. Why do you think that a chemical company would create GM? Not to slow down their insecticide use but to increase it. Also you blatently disregard my comments on the GM corporations wanting a potential oil solution controlled by them.

It sounds like you are doing a dummy spit!

Of course you cannot give me the Australian version of the agreement because Monsanto say it is confidential. How can farmers support GM when they don't know what's in the agreement. It's a bit like signing an agreement without knowing the terms and conditions.

How does the farmer know how the end point royalties work when they have no contracts available to read?

The GM debate is personal to every consumer and farmer because we are expected to give up our rights, to deny risk and be blindfolded by the GM industry. I don't want to eat GM and yet you deny me that right and you expect me to be bullied into accepting this and say it will be good for me. I will not be bullied by your tactics.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Thursday, 21 September 2006 5:16:19 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
Is it safe? Of course we have tried to be helpful, see my post of September 1. I sourced back all your quotes to the original sources so you could see how they first looked and the context. I also explained where these quotes were wrong. It might be fairly obvious by now that I have a science degree, which means I can read and understand scientific papers. I am sorry if you feel that is a problem. If you want less scientific material you can find easy to follow discussion papers on the Government Food Safety Authority websites. I have posted links to some of these before, but here are a number of the sites.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/index_e.html

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biotechm.html

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo.html

http://www.food.gov.uk/gmfoods/

I hope that helps you.

We are not trying to bully you into eating GM foods. I understand from your comments that you live in Australia. There GM foods are compulsorily labelled. You simply need to avoid products labelled GM and you should be OK. In contrast, you seem to want to stop me exercising my right to eat GM food. I prefer it because it is cheaper and has reduced fungal toxins.

There is no Australian agreement available for GM canola because it is illegal to grow it. You quoted an old American agreement. I merely pointed out that the Australian agreement is likely to be different because the agreement you quoted is no longer in force in America.

End point royalties already exist for non-GM crops.

I am happy to consider the holes you have found in scientific papers. I just have not seen any yet. Please give me a list and I will consider them.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:29:37 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
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Blair-Ignore-Public26oct03.htm shows the disregard by UK ministers and the payments they receive through GM Corporations. Lord Sainsbury is UK Science Minister, a member of the cabinet biotechnology committee, Sci-Bio, responsible for national policy on GM crops and foods, and as such a key adviser to Blair on GM technology. He is also a multi-million-pound donor to the Labour Party, having given Labour its biggest single donation in September 1997 and over GBP11m in all. He was made a life peer by Blair on October 3 1997.

Lord Sainsbury is also a major personal investor in GM, and has long-established links to two biotech investment companies - Innotech and Diatech. Gatsby, a charity established by Sainsbury, has invested over GBP2m a year into the new Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre, which carries out research into GM crops. The laboratory also receives over GBP800,000 a year from the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council, for which Sainsbury is responsible in his ministerial role. Its grant has increased several fold during Sainsbury's time as minister.

http://www.psrast.org/fakedopponents.htm On November 29 last year, two researchers at the University of California, Berkeley published a paper in Nature magazine, which claimed that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated, across vast distances, by GM pollen. A disaster for the biotech companies seeking to persuade Mexico, Brazil and European Union to lift their embargos on GM crops.

Even before publication, the researchers knew their work was hazardous. One of them, Ignacio Chapela, was approached by the director of a Mexican corporation, who first offered him a glittering research post if he withheld his paper, then told him that he knew where to find his children. In the US, Chapela's opponents have chosen a different form of assassination.
cont...
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 22 September 2006 5:25:59 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
On the day the paper was published, messages started to appear on a biotechnology listserver used by more than 3,000 scientists, called AgBioWorld. The first came from a correspondent named "Mary Murphy". Chapela is on the board of directors of the Pesticide Action Network, and therefore, she claimed, "not exactly what you'd call an unbiased writer". Her posting was followed by a message from an "Andura Smetacek", claiming, falsely, that Chapela's paper had not been peer-reviewed, that he was "first and foremost an activist" and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists. The next day, another email from "Smetacek" asked "how much money does Chapela take in speaking fees, travel reimbursements and other donations... for his help in misleading fear-based marketing campaigns?"

