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 > GM: debate the science not the values > Comments

GM: debate the science not the values : Comments

By Max Rheese, published 4/6/2007

Those opposed to GM crops grasp at any argument to deny our farmers the freedom to choose.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
The same so called Environmental organisation---another IPA front organisation whose purpose is to deny that we have any kind of environmental crisis.

I refer one and all to the Seeds of Change website that I mentioned last week, the founder of which has proven by doing it that organic gardening/agriculture can outproduce any other system:

1. http://www.seedsofchange.com

The authour cites 11 years of success. What kind of a time scale is that to really judge the long term effects of such HUBRISTIC tampering with the very building blocks of organic life on this planet.

Of course I cant prove it, but isnt it completely obvious that somewhere down their will be some horrific unintended consequences---it may take many many decades, or even a hundred years or more. And once the genie is out of the bottle it will be impossible to put it back.

The author appeals to the "authority" of science rather than human values---or rather the values he does not support.
Trust me I am a scientist.
The fact of the matter is that there is no such as thing as "value free" science---especially the totally reductionist "science" that the IPA promotes.
WHOSE SCIENCE? would be an appropriate question.
Which organisations are pushing the GM agenda?
What is their record of genuine concern for human well-being?
Have they ever accepted responsibilty for their mistakes or have engaged a public relations firm to generate some soothing spin, or do they provide finance for a bogus IPA sponsored "environmental" organisation.
There are all kinds of unexamined presumptions behind the scientific materialist "world"-view. In effect it reduces everything, including Humankind, to chemical robots. The machines rule OK! Everything must submit to the one dimensional machine made "world"-view.

This reference examines the baneful reductionism of the "world"-view that the IPA promotes.

2. http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 4 June 2007 10:32:23 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 think that we acquire scientific knowledge and then naturally use it for various purposes. To do such science seems natural or automatic, but it is not. Rather it is the way the reductionist Western mind works. The Western mind is always in confrontation with matter, or Nature, assuming power over natural laws and events, and over masses of human beings. Such a process seems natural, but it is not. It is CULTURAL DISPOSITION that creates Western technology. Ultimately it seeks to gain power and control over everything including all human beings.

The normal dreadfully sane scientist has abolished True Wisdom from the realm of knowledge. The universe described by scientists is a meaningless mass of plastic garbage. It has no light and no fullness or significance. And if human existence is witjout significance, then why the hell should anybody care if short term profit rules. The irresponsible application of science is just a social extension of the self-divideness of Western man. Western man in particular has always misapplied knowledge.

Another dimension of presumption must therefore be brought to the culture of scientism. Otherwise no integrity,and no balance can be applied to the discoveries of science, and short term myopianism will rule.
Science is essentially a dissociated, analytical way of relating to everything. The "culture" that it has produced in its image now dominates the entire world. The dissociated TV indoctrinated every-person rules OK!

You can a proficient scientist with very few positive human qualities in evidence. You can be a totally degenerate, corrupt, maniacial personality, absolutely dissociated in your behaviour, filled with illusiuons and negative, cynical views, and still be a scientist.

The late Edward Teller was an archetypal example of such a "personality". He was much lauded by the ghouls that inhabitant the "right" wing USA think tanks that the IPA is associated with. The eulogies given at his passing were sickening.
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 4 June 2007 11:02:04 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
If the author honestly wants me to support GM food being introduced to Australia, they'd have to actually address the concerns being mooted - this article doesn't touch upon any of them.

For starters, I'd like them to address the claim that Australian canola has been a popular export due to European purchasers wanting to avoid GM product - with Australia's moratorium, we are one of the few places without risk of cross contamination.

I'd also like to see the concerns regarding copyright addressed - the ideas that GM food can be designed to only produce a few crops and that farmers can't reuse seed from their harvest without infringing copyright.

Yes - debate the science. This article doesn't.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 4 June 2007 11:24:25 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
TRTL, I am assuming that you are talking about the "Terminator" technology and Intellectual Property protection?

With respect to genetic "contamination" issues, Terminator technology is actually the solution to this perceived problem. If the seeds are unviable in the next generation, then the cross-pollination problems go away. It also costs a lot of money to research and produce GM crops, which is something that I am sure biotech companies would want a return on.

The main equation it comes down to with respect to IP and economics will be: will the farmer buy the grain? If it is economically viable to do so they will. Economic viability comes down to the balance of the cost of production versus the benefits/profits to the farmer. The cost of production can include the cost of the seed, cost of pesticides/herbicides, amount of water needed, any fertilizing agents and so on. GM can reduce all of those costs and increase the yield at the same time. If it is more beneficial for the farmer to do so, they will buy it, if not then the technology will fail to be taken up by the market.

I have heard concerns that Terminator technology is a threat to Third World agriculture, which is bunk, because farmers in those economies will not continue to buy seed that is uneconomical, just like in any other economy.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 4 June 2007 12:52:05 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
Spot on Bugsy.

I think the main issue with GM crops (apart from safety) is their potential to contaminate non-GM crops. I guess it comes down to either paying a little extra for GM seeds that will grow into sterile adults but having the peace of mind that contamination won't occur. Or having the once off cost of buying fertile seeds but the risk of contamination and probable lawsuits later down the track
Posted by Sparky, Monday, 4 June 2007 4:01:14 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
My understanding is the terminator gene technology was canned due to adverse publicity, perhaps wisely. The only problem is some other countries don't recognise the licensing process and use their own seed, and hence technology for free, putting Australian farmers at a competitive disadvantage

The Australian cotton industry have been using GM cotton for nearly 10 years now, mainly to reduce the number of insecticides.
In most cases farmers are applying 80% fewer sprays which has been an advantage for predatory insects which control secondary pests.
Posted by rojo, Monday, 4 June 2007 4:54:29 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
'executive director' Max urges readers to "Debate the science not the values".

