RobW

Perhaps those who oppose the implementation of GM crops are a little better researched than you, therefore they may be more aware that not all "silver bullets" are what they appear to be.

Queensland sugar farmers used organochlorine insecticides from 1947 to 1987. However, it was already known in 1959 that aldrin was a carcinogen which also attacked the nervous system in humans. Aldrin was not deregistered in Australia until 1992.

Once a technology is on the market, it is extremely difficult to obtain a ban, despite any scientific evidence of negative health impacts.

In 1980, Australian Vietnam veterans issued their first writ against the Federal government and those chemical companies involved in the Agent Orange case.

In October 1983, the US EPA banned all use of 2,4,5-T. The manufacturers, Dow Chemicals, withdrew its government registration in the US but not in Australia.

Federal and State authorities here at that time said there would be no further bans placed on 2,4,5,-T. History now reveals the horrendous deformities in many Vietnamese children, not even born during the spraying of Agent Orange.

Many of those who eargerly embrace new technologies regard themselves as "progressive thinkers" and their opponents as "luddites."

You state that GM crops are a "proven technology." I've been around a long time, studying food chemicals for some 35 years and the description, "proven technology" now rings rather hollow.

Ten or eleven years of trial runs on GM crops, is not a long time in the often flawed scientific world, heavily infiltrated by trade and commerce representatives, seeking fat profits for a few.

History shows that "progressive thinkers" have force-fed their opponents some very nasty "innovative" technologies. You state that opponents of GM can simply consume organics. With the advent of GM crops, I must ask, "how long will organics remain organic?"

Organics, contaminated by GM crops, prevents the "luddites" from choice, which you vigorously claim should be afforded to the proponents of GM crops.

What guarantee can you give that all people will remain free to choose the type of foods they prefer to consume?

Hi safe, I applaud your challenge in reading the statistical report. The answers to smone of your questions.

EFSA don’t have a research department as such. They assess studies submitted as part of regulatory packages. Monsanto conducted the experiments that are at the centre of this discussion. That is why they are mentioned. Greenpeace paid CRIIGEN to find evidence of harm in the data as part of their current push to create a body of research showing harm. This can also be seen in their support of the Russian neuroscientist Ermakova.

The seed was tested for GM content, see the original study Appendix 6.

The rats were fed diets containing 11% or 33% GM corn. They were not fed 100% GM corn, because rats cannot live on corn alone.

Differences of 3 or 4% in means are unlikely to be important if that factor normally varies by 30%. All rats will be slightly different. Fraternal twins in the same household will grow at different rates and at different times, because of different genetic make-ups. Nobody gets concerned unless these differences are outside the normal range for children of that age. The same applies here. Any differences found need to be assessed against the natural variation in those parameters. Only if they fall outside that range is further investigation warranted.

If these differences only occurred at up to 4 of 14 weeks, but were gone by 14 weeks, what does that mean?

The reason that there were some changes is because if you measure enough things, you will find one is different, purely by chance.

I don’t know where you got this 26% GM from. I point out that the rats were fed 11% GM corn as part of their diet or 33% GM corn. The rats would get very sick from being fed 100% GM corn, just as they would from being fed 100% non-GM corn.

From your first post on this forum in December 2005.

“I don't want to eat GM foods. Having a regulator saying it is safe will not convince me to eat it”

Says it all.

You make some good points, Agronomist. The claim that butterflies died when fed pollen from GM canola flowers was widely circulated some years ago. The truth of course is not quite what the anti-GM campaigners want you to believe. In fact, the butterflies were fed only pollen from GM canola, so they either starved to death if they chose not to eat something they didn't want to eat or they were poisoned if they continued to eat it. In real life, such butterflies would simply fly away from the GM crop and find alternative food sources. As I understand it, there are no reports of beneficial insects being adversely affected by GM canola.

It's interesting to note that Ian Edward advises that Greenpeace published an article written by Dr Carman and states:

"To most individuals this might have raised a potential conflict of interest flag about Dr Carman's competency to conduct "independent" trials but not to Minister Chance."

I am yet to understand how there could be a "conflict of interest" since I fail to see how Greenpeace or Dr Carman would profit from their opposition to GM crops.

Dr Carman is an organic chemist, a public health specialist and an epidemiologist. One could only perceive a bias on Dr Carman's part (if any) to be totally towards the welfare of public health.

On the other hand, I understand that Ian Edwards is managing director of 2 biotech companies in Perth. Therefore, his article promoting GM crops, could strongly be perceived to contain a vested interest given that Mr Edwards would be totally reliant on income from the agricultural and farming industry. Most forums, I am sure would have a perception of a "conflict of interest."

Ian Edwards has sung the praises of the Royal Society of London. Seemingly these praises are not universal. The Institute of Science in Society published an article on the Royal Society's views on GM crops and their methods of peer reviews. Posters can access this article by calling up "Royal Society Under Fire."

People are free to believe whatever they like. The problem arises when advocates of food that represents approximately 2% of the food supply are calling for the remaining 98% to be of their choosing. Not quite democratic.

As I have said many times choice is fine yet it is those who oppose Gm crops that are calling for bans. People who have no problem with GM content are not calling for a ban on organic food even when there is significant issues around safety well documented with using manure as fertilizer(remember organic spinach last year).

The evaluations of safety re: GM crops and food are not ten years but atleast twenty five years. Somehow there will never be enough safety data for critics I suspect. And as for Greenpeace not profitting from their anti GM campaign. Simply not true. Their donations have increased by approximately 18% since they began their anti-GM campaign. There is also the organic food interests they hold but don't talk about that definitely make them money by stirring fear in the public over GM crops and food.

Simply put. There is not a shread of evidence of harm to humans or the environment from 11 years of commercial growing and cunsumer consumption of GM crops and food. That track record can not be matched by any other type of food production. All the "what ifs" in the world can not change this safety record.

Finally, it is very ignorant of people to assume the world actually as a choice of adopting this technology. We do not. Global pressures on land, water and wild stocks mean we must incorporate GM technologies into global agriculture systems. Without such the remaining wilderness will dissappear to the plough. Now that is what I call unsustainable agriculture! This does not mean GM crops are a panacea, they are not. Often they are not even te best choice for a given situation. however they are the best choice for many and the only choice for some. To deny this based on ideology is to put ones head in the sand.

Cheers

The spurious argument that GM technology is needed to 'feed the world' is absoultely untrue as there is an abundance of food being produced already. The problems lie in equitable distribution systems and universal access to it all.

It is estimated there are 900 million people receiving less than 200 calories per day yet, conversely, there are one billion clinically obese people..... shortage of food? Apparently not.

Yes.... erosion, salinity, pollution, housing and industrial development are reducing the amounts of arable land available for food production but the first two can be reversed by regenerative farming systems. These focus on polyculture systems which reflect and enhance a rich and complex biodiversity upon which we rely for our quality of life.

The example of butterflies in an earlier posting is a beauty; apparently butterflies aren't restricted to living only on GM food crops if they don't want to.... they can find other sources. Wrong. In the monoculture situation, there are no other sources of food (weeds) as they have been spryed into oblivion..... eliminated.

Another interesting point from an earlier posting..... apparently donations to Greenpeace have increased by 18% since this organisation has been involved in the anti-GM debate..... I read this as a powerful display of conusmer sentiment against the (wider) introduction of these products.....