At learning about the Chapela & Quist report, the Mexican government went on to take samples from sites in two states, Oaxaca and Puebla, according to Ezequiel Ezcurra, the director of the institute of ecology at the ministry of the environment.

These states are the genetic home of maize. Therefore it is especially important to protect the wild maize plants there from contamination.

A total of 1,876 seedlings were collected, and evidence of contamination of wild maize was found at 95% of the sites, when screened with the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter [which is only found in GE plants /the editor]. Contamination varied from one to 35% of the maize plants, with 10-15 per cent average.

Source: ISIS Report, 29 April 2002

More to come.... I am but one person and have a limit on posts. Also remember that I cannot give the whole document as there is a word limit.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 22 September 2006 5:32:35 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 said:

You sign an agreement which states:-
Cannot save and replant Monsanto's genetically engineered seed.
Must use Monsanto's proprietary chemicals.

And later:

The DVD analogy is perfect. DVD's don't breed by themselves. ..The way around the Trade Practices Act is to give discounts with packaged deals.

I am sorry we appear to be ganging up on you, but you do move your own goalposts!

“DVD's don't breed by themselves” - but your point was about seed saving and replanting, so it’s not the copying of the seed or the DVD, but what happens afterwards (ie copying is irrelevant, whether done by the person or “by itself” – by the plant producing more seed). I could copy DVDs at home and no one would know, or bother suing me. If I gave them to friends or sold them at the market, I could be in trouble. Monsanto has no concern about the seed breeding more seed; it’s the fact the farmer wants to grow another harvest with that new seed rather than selling it as produce. Monsanto asks farmers to agree not to do that (make money from copies).

Similarly, you initially said Monsanto's agreements state you must use their chemicals. (This is not correct anyway - see my earlier post.) Discounting will not get around the TP Act or US anti-trust law if the farmer is still obliged (as you argue) to buy the chemicals. If farmers are choosing to buy them because of the discount, that is not generally a problem in law - it's just like "buy a shirt, get a tie for half price" - unless there is still the obligation to buy both together. An incentive to buy is not the same as an obligation.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Friday, 22 September 2006 5:40:43 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
Example 1. I assume that Lord Sainsbury declared his financial interests and gave up personal involvement in the companies when he became a minister, like all other ministers in the UK Government. There is no suggestion that he gave money to his own companies or that he has a stake in the John Innes Centre. What is he supposed to have done wrong except support GM technology?

Example 2. Chapela’s study was flawed because he failed to control for an obvious artefact. This does not necessarily mean that transgenes were not in Mexican corn, just that Chapela’s study did not show it. In the end, the editor of Nature recognised this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/science/05CORN.html

Chapela instead of recognising the problem chose to portray himself as an anti-GM martyr. If that is what he wants fine, but he should not be surprised if he doesn’t get a lot of respect.

A study conducted 4 years later conducted in a better fashion failed to find any transgenes in Mexican corn. Again this does not mean that transgenes were never present, just that they could not have been widespread.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/35/12338
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 22 September 2006 10:39:32 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
The idea of the research in Oaxaco in Mexico I gather is to prove that you can keep GM out of the local indigenous people's crops that don’t want GM. Of course the conclusion was there was no contamination to this area. Has anyone but me realised the location of this experiment was done more than 1440 km by road from the US border? These particular villages are surrounded by mountains more than 2200 metres high? For a pollinated seed to get there, it would have to fly more than 2200 metres high and then drop down into a valley without getting hit by the next group of mountains. The tests were done along the deepest part of the valley along villages that are immediately below the mountains. Not much chance of getting pollinated is there?

Lord Sainsbury - it is a conflict of interest to own a Company and be a major influence in parliament within the same interests as his company. To distance himself from his commercial interests, Sainsbury established a blind trust to control his assets after joining the government. Lord Sainsbury was ennobled by Tony Blair, but did not declare his interests in Diatech in the 1997 register of Lords' interests. His recent words "We have already committed nearly £50m for the bioscience sector since 2004. Most recently in April, we launched two new calls for proposals worth £12m (£8m for Safety Biomarkers and £4m for the exploitation of bioscience for industry). "

Don't give me a newspaper article from NY times or Berkeley campus to discredit a scientist even if he has said that he is non-GM. I am sure that he was a respected scientist before the pro-GM lobby got hold of his work.