O.K. Max, will your 'innovative environmentalists' call upon their 'science' to explain why it is that whilst there is sufficient food produced each year to feed the world population, untold millions of our fellow human beings suffer from mal-nutrition, starvation and premature death, whilst millions of tons of fish catch not required by "The Market" is dumped back into the sea, Australian fruit producers are forced to rip out their healthy and productive fruit trees, grape vines etc and surplus milk is poured down drains, rather than be distributed to "The Poor", "The Dis-advantaged","Those less well off" and so on.

Your 'science' has also imposed upon defenceless children, women and their menfolk, Napalm, landmines, toxic waste on a grand scale, cluster bombs and 'depleted' uranium!

Unfortunately for them, the innocent victims of the above products of 'science' are denied the (ideological) benefits of 'informed choice'!
Posted by Sowat, Monday, 4 June 2007 5:06:10 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
Max Reese's article highlights the difficulties of rational debate when strong values are involved. I am not so naive to argue that debate or science can be value free, but I do think it a goal that we should pursue.
How enlightening it might be if we had two separate debates: a values debate and a science debate.
We might decide on values that it be more important to control monopoly and avoid potential genetic disaster than to develop the agricultural means to feed earth's population.
On the scientific side of the debate we could ask that all arguments be supported by sound research in peer reviewed journals.
Of course the two debates would interact and confuse the issues, but presently it seems that value and scientific arguments are interwoven so much that rational decision is remote.
Posted by Fencepost, Monday, 4 June 2007 6:04:41 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, rojo, as far as I know, the Terminator technology has a moratorium on it, however the technology will always be there as ideas tend to hang around, funny that. It's not difficult to get a good ol' scare campaign going on just about anything scientific, whether that campaign uses actual facts or not.

Just take a look at Sowat up there. Nothing in that post has anything to do with GM crops, but it doesn't stop him/her from commenting and spreading scary negative visions of science turned monster. I think Sowat is extremely confused here because agricultural science has also brought us that surplus food and milk that is wasted or not fed to the hungry masses. It's not science's fault that they are starving, thats politics, it always has been. But when discussing science boogeymen, always remember that it was also science that brought you a world that is free from the ravages of Polio, Smallpox and reduced incidences of TB and vector borne diseases like malaria. It has also brought you televison, computers, mobile phones, antibiotics and an increased lifespan and quality of life due to greater nutrition and medical science.

Science has also brought us devastating military technology, it's true, but all these things don't just happen in a vacuum, they happen and are used because there is always a need for them. In the case of military technology, it's always a political need. So, before anyone wants to have a rant against science generally, have think about whether you want to do it over the internet, because I think the irony would be overwhelming.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 4 June 2007 8:44:41 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
Will the world starving want our crops?
We grow a lot of wheat, which is where this discussion is. Our market will not suffer for some years, with or without GM wheat. Some advantage I believe comes from the fact that we DON'T grow GM wheat.
Whether that means any GM crop I suspect relies on, we eat wheat, not cotton.
Most of the worlds population eat rice, we cannot afford to grow rice even if the market is growing.
I'm neither scientist nor farmer but I do know of the reluctance aussie farmers have for innovation.
Non till is still not universally accepted. Western Land of NSW has laws to say a crop will only be allowed when six inches of trash is on the paddock, in SA some still burn stubble.
No one should be able today to do that. If farmers want to "get science" start by having an ag science education.
In the mean time stop doing as grandpa did, the "science" of improving crop yields is out there without filling US chemical company's pockets and the ecology will be better for it.
The article is spin, probably paid for by said US chemical companies.
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 11:35:29 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
Fluff: "I'm neither scientist nor farmer but I do know of the reluctance aussie farmers have for innovation."

I would suggest that even then you don't much about farmers or their supposed "reluctance for innovation". Just take a look at the GRDC website: http://www.grdc.com.au/ and then tell us with straight face that farmers are relucant for innovation. Farmers fund the GRDC and similar Research Organisations around the country (eg.CRDC, HRDC, GWRDC).

Or even some press stories like,
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41892/story.htm
describe an uptake of at least 60% of no-till methods, and that number is increasing.

There are more crops than wheat in this country: legumes, pulses, oilseeds, lupins, sorghum and on and on. GM has the potential to vastly increase our yield and decrease our reliance on chemical treatments to maintain existing yields. The time of reliance on chemical treatments is coming to a close and I for one am glad for it. But to maintain the security of our crops, we need replacement technologies and GM is one of those most promising, market acceptance and scare campaigns not withstanding.

As for the comment of "Will the world starving want our crops?", are you serious? Go without food for 5 days and then see if you can refuse a bowl of cornflakes made from GM corn.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 3:27:24 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 think Sowat is extremely confused here because agricultural science has also brought us that surplus food and milk that is wasted or not fed to the hungry masses. It's not science's fault that they are starving, thats politics, it always has been."

Aw Bugsy, can you not see the overwheming irony of your argument here?
Why do you think 'executive director' Max urges us all to 'debate the science not the values', whilst at the same time inviting us to 'join the innovative environmentalists who VALUE science over ideology'?!

How well qualified are you to 'debate' the science of genetic engineering? Last I looked there were still plenty of scientists urging the use of the precautionary principle when it comes to genetically engineering food crops for human or animal consumption.

