Greenpeace is spending $150 million dollars on its worldwide campaign against GM crops and food. How is this not relevant to the GM debate?

Golden Rice could have already been saving hundreds of thousands of children from going blind each year but huge pressure from NGO's (including Greenpeace) to convince governments test/regulate this GM product into oblivion have delayed its introduction by years.

Demands that it be proven "risk-free" are actually ploys to delay, delay, delay as nothing can ever be proven risk-free. Since the ONLY way we can truely know how safe something is is by past safe use. The track record on GM crops and food is very encouraging. Still having said that a case by case evaluation is still important.

R Roush

Thank you for supporting my claim about the use of organochlorines where the serious health impacts of these chemicals to humans were detected and published by 1959.

Could you also advise why organochlorines remained available in Australia for nearly 40 years after that scientific discovery and were not totally banned until 1997, with the exception of mirex?

Mirex, one of the "dirty dozen" chemicals continues to be sprayed on mango crops in the NT, even though mirex was banned in the US in the '70's and alternative, safer chemicals are available. This chemical and its unintentional by-products of dioxins and furans cause cancers, immune and reproductive disorders, respiratory diseases and diabetes.

Bush Goddess continues to raise some very valid points where she advises of the plentiful though inequitable distribution of food.

How many of us have witnessed through the media, whole orchards of Australian fruits being harvested and then buried in the ground?

RobW's claim that Greenpeace has spent $150 million dollars on its anti-GM programme also supports Bush Goddess' assumption that there must indeed be many citizens world-wide, who remain unconvinced over the "wondrous" merits of GM crops and clearly, many must be donating to and requesting from GP, that their issues of concern over GM crops, be raised in a public forum.

I remind posters that Greenpeace also employ many qualified scientists to arrive at their proven conclusions on the many and varied threats to human health. Unfortunately, Australian governments are notorious for remaining asleep at the wheel!

Dickie:

I didn’t say that organochlorines had serious health impacts on humans. The jury is still out on human health risks, where the data are ambiguous. I still wouldn’t want them. The chemicals were banned for environmental impacts, especially on bird eggs in the case of DDT.

You are getting off the topic of GM, and I don’t know much about the specific Australian decisions on old pesticides. However, for most pesticides, the decisions have been generally been made around the world on a risk/benefit basis. Indeed, DDT is making a comeback in Africa for mosquito control around houses because the risks to human health of DDT are much lower than the harms of malaria, which kills 1-3 million per year mostly black African kids.

I’m guessing that organochlorines were still used in Australia for some time because the risks were considered low compared to benefits and alternatives, and that there were few alternatives.

A similar risk-benefit analysis seems to be the reason that atrazine, which Julie “Non-GM Farmer” Newman is so keen to defend, is still allowed in Australia while being banned in Europe.

Mirex is very effective against ants and one of the few (only?) effective pesticides in some cases. I’d still be looking to get rid of it.

In any case, GM crops are being regulated much more stringently than pesticides. There is no credit given to benefits. For all practical purposes, if there is any discernable risk, the GM does not get registered and go to market. In contrast to atrazine, for example, there is no way that a GM crop could be sold in Australia if there was evidence of adverse effects on frogs!

With respect to the distribution of those fruit crops being buried, how would you distribute them to Zimbabwe (for example) where they are needed?

Greenpeace does employ a few people with scientific degrees, although to my knowledge, none in Australia. Given that their salaries clearly depend on adhering to Greenpeace policy, they can hardly be seen as independent and without a conflict of interest.

R Roush

"The jury is still out on human health risks." It's hard to believe that you have been working in agriculture when you make such misleading statements. The data is not ambiguous. Some organochlorines are deemed proven carcinogens, mutagens or teratogens, the rest are deemed "probable."

The Stockholm Convention, of which Australia has ratified, was formed purely from concerns over the impacts of persistent organic pollutants to human health and the eco systems.

In contradiction, Australia asked to be exempted from banning mirex until 2009, however, they are permitted to extend the use for another "five" years hence. Mirex is one of the most toxic chemicals known to man - and invented by man! Furthermore, POPs are known for their transboundary nature and can invade other areas thousands of miles from the source.

You state that the "risks were considered low compared to benefits and alternatives." That statement is also misleading. There are no other chemicals as toxic as organochlorines. The risks are extremely high.

The World Health Organisation and the Stockholm Convention reluctantly agreed to the return of DDT to control malaria. The current spraying is much less than previous and this is a desperate interim measure until another chemical can be proven to eradicate malaria. However, the spraying of DDT will continue to affect the eco-systems and the health of some of those in African countries and beyond. The lag time for adverse effects of DDT to show in humans is much longer than that for malaria.

You may consider I am off topic. Not really. I am merely attempting to point out that Australia is well known for "jumping the gun" when it comes to accepting "breakthroughs" which damage human health and our eco systems. Our state and federal governments have historically adopted a long period of denial and procrastination when it comes to fixing up the mess.

After all, we are already notorious for emitting the largest amount of CO2 per capita on the planet and procrastination by a government in denial is alive and well!

This EU report is a disgrace saying that it's scientific and baffling anyone who reads it with scientific jargon. They have not done any experiments themselves so they are only going on a report that can be influenced by the pro-GM sector.

The report from EU is not a scientific paper as it's only an opinion influenced by Monsanto who were at the meeting. This is not good science. I demand a right to choose to avoid GM until the tests that I want are done. What is your problem with this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm shows the bribery that goes on with Monsanto and this is not good science.

I refuse to take what Monsanto says as they only want to sell as much as possible and they don't want to find anything in their tests so they adapt their tests to show that. I want proven technology with unbiased testing to prove the safety and done by scientists that have not got vested interest with the GM corporations or people.

The regulators do not do tests so I'm not going to accept an "opinion" of the regulators based on an unscientific basis.

Please let us know which country has approved Golden Rice for release. Because lobbying does not stop the approval it only stops the release. And in Australia that is on economic grounds.

Dear Dickie:
First, let me reiterate that I would be among the first to get rid of organochlorines, including mirex, although I would still allow their use for bednets in malarial control. For me, organochlorine harms to natural ecosystems are sufficient to justify their banning in agriculture. However, the harms of organochlorine insecticides from common field or food exposure (as opposed to industrial exposure, such as at processing plants or among improperly protected pesticide applicators) have been hard to prove.

Let’s turn to your main point, which seems to that Australia is "jumping the gun" in approving GM. Which countries do you credit for being more responsible? Europe perhaps? European countries have approved and are growing GM crops like Bt corn, but are banning atrazine. Contrast this to Australia, which continues to allow atrazine, but not GM “food and feed” crops, including GM canola that would displace atrazine use in that crop.

Is Australia jumping the gun or lagging behind?