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.

‘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.

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.

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.

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...

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.