The 'ideology' of GE is that 'it'll be good for us (ie,'every body') - an ideological assertion if ever I've heard one ... particularly when it eminates from the corporate hq's of the world's most powerful and greedy pharmachuetical corporations. Moreover, to assert that science has brought us a world that is free from the ravages of Polio, Smallpox and reduced incidences of TB and vector borne diseases like malaria is simply untrue, including in parts of the so-called 'developed' or 'advanced' societies ...sorry, ECONOMIES!

Modern-day 'science' largely underpins the now global(ised) mode of Capitalist social production and re-production. The 'ethics' of this pernicious system is 'beggar thy neighbour'. That is why 'executive director' Max wants us all to focus on the 'science' and not the values.
Posted by Sowat, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 4:32:22 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
Bugsy, GM crops and that technology is totally reliant on chemical use. That is what they are bred for....
No technology will feed the starving until the political will becomes a reality.
Posted by Bushrat, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 6:33:14 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
I stand by my comment Sowat, I think you are an exceptionally confused individual. I can see one possible source of your confusion in that in English a word can mean two different things depending on the context it is used in. In one case the author uses “value” as a verb and in another he uses it as a noun, albeit as a euphemism for “morality”. Why he used the word values was probably to avoid the whole religious nutbaggery that goes along with using the word morality. You can value something without it being a value itself.

As for how qualified I am to debate the science of genetic engineering, I understand it well enough and feel confident with the science, without the ideology. If outcomes are not good, then I don’t
support it, simple as that. How well qualified do you feel to debate the science of GM?

We shouldn’t be debating the ‘ideology’ of GE being good or not, the science and the data speak well enough for themselves. The value judgements can come AFTER the facts, not before. The campaigns against GE are driven by ideology, not data.

The precautionary principle is employed well enough, but eventually how much testing is enough? We have had GM crops around for quite a while now and no one has been made sick by them. If you disagree, I would like to see where it was published, I would imagine it would hit the best journals in the field like a shot if true, especially in Europe.

When was the last time you saw an outbreak of Smallpox or Polio? If science didn’t eradicate Smallpox, what did? The other diseases certainly still exist but at vastly reduced rates than previously and again mostly because of non-scientific reasons.

And Bushrats idea that GM crops are bred to be totally reliant on chemical use is just remarkably ill-informed and just shows exactly the kind of misinformation and bias that Max and reasoned conservationists and scientists are up against.
Interesting article: http://agbioforum.org/v5n2/v5n2a02-marra.htm

But I agree with the statement on political will.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 10:41:42 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
In typical Pro-GM style the argument goes "If you aren't a scientist you don't know what you are talking about, and if you are a scientist we'll discredit you, as you don't know what you are talking about", and this group (whose Inaugural Conference,2006, incidentally,was sponsored by Monsanto) continues the tirade. The science behind GM crops is shallow, the research is dubious and the independence is totally absent.The impending Victorian review process is flawed from the start with pro GM supporters on the panel who have long been active in pushing for GM crops in Australia.The panel does not even appear to be experienced in the relevant issues of the debate.
And as for the old chestnut of 'feeding the world' sadly the 800 million + starving of the world are the result of food access, not production, and the advent of GM crops will only exacerbate this problem, not solve it.
Posted by Pheebs, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 11:22:52 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
There are so many issues in the Gm / non-GM debate all which need to be considered. It is not simple nor ought it be simplified to an either/or dualistic situation.

Having been involved in educating people, especially farmers and consumers about the full implications of using GE crops, the main point I am still staggered about is the lack of ecological knowledge in our landscapes. Agri-chemical companies have been highly successful over the past 60+ years about promoting the notion of competition and, as a result, crops being grown in a monoculture. This practice, whether in trees, crops, pasture or flowers is killing the wealth of plant, animal, insect, bird and fungi species which contribute to a healthy, functioing and RESILIENT landscape. With likely increased climatic variations occurring through climate change, now, more than ever, is the time to increase biodiversity, not reduce it which occurs when monoculture crops are grown and more so when they are genetically engineered.

A salient case with dire consequences for food production is the situation in the US where bees are dying without apparent reason. One of the suggestions as to why this is happening is because there are fewer sources of food for them, causing these colonies and hives to collapse. Calculate the value of the service bees provide in pollinating crops of all varieties (estimated in Australia at AU$40b) then re-calculate the cost of doing that in another way.

Australian apiarists are exporting bees to the US to address this problem so..... what can we learn from this to prevent it happening in Australia?

As David Suzuki suggests, courses in genetics should also inlcude the subjects of history, ethics and philosophy so students and practitioners have a full spectrum of the possible effects of their actions.

We must always apply the Jurassic Park principle... "Just because we can, should we?"

Oh.... and the spurious argument that GE technology is required to feed the world? With an estimated one billion obese people this doesn't support an argument for more food..... it simply needs more equitable distribution.
Posted by bush goddess, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 11:39:18 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
One of the most galling aspects of this 'debate' is that while supposed enironmental organisations are clamoring for governments and the public to 'consider the science', 'look at the data' etc. for the climate change 'debate', they are doing the complete opposite when it comes to GM. In fact i would go so far as to say that in all the anti-GM posts so far in this thread, there are no links to data, and no discussion of real world detriment that has been shown linked to GM crops.

I think your discussion of colony collapse disorder (CCD)in honeybees, bush goddess, is premature. There has been many decades, if not centuries of monoculture in the Americas and in Europe and no sign of anything like this has happened. In fact they don't know what is causing it yet, adn it seems to be happening in parts of Europe also, which seems to rule out the GM deal or even monoculture. And of course the fingers are pointing in all directions to include global warming, pollution, pesticides and on and on. So why don't we just leave the dubious examples alone until we figure out what is REALLY causing it?

