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.

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?

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.

'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.

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.

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?