I am concerned that the spread of GM into non-GM farms will give farmers no choice but to sign up for GM even though they don't want it, therefore giving consumers no choice. Give me the end point royalties of GM and the sample of what the GM agreement will be. I'm sure that Monsanto has already drawn it up
Posted by Is it really safe?, Sunday, 24 September 2006 9:24:37 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
In the US as well, farmer-to-farmer exchange has been made illegal. Dennis and Becky Winterboer were farmers owning a 500-acre farm in Iowa. Since 1987, the Winterboers have derived a sizeable portion of their income from ‘brown bagging’ sales of their crops to other farmers to use as seed. A ‘brown bag’ sale occurs when a farmer plants seeds in his own field and then sells the harvest as seed to other farmers. Asgrow (a commercial company which has plant variety protection for its soybean seeds) filed suit against the Winterboers on the grounds that its property rights were being violated. The Winterboers argued that they had acted within the law since according to the Plant Variety Act farmers had the right to sell seed, provided both the farmer and seller were farmers. Subsequently, in 1994, the Plant Variety Act was amended, and the farmers’ privilege to save and exchange seed was amended, establishing absolute monopoly of the seed industry by making farmer-to-farmer exchange and sales illegal.

This is how non GM seeds are treated, pretty much the same as GM seeds.

GM food is safe.
GM seeds are sold the same way "normal" seeds are.

So all that is left is contamination. If you look at what is happeneing now indiginous communities are patenting their own plants, cross contamination is not just a GM issue.
Posted by Steve Madden, Sunday, 24 September 2006 10:34:53 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
Your opinion only that GM is safe not mine. I still believe that it is a biohazard.

The supposed tests that you have shown me are not showing that GM is unequivocably safe at all and from what I can tell they have manipulated results and are not showing everything that the scientist found.

The contamination is a real factor and you don't seem to want to know about that. No-one is given a choice with contamination and how long would it be before the 1% that is allowable becomes 5% etc. One, two or three years? You take away my right as a consumer and the farmers right to not have or want GM food. This is a disgrace to Australia that we are bulldozed into accepting GM food when we don't want it.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 25 September 2006 9:39:39 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
Monsanto manipulates the government and scientists. http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/02-11-14-01.all.html shows "donations" to Yale and Peking Universities. $400K for equipment and $250K for each student gives incentive based research manipulation. Another is the University of Maryland.

http://www.rachel.org/BULLETIN/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=525 "Monsanto is notorious for marketing dangerous products while falsely claiming safety. The entire planet is now contaminated with hormone- disrupting, cancer-causing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), thanks to Monsanto's poor judgment and refusal to be guided by early scientific evidence indicating harm". "rBGH was never properly tested before FDA allowed it on the market. A standard cancer test of a new human drug requires two years of testing with several hundred rats. But rBGH was tested for only 90 days on 30 rats. This short-term rat study was submitted to FDA but was never published. FDA has refused to allow anyone outside FDA to review the raw data from this study, saying it would "irreparably harm" Monsanto.[2] Therefore the linchpin study of cancer and rBGH has never been subjected to open scientific peer review".

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/11-14-95/milksafety.html "A new study published in August shows this to be wrong. IGF-1 by itself in saliva is destroyed by digestion, but IGF-1 in the presence of casein (the principal protein in cows' milk) is not destroyed by the digestive system. Casein has a protective effect on IGF-1, so IGF-1 in cows milk remains intact in the gut of humans who drink rBGH-treated milk. There was reason to believe that this might be true because researchers in 1984 had shown that another growth hormone, Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), in the presence of casein was not degraded by the digestive system. However, proof had been lacking for IGF-1 until now".

And if you think that the American Government has nothing to do with Monsanto think again. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060216-9.html "President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate one individual and appoint three individuals to serve in his Administration:

The President intends to nominate Linda Avery Strachan, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Congressional Relations. Ms. Strachan formerly served as Director of Federal Government Affairs for the Monsanto Company. "
Posted by Is it really safe?, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:02:12 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 really don't have a clue. Nasty Monsanto funding research in the US and China is seen by you as some kind of conspiracy.

Only one cancer causing PCB has been identified PCB 153 developed and sold by General Electric.