I agree that alternative cropping systems (eg permaculture) have their advantages over monocultures, especially in horticulture and market gardening where hand picking and manual labour are still used. However, what is proposed as an alternative for most field crops bush goddess? I can see it for fruit and vegetable cropping but for oilseeds, fibre crops, sugar and grains, I'm sorry I'm just not seeing it. Diversification for farmers is a good thing, but doesn't really address what you are talking about...

In case you hadn't noticed, the world's population is still increasing and apparently there going to be peak oil (increasing farming costs)and global warming (decreasing available farming areas and seasons), so if you think that agricultural industries will get along just fine as they are, with just equitable distribution, then good luck with that. I just hope that the sensible people are hedging their bets.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 10:40:53 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
Bugsy -

Thanks for raising the issue of producing broadacre oilseeds and cereal crops in a permaculture style system. Yes, it is being done, very successfully throughout central NSW, part of Qld, Victoria and WA with practitioners also in Canada, the US and Norway so all climatic conditions can apply these principles.

One of the most fallacious arguments on the subject of growing crops is the either/or..... you can't have a rich ecocystem AND grow crops - 'productivity' will suffer if there is 'competition'. This is proving to be totally untrue with now up to five years of continuous research yielding fascinating findings to the contrary. When perennial grasses are allowed to express their full genetic potential and remain undisturbed AND with a diverse plant population, the soil biota functions to its capacity with available nitrogen being fixed at now exponential rates. Instead of comptetition, think symbiosis.

You mentioned monoculture crops have been grown 'round the world for years.... however polyculture crops existed quite well prior to the advent of hybrid seeds, artifical fertilisers and biocide chemicals and the tipping point of constant use of this system is occurring.

There is more than one way to skin the feral pussy meaning... there is not one correct method, and appropriateness for the many different situations is essential to find the results that are able to REGENERATE our depleted ecosystems, not simply sustain them which is merely maintaining the status quo......

I'm still staggered at how removed most people are from how and where their food comes from and the production methods. With this remoteness, there is little or no knowledge or connection to natural, functioning systems so there are huge gaps resulting in flawed opinions.

To use the medical decree "First, do no harm". We, as consumers and farmers, ought to be applying this to our food growing and buying practices. However, until we know the full system, we will continue to do harm... knowingly and unknowingly.
Posted by bush goddess, Thursday, 7 June 2007 9:31:37 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
Bugsy, While I agree Bush goddess is ahead of science, you in your last para speculate in the same manner?
"Victoria is to review the moratorium on GM" was our starting point.
I personally see nothing wrong with the science in GM. Wild cross pollination has been around for a while and is happening all the time.
As bush goddess says there the consideration should not end.
An old mistake was the redesign of cropping in Indonesia, native rice was replaced by another breed of rice supplied by a good intentioned US after WW2. Planting strategies were also changed. The latter removed the "native strip between rows" critters ate the rice to the ground, the native without human intervention had invented a resistance to the critters. Indonesia's rice crops declined instead of increasing, genetics in the native rice were lost, a disaster leaving people at least hungry if not starving.
I think a lesson in strategy.

Victoria has no pressing need to introduce GM, demonstrated even in your posts, with respect.
There are other "no risk" strategies for increasing crop yields, as you agreed.
The US spin doctors are trying to sell us a bunny, I hope we stay aware to them.
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Thursday, 7 June 2007 9:34:50 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
At least we are getting somewhere. Well, if a strategy is "no risk", then I am certain farmers and businesses would go for them. I am actually a rather large fan of polyculture farming techniques and certainly see them as good basis for future farming. But as bush goddess correctly points out, each technology needs to be considered on a case by case basis (as there are many different flavours of GM). Some GM technologies may not be suitable for us, some probably will, but they need to be tested and evaluated in a real world market. Wholesale change from non-GM to GM crops is not what is being sold here. GM is just another string to our bow, so to speak, a diversification of pest management methods and cropping systems will likely make our food supply more resilient and is not totally incompatible with permaculture or polyculture. And to date there have been no findings that GM makes biodiversity decrease, or that there are any public health hazards. In fact, it has already been shown to decrease reliance on chemical treatments.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 7 June 2007 10:10:43 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
Bugsy your last post is most conciliatory, but

are you promoting monsanto?
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Thursday, 7 June 2007 10:24:35 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
Mr Rheese

Perhaps you'd like to take a toxic tour of the "magical silver bullets" scientists have given us in the past. They include, but are not limited to the following:

Dioxins and furans, PCB's, toxaphene, deildrin, lindane, aldrin, heptachlor, chlordane etc.

"Marvellous break through", says the peer reviewed scientists.

Unfortunately, they were correct about the killing spree of these chemicals since they have devastated all life forms on this planet.

The effects are bioaccumulative and insidious. You can rarely hear them, smell them or see them and they have invaded the entire food chain.

One need only obtain graphics of the physically deformed children in Vietnam, to witness the proven results of the hideous dioxins - even 42 years after the spraying has occurred.

Then you currently have Monsanto determined to promote their bovine growth hormone now shown to increase the risks of breast and colon cancer. They have arrogantly filed a formal complaint against those ethical companies labelling their products as "BGH free."

I see that you are operating under the umbrella of the "Australian Environment Foundation." May I suggest you are writing under false pretences?

