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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.