This is the report the cancer link refers to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16835634&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

rBGH elevates IGF-1 so what. I think the arguement goes like this. "rBGH elevates IGF-1, elevated IGF-1 is a risk factor for prostate cancer, so rBGH causes cancer" bollocks I say. IGF-1 is also markedly raised in obesity, seen many fatties lately?

(I note your "new study published in August" was published in 1995)

Strachan formerly served as Director of Federal Government Affairs for the Monsanto Company.[The missing bit] Prior to this, she served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State. Earlier in her career, she served the United States Environmental Protection Agency as Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for the Offices of Pesticides and Toxic Substances as well as Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Ms. Strachan received her bachelor's degree from Greensboro College.

Selectively quoting again 'safe. She looks qualified to me.
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 25 September 2006 2:15:31 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
You really are blinded by the GM industry if you think that this report that you gave me has no problems with the safety of GM. I quote:

"Under the conditions of this 2-year gavage (forced feeding) study there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic (cancerous) activity of PCB 153 in female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats based on the occurrences of cholangioma (tumour originating from the bile duct) of the liver. PCB 153 administration caused increased incidences of nonneoplastic lesions of the liver, thyroid gland, ovary, oviduct, and uterus in female rats".

You are trying to close your eyes and say "I don't care what you say, GM is the bees knees". Well I'm sorry but I don't agree with you at all and the more I look into the studies the more I realise what a farce this is.

You are also ignorant of the facts that Governments are the ones that make the rules of the country and are influenced by their leaders and Corporations that fund them. We the consumers and the farmers are now at the mercy of these people that have been blinded and that have not looked truly into the safety of GM. If they are the ones that are controlling the destiny of the human race, then we are in serious trouble.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 2:22:21 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
What has PCB's got to do with GM food? Clasping at straws 'safe.

You raised this issue to discredit Monsanto, I showed the the cancer causing PCB was nothing to do with Monsanto.

I suppose you support the banning of DDT as well.

Did you hear about the bio engineered cat, does not cause allergies.

If you wish to convince me to believe your point of view - you show me recent, even psuedo scientific, reports of the dangers of GM that were not discredited over a decade ago.

You cannot, there are none. You have lost this debate by not having the intelligence to see the facts, you can spout all the regugitated web spin from the organic producers website you like.

I look for facts and as I stated earlier I have been studying this for eight years.

GM food is safe, the only problem with it is Greenpeace manipulating the global price of food. Keeping it high and starving people.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 2:51:57 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
The first and only safety evaluation of a GM crop, the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato, was commissioned by Calgene, as required by the FDA. This GM tomato was produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an 'antisense' GM method. The test has not been peer-reviewed or published but is on the internet. The results claim there were no significant alterations in total protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids. Therefore, the GM and parent tomatoes were deemed to be "substantially equivalent."

Some rats died within a few weeks after eating GM tomatoes.
In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were claimed to be absent. In addition, it was concluded that mean body and organ weights, weight gains, food consumption and clinical chemistry or blood parameters were not significantly different between GM-fed and control groups. However:

The unacceptably wide range of rat starting weights (±18% to ±23%) invalidated these findings.
No histology on the intestines was done even though stomach sections showed mild/moderate erosive/necrotic lesions in up to seven out of twenty female rats but none in the controls. However, these were considered to be of no importance, although in humans they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.
Seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons.
These studies were poorly designed and therefore the conclusion that FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes were safe does not rest on good science, questioning the validity of the FDA's decision that no toxicological testing of other GM foods will in future be required.

The thing is you gave me the website (why did you do that if not to be nasty back) and this is not just about Monsanto it is about all GM foods including milk.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 3:16:04 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
kanr is a safe antibiotic marker, used in this Calgene initiated trial to test gene transfer. The rest of the report, not from Dr. Dodgy Spud.

Two approaches were used to assess the safety of the NPTII protein for human consumption using purified E. coli produced NPTII protein that was shown to be chemically and functionally equivalent to the NPTII protein produced in genetically engineered cotton seed, potato tubers and tomato fruit. The NPTII protein was shown, as expected, to degrade rapidly under simulated mammalian digestive conditions. An acute mouse gavage study confirmed that the NPTII protein caused no deleterious effects when administered by gavage at a cumulative target dosage of up to 5000 mg/kg of body weight. This dosage correlates to at least a million fold safety factor relative to the average daily consumption of potato or tomato, assuming all the potatoes or tomatoes consumed contained the NPTII protein. These results, along with previously published information, confirm that ingestion of genetically engineered plants expressing the NPTII protein poses no safety concerns.