Neither you or Jennifer have been capable of scientifically supporting your claims with your enthusiasm to further pollute our already fragile environment, heavily contaminated by your buddies in the pollutant industries.

Perhaps you should haved perused a copy of the "Precautionary Principle," prior to your promotion for GM crops. You can find the contents in most EPA Acts around Australia.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 7 June 2007 2:08:22 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
Thought I'd just throw a quick thought into the hat as this forum seems to actually be debating the science pretty reasonably...

I'm a big proponent of inhibiting certain genes in crops. Particularly genes that express chemicals like cyanide (in plants like sorghum etc). My theory is that by reducing cyanide levels in plants you remove the danger to humans, remove the need to process the plants to get rid of the cyanide and you're probably making the plant less fit (I.e. less able to survive outside the farm).

This would be probably be accomplished by either removing the section of DNA containing the cyanide gene or removing the gene's promoter (a regulatory region).

I also think this type of crop would be widely supported especially as several species (like almonds) have strains that have already lost the ability to produce cyanide naturally.
Posted by Sparky, Thursday, 7 June 2007 8:08:08 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
fluff, I am not in the business of endorsing corporations but I am pro-science and pro-biotechnology. I certainly am not pro-Monsanto, however I am not necessarily anti-Monsanto either. But the question shows where many people's heads are at: "Monsanto bad, don't let them do anything". Which is of course utter crap. Corporations are amoral entities that do good and bad things in the name of business and profit, it's up to us to keep that in check, but we also benefit from them and we make no progress if we refuse certain technologies point blank without reviewing them because of irrational fear. If they are to be refused at least let be because of founded and rational fears and concerns.

The precautuionary principle(from Wikipedia):" a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."

Which is sensible, that is why we had the moratoria and are having reviews of the science now that the moratoria are ending. What the science is saying of course, is that on the whole most GM technologies are quite harmless and do not pose a public health or environmental threat. But GM is of course a mixed bag and no technologies are exactly the same, depending on the genes targeted and their effects, which is why they should be decided on in a case by case basis. We will not be without defences if the moratorium on GM is lifted, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is still in full force and has considerable powers in dealing with these technologies. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/

What is this argument really about? Not trusting corporations, the government or the science? The way the world grows its food has to change, chemical dependence is unsustainable in the long term for a number of reasons and biotechnology can be complementary with other methods.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 7 June 2007 11:35:06 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
Sparky, Bugsy

I see your point on the benefits of biotechnology. However, the 10 or 11 year trials of GM crops is not a long time when it comes to getting the science right.

Some of the "silver bullet" chemicals I referred to earlier were introduced in the 40's or 50's. They have killed many people. It was only in 2001 that a global ban was placed on these destructive pesticides. Many countries continue to use them despite the devastation they are wreaking on human and ecological health.

These chemicals are showing up in the ice caps of the Arctic. They have pervaded every part of the planet and continue to bioaccumulate and wreak destruction.

The regulators need to be far more prudent than they have been in the past. And the science, I believe is not yet sufficiently assuring to adopt a gung ho approach to GM crops.

There needs to be fewer exaggerations about GM crops, fair play and clearer definitions for GM free zones. Already there are institutes, including the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba, expressing concern about the transgene frequency which has occurred with GM crops.

In 2004, The UN Food and Agricultural Organization acknowledged that GM crops can have reduced yields.

All the more reason to proceed with caution.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 8 June 2007 11:32:28 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
Technology is not the only answer to solving problems, especially those around producing enough food for continuous population growth.

The selling-off of the Commons- namely, the appropriation and ownership of ecosystem services that have traditionally been available free of charge to all - are now being patented and on-sold, thus reducing accessibility and equity to our quality of life.

For example, Monsanto's efforts to patent the genes of porcine and other entities have claimed ownerhip of the human genomes... yes, apparently yours and mine...... so I am no longer 'the owner' of me? Again, Monsanto and Bayer CropScience have patented their genetic engineering so seeds - once freely available for farmers to re-use year after year AND continue the plant breeding process - now control so many of the world's seed companies.

In this debate, I simply ask people to use their imaginations and extrpolate the scenario over the next 10, 20, 30 years and see how the world's food supplies really operate.

Yes, dominant market share is a brilliant free-market economy model and controlling the majority of the world's food supplies is audaciously brilliant....... as long as you have the income to purchase the goods on offer. Diminution of corn varieties is occurring in Mexico - the home of corn - from contamination of GE crops and, again.... who owns these engineered varieties? It's NOT the Mexicans.

Apply some imagineering to this issue..... be objective and wholistic and see how the world's food suplies could be controlled by very few...... that scares the living daylights out of me and long live my vegie garden.

bush goddess
Posted by bush goddess, Friday, 8 June 2007 11:50:37 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
Bush goddess

You're right about the patenting of genes being bad and in my view it clearly holds back public research. That said I think it is more of a systemic problem that allows genes to be patented rather than the evils of Monsanto. If Monsanto doesn't patent genes it is working on then someone else probably will resulting in Monsanto having to pay patentee for permission to study that gene.

Hopefully lawmakers in the US will change this situation.
Posted by Sparky, Friday, 8 June 2007 2:20:22 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
And again the debate swings back away from the science......

This is probably a perfect example of what Max what talking about. As soon as anyone starts talking about GM crops and foods..BANG! they start talking about economics and business ethics and patent law and on and on....but not about science. If anyone is going to make decisions about and between different GM technologies, then they had better be literate about them and I would prefer people from all occupations and backgrounds on my ethics committees. Unfortunately, it seems, noone except the scientists ever bothers to discuss the actual science. The last few posts have done exactly what Max was saying. You keep going on about about what Monsanto wants to do, what about what Syngenta, Dow or even Arcadia or Ventria or Athenix? Nope, nobody is interested, Monsanto is the devil.

The future is science based and you had better get with the program and start educating yourself, otherwise other people will be making the decisions for you.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 8 June 2007 8:50:29 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
In all fairness I was just using Monsanto as an example, but let's not get into a debate about having a debate.

I've noticed that we really haven't been discussing the science of GM cotton which I would argue is Australia's most successful GM crop.

My understanding is that the Monsanto version of GM cotton has three modifications. Two are natural insecticides from Bacillus thuringiensis which kill insects but is easily broken down by mammals. The third is a resistance gene to the herbicide Roundup which allows farmers to spray the chemical on fields to kill weeds but not the crop itself.

Anyone disagree with my assessment that it's our most successful GM crop?
Posted by Sparky, Saturday, 9 June 2007 3:23:30 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
This discussion of whether or not Australia should plant GM canola is really a bit of a joke. As Sparky notes, GM cotton is already grown with 3 different genes. This, I am told, is more than 90% of the cotton grown in Australia. Not only that, cottonseed enters the food chain both directly and through dairy cows. Unfortunately, Australia has missed the boat on GM canola. The 12 crop of GM canola is in the ground now in Canada. Over that period both area sown and yields of canola have increased in Canada. The opposite is true of Australia. Sometime this year the last canola trait from Canada will be approved for import into Europe. Not that this will matter too much. Canada had record exports of canola seed last year and are set to do the same again this year. Canada is now also exporting considerable quantities of canola oil to Europe. The Australian canola industry has struggled to keep up, in part because it is dominated by atrazine resistant canola. They call that yield resistant canola in Canada. The moritoria have really just been an own goal for Australian canola growers.

As to the science: GM is just another breeding technique, just you can do things like hybrids that you can’t do as well with conventional breeding.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 9 June 2007 6:42:19 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
I'd also like to see the concerns regarding copyright addressed - the ideas that GM food can be designed to only produce a few crops and that farmers can't reuse seed from their harvest without infringing copyright.
--This allegation that GM only produces seeds farmers cant regrow is false and a convenient lie. The Terminatator concept might have uses in managing pollen flow but has NEVER gone beyond a preliminary idead and never been commercialised.

"why it is that whilst there is sufficient food produced each year to feed the world population, untold millions of our fellow human beings suffer from malnutrition,"
--Even In a rich world, made rich by technological innovation by the way, many poor farmers are still kept poor by lack of technology and resources. A good solution is to provided them with better assets to earn income and use their land with less environmental damage. Better farm productivity spares land. The Indian cotton industry these last 4 years illustrates what happens when commercial seed growing (including GM) is introduced- a new green revolution with near doubled output and average yield per hectare , greater farmer profit, after years of moribund yield improvement prior to the recent commercial seed industry expansion: QUOTE:"Of the current total, Bt cotton accounts for 3.8 million hectares, against fewer than 50,000 hectares in 2002-03. Since the 2003 period, India's cotton output has almost doubled, to 27 million bales weighing 170 kilograms each, and average yields are up around two-thirds, largely because of lower rates of pest infestation in the hardier Bt-cotton varieties...Higher yields for each hectare sown also mean better returns for farmers. Government studies of a few areas under Bt cotton show that on average, annual incomes of farmers can rise around 11,000 rupees, or over $270, a hectare.(WSJ June 5th).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118097690219423944.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

But this success and increased incomes to poor farmers has been kept from being told by anti-GM PR spin about alleged GM cotton failures. Activist delusions deny poor people a lift out of poverty.
Posted by d, Sunday, 10 June 2007 8:08:31 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
Access to technology can help the poor and starving in a world in which on average we have plenty of food.

Jerrry Sachs (and Bono) in The End of Poverty explain how this works.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/how-rich-world-can-help-africa-help.html

How the Rich World Can Help Africa Help Itself

- Glenn Denning and Jeffrey Sachs, Financial Times (London) , May 29, 2007

...News from Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries, suggests a powerful way forward in the fight against hunger and poverty...

In 2005, Malawi's maize harvest was one of the worst ever... National production was just 1.2m tonnes - 29 per cent less than in the previous year and 45 per cent less than the national requirement... By November, almost 5m Malawians faced food shortages and hunger, and the prospect of another disastrous growing season in 2006. Hunger and extreme poverty are known to increase the incidence of many killer diseases, unleash gender-based violence and theft, and decrease dramatically the rates of school attendance by children...

Despite the opposition of some of Malawi's donors, President Bingu wa Mutharika and his team introduced a bold farm-input subsidy programme to pre-empt the famine. At a cost of $60m, roughly $5 per Malawian, the government provided seed and fertiliser at reduced cost to more than 1m small-scale maize farmers. This represented a huge financial burden for Malawi's government, but would have been a pittance for the rich world.

...The results have been spectacular. Malawi's smallholder farmers are harvesting a bumper crop for the second year running, which may reach a record 3.2m tonnes. Yields have soared, helped by favourable rains. This year's estimates suggest a more than 1m tonne surplus for the country. Malawi plans to export grain to hungry neighbours.

... The impact has stunned the sceptics and the doomsayers. It seems that an African green revolution is possible after all.

The recent stereotypical response of Greens politician Dr DiNatale to this issue that "techology is never a fix" is an absurd and sad misjudgment. Devising access to resources - material, biological, and intellectual - by poor farmers is not simply a technological fix.
Posted by d, Sunday, 10 June 2007 8:34:19 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
I guess my only problem with providing GM crops to third world countries is whether or not they will be regulated properly. I don't mean to sound arrogant but if there is a breakdown in good governance then this could improper use of GM crops.