Next :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 4:26:19 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
Did I mention I'm not a scientist? You say "functionally equivalent" but is not the same. You have not "won" this debate as you say. You may sit on your hobby horse at the Adelaide University and mock me saying "he/she will not change their minds no matter what scientific evidence there is". You have not given me unequivocal proof.

Do a qualititative and quantitive research even with rats, that gives in columns 30,60,90,120 days and in rows size of heart,lungs,liver,spleen & other major organs and weight, blood tests for cancers etc. Then have in 3 different tables, 1st, 2nd and third generation. Signed affidavids from scientists that says that no research has been left out or tampered with by the GM industries. How hard is this to do? Until done I will claim that GM is a biohazard.

You have bullied, tricked and forced me to look at research that I have no idea on and if this is the way you treat consumers all over the world, it is no wonder we are becoming fearful. We know you are hiding something and when we try to ask you make us feel stupid, but you are forgetting that we are the end product and can destroy the GM industry or is that what you are frightened of?

Your reports say "more research needs to be done" and should be before we are forced to eat it. I have proven that the governments of the world are manipulated by GM Corporations. I have proven that GM contaminates non-GM crops which will mean that the world's food supply will be contaminated.

You have not allied my fears, you have made them worse. I am a consumer not a scientist or farmer. The only reports that have been given to me have not been written with the consumer in mind. It is egocentric and ethnocentric of you to think that they should know what it means.

The final questions that haunts me. Why do rats have to be force fed GM grain? What do they know that we don't?
Posted by Is it really safe?, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 3:48:37 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

I am an old dude with leukeamia living on the sunny coast in Qld. Sorry I have never been to Adelaide.

You never did answer my questions, Should DDT still be banned? Do you agree with spraying bacteriophages (viruses) on food?

Another one, Should food be irradiated?

Plus
http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/file/pfz,,.html

GM cotton reduces water usage by 10%. Greenpeace will spin this one too.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 28 September 2006 3:28:08 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, can you talk us through how clearance by FSANZ, FDA, OGTR, BMA, WHO, etc, and 10 years of consumption by the most hypochondriacal and litigious society in the world, without substantiated incident, isn't sufficient proof that GM foods are unlikely to kill us; yet the appointment of 1 person who previously worked at Monsanto (among other past employers) means you "have proven that the Governments of the world are manipulated by GM corporations"?

Sorry to be slow to comprehend this, but I'm afraid I may have rationality in that part of the brain where paranoia is obviously meant to be... ;)
Posted by ScienceLaw, Friday, 29 September 2006 6:29:05 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
Even better, GM crops are also helping farmers better manage drought.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19740

GM crops saving farm economy from drought

- HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, By James M. Taylor, October 1, 2006

An August 11 federal government crop report shows biotechnology is saving the Midwestern farm economy from devastation in the wake of this summer's prolonged drought.

The report projects 10.98 billion bushels of corn production this year, up from 10.74 billion bushels projected in the federal government's July forecast. The report also projects a soybean crop that will come within 5 percent of last year's record. The August forecast for the two crops is striking because severe drought ravaged the Midwest between the July and August forecasts.

"The biotechnology has improved corn and soybeans to be able to withstand some of the Mother Nature pressures that we have gotten," said Kevin Dahlman, president of Dahlco Seeds in Cokato, Minnesota. Crop losses due to a similar drought would have been substantial as recently as a decade ago, Dahlman added.

Genetically enhanced seeds account for 61 percent of this year's corn crop and 89 percent of this year's soybean crop.

"If we look at what scientists in the United States and elsewhere have already developed, and what they currently are developing in the research pipeline, it is genuinely remarkable," said Gregory Conko, director of food safety policy at the Washington, DC-based Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"We have to be cautiously optimistic, though, since developing a product that works is only half the battle," Conko warned. "All around the world, important biotech advances are being stymied by bad regulation and opposition by radical greens."
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 4:59:36 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. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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