For example with Bt cotton a section of the crop, say 20% is grown as a non-GM cotton refuge and is essentially sacrificed to cotton predators. This reduces selection pressure on the predators and slows the emergence of Bt resistance.

If you're in the middle of a famine there would be a lot of temptation to grow the entire crop as GM.
Posted by Sparky, Sunday, 10 June 2007 2:00:22 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
That's a very good point Sparky, many GM crops come with their own tecnical challenges and caveats that require explanation and training to use properly. For the use of Bt crops most companies require the farmers that want to use them to sign a licencing agreement so that they adhere to the guidelines of growing them, i.e. use of refuges etc. If any farmers do not adhere to these guidelines then they risk accelerating the evolution of resistance in pests, thus accelerating the loss of usefulness of that GM technology. Understandably the biotech companies want to minimise this risk, which is also why the GURTs technologies have also been proposed. And also why biotech companies don't want farmers that do not hold certification (i.e. licences) to plant their GM crop. Which is why the science is important so that people can understand before they get all indignant over this.

My guess is that subsistence farmers, or farmers that have only domestic/local markets, which is probably many of the 3rd world farmers, should probably not use this technology, it's just not economically viable and likely to be a threat to the technology itself, rather than their public health.

(and Sparky, I know you were only using Monsanto as an example You were also discussing the science, the others weren't.....)
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 10 June 2007 3:21:44 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 play the devil's advocate one disadvantage of not giving impoverished countries GM technology might be that GM crops from developed countries could be imported and sold at a lower cost than the traditional crops from the subsistence farms.

One way to get around this might be to use activator genes like t-GURT (Gene Use Restriction Technologies? I got the definition from wikipedia). In other words farmers could be given a chemical that allows the plant to mature, but only if they agree to proper safeguards for their crops.

The main problem with the above idea is that any activator is likely to be a chemical/protein the plant is deficient in and a black market for the activator will probably pop up for those who want to cut corners.
Posted by Sparky, Sunday, 10 June 2007 10:02:38 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
"Now forgive me if you’ve heard this before, but it seems to need repeating. GM crops are not science. They are technological products of science. To claim that those who oppose GM are “anti-science” is like claiming that those who oppose chemical weapons are anti-chemistry. Scientists are under no greater obligation to defend GM food than they are to defend the manufacture of Barbie dolls.

GM technology permits companies to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. They can patent the seeds and the processes which give rise to them. They can make sure that crops can’t be grown without their patented chemicals. They can prevent seeds from reproducing themselves. By buying up competing seed companies and closing them down, they can capture the food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all...

No one in her right mind would welcome this, so the corporations must persuade us to focus on something else. At first they talked of enhancing consumer choice, but when the carrot failed, they switched to the stick. Now we are told that unless we support the deployment of GM crops, our science base will collapse...

But the plight of the men in white coats isn’t much of a tearjerker. A far more effective form of emotional blackmail is the one deployed in the Guardian last week by Lord Taverne, the founder of the Prima PR consultancy. “The strongest argument in favour of developing GM crops,” he wrote, “is the contribution they can make to reducing world poverty, hunger and disease.”"

— George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2004
Posted by Katherine Wilson, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:52:51 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
Sparky and Bugsy, whether "subsistence" farmers can get value for GM crops will depend very much on the crop and how it is deployed. Small growers have obtained significant value out of Bt cotton in China, particularly by not poisoning themselves with pesticides. Smaller farmers have got less value in South Africa than larger farmers because of differences in the way the farming systems operate and differences in the costs of seed. For other products, it will depend very much on the value in the product, how well the farmers can deploy the product to achieve that value and the costs of doing so.

Bt crops should work much better in developing economies than they do in large western agriculture. There is much less of a need to deploy a refuge for resistance management purposes if the countryside is a mosaic of small fields with different crops, than if you have monoculture cotton like in the US. The patchwork of fields creates an in-built refuge where susceptible insects can survive in very close proximity to the Bt fields.

Farmers everywhere are by nature tinkerers and over time will find ways of making products work for them or will discard them. I suggest denying farmers access to the technology on the basis that they can’t be trusted to use it properly is an affront to the intelligence of farmers. Many farmers I work with have found innovative ways of using technology that were not what the providers of the technology originally intended.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 14 June 2007 8:37:52 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
Agronomist..... I agree with your comment that, by nature, farmers are 'tinkerers' and do develop ideas and practices way beyond the original intent of the technology. Without patenting of seeds, this was possible but with ownership now being held by another entity and the reality that, should the farmers tinker outside the Technical User Agreement, they will be sued for violating this contract as has happened in North America.

The Integrated Pest Management tactics used with GE cotton, were developed by Monsanto and, there have been significant learnings from the doing. However, there are also downsides with loss of habitat for certain species of bats which eat heliothosis moths... a natural form of pest control that has been jeopardised in favour of technology. There is an urgent need for a holistic assessment to understand all ecosystem connections, rather than the simplified concept of technology providing all the answers. Invariably, there are consequences and backlashes - the short term results can look spectacular but the longer-term results come at a cost.

I reiterate..... this is not a simple issue and nor ought it be treated in a black and white mentality.

bush goddess
Posted by bush goddess, Friday, 15 June 2007 9:41:37 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
The issue with loss of habitat of bats that are heliothis predators is a new one for me bush goddess, could you please provide a link to the journal that this appears in? I am very interested in this type of research.

It must be kept in mind that the User Agreement is probably necessary to protect certain types of GE technologies (eg Bt) from overuse and potential loss of effectiveness. It probably isn't necessary for other types of GE technology, such as tolerance for water stress or low nutrient soils etc.

A holistic view is certainly necessary, and I certainly believe farmers should have the opportunity to make up their own minds whether something is going to increase or decrease their risks. They are not stupid and probably have the greatest stake in all of this and should be allowed to choose whether to grow these crops or not instead of being dictated to by political lobby groups that are not always in line with the farmers interests.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 15 June 2007 10:19:51 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
What rubbish!
The only commercial GM crops grown are Herbicide tolerant(Ht) or Bt. (ISAAA:68%Ht,19%Bt and 13% both, both achieved by adding a soil bacteria gene to the DNA of a plant.
Herbicide tolerance is the same as our non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties (most of our non-GM canola is Non-GM Ht). The most popular trait is Roundup Ready which gives glyphosate resistance to the crop (an unwanted trait occurring naturally in weeds so obviously very easy to achieve by non-GM means).
Bt is about the plant (cotton or corn) producing its own Bt insecticide rather than farmers spraying.
It is nothing to do with using less chemical or minimum till benefits. We will use the same or even more chemical with Ht (which may explain why Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience and other chemical companies own GM patents).
If GM canola is introduced to Australia, it will be the first time a broadacre crop is commercially released in a country that recognises the patent but does not subsidise their farmers to compensate the increased costs and lower commodity prices. US and Canadian GM farmers are subsidised heavily and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay do not recognise the patent.
No wheat is grown anywhere in the world because it would be industry sabotage... no market will accept GM wheat contamination.
Why the push? The R&D sector are receiving significant funding promises and deals, the governments want to pull out of R&D funding, the seed sector will make huge profits due to farmers losing the right to replant our own seeds... everyone is expecting to profit more but farmers will be the only sector to pay more as consumers do not want GM but some will pay less to eat it.
What an expensive scam!
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Friday, 15 June 2007 12:06:21 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
Choice?
What choice is available to non-GM farmers?
We are expected to market as GM because we are expected to try to keep GM out of our crops (not the GM industry keeping it contained) and we are expected to pay when we fail to do so. It will be too difficult and too expensive to sell as non-GM.
Governments would be neglecting their duty of care if they allow GM. Will they be swayed by the dollar? Unfortunately, governments are also investors in the technology and plan on making money out of farmers and GM too.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Friday, 15 June 2007 12:12:57 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
Agronomist, my attitude towards farmers does appear a little condescending. That said it does stem from my microbiology training in the area of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance is not dissimilar to pest/weed resistance arising from the use of GM crops. I believe that breakdowns in public health measures like doctors prescribing antibiotics for viral infections or frugal people not taking the full course of their antibacterial treatment results in increased resistance to these medications. For example if you’re a poor person in say India, and you might be given a 6 week course of antibiotics and yet you feel better after 3 weeks… there's a big temptation to save your pills for the next time you or someone else you know gets sick, on the surface it’s just common sense.

In the same way a farmer might not follow guidelines for GM crops if there’s a famine and the farmer can grow a bigger crop by not using a refuge (though the point Agronomist makes about neighbouring fields being refuges is interesting).

Don’t get me wrong, I really want the third world to have technologies like antibiotics and GM crops. I just don’t want the technologies to become redundant in 10 or 20 years. Admittedly the safeguards I propose are paternalistic and a bit arrogant, but I feel it’s a necessary evil.

On the other hand if someone has a better idea or sees a flaw in my reasoning I’m more than happy to hear it
Posted by Sparky, Friday, 15 June 2007 12:35:25 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
Sparky, you are absolutely correct that farmers can get things wrong with technology and stuff it up. But, it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Chinese farmers have been growing Bt cotton for 11 years now without getting any resistance. The same might not be true if the same farmers grew Roundup Ready cotton.

One of the problems with antibiotic resistance is that it is a social problem. It can easily and readily spread from one person to another. While over-prescription of antibiotics for viral diseases is a problem, most antibiotic resistance occurs in hospital settings. Hospitals accumulate large numbers of sick patients, many with compromised or poorly functioning immune systems and lots of antibiotics are used. This is the perfect environment for resistance to be selected and then passed to somebody else. If resistance is selected, but not passed on, it doesn’t matter. Better management of antibiotic resistance is essential to protect the vulnerable members of our society who spend large amounts of time in hospital. For this reason, I am against the prophylactic use of new generation antibiotics in the animal production industry.

Likewise, Bt resistance is a social problem. This is why resistance management plans are necessary. The refuge is a vital part of the plan, but it doesn’t matter how that refuge is created, merely that the refuge works. So in the third world, refuges can simply be other crops due to the mosaic of crop planting. If there was to be wall-to-wall Bt crops, I would be really concerned.

In contrast, herbicide resistance tends not to be a social problem. It occurs on the fields where the farmer used the herbicide and if it moves off, it only causes a problem if it moves in large numbers to a place where the same herbicide is used. So if a third world farmer uses a HT crop indiscriminately and gets HT weeds that only affect them, should we stop everybody having access?
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 15 June 2007 1:32:42 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
Dear Max Rheese,
Can you unequivocally state that you have no vested interest in the spread of GM into agriculture by way of shares, commissions, fees or any other benefit from GM companies?
R.G.H. Cotton AM BAgSc, PhD, DSc
Posted by RichardCotton, Monday, 18 June 2007 1:04:16 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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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