Dear Safe:

Where’s your evidence that Monsanto influenced this review?

You have every right to avoid GM, but not to force farmers into poverty or the use of more dangerous pesticides to satisfy your whims. You can eat organic and avoid GM. What’s wrong with that?

In citing the 2.5 year old story on Monsanto and bribes, you neglected to observe that it was Monsanto who detected the bribery, reported it and accepted the fines. From the website you have cited (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm)

” The chemicals-and-crops firm said it became aware of irregularities at a Jakarta-based subsidiary in 2001 and launched an internal investigation before informing the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).”

That is, Monsanto started to sort this out some at least 3 years before the news story you quoted. My recollection is that they also sacked the rogue employee.

That also reminds me about the post from “rallyround”, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 5:05:15 AM, who claimed that
“Monsanto has just been nailed in South Africa for advertising that no adverse effects about the dangers of GM food had ever been reported. They denied to High Court Judge Mervyn King that MON 863 which had caused liver damage to rats, was their product.”

It took me a while to track down this obscure story, but what in fact happened is that Mervin King, is no longer an active judge but heads up the Advertising Standards Authority, objected to the statement that "no negative effects have been reported".

Given that anti-GM activists have reported negative effects, even if unsupported by further scientific reviews, as Agronomist has detailed on this website, Monsanto may have been technically wrong. What Monsanto should have said was that 'no substantiated scientific or medical negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported'.

R Roush

Australia's contradictory and shoddy regulatory systems is evident by the continuing use of the suspected endocrine disruptor, atrazine. I refer you to the much peer-reviewed Professor Dr Tyrone Hayes' expert opinion on atrazine:

www.atrazinelovers.com

My concerns remain over the prolific use of glyphosate which means this chemical can be sprayed up to 200 times onto genetically engineered crops.

The glyphosate metabolite (AMPA) has been identified in the tissues, urine and faeces of rats and rabbits, in the liver in poultry, pigs cattle and the kidney of pigs and cattle (USEPA). Do we really desire ingesting this chemical through our food chain? (rats excluded of course!)

Swedish Professor Lennart Hardell claims an increase by a factor of 3 in non-hodgkins lymphona in humans. He concedes his research was limited but it was sufficient to warrant further investigation.

Proponents of GM crops continue to use the argument that Europe has readily adopted the planting of crops.

This too is misleading since only 6 countries out of 25 are growing GM crops. The EU are bullying Greece to "conform" and pressure is continuing.

However, in contrast to the US, where GM crops cover some 54.6 million hectares, the following countries individual areas cover no more than 0.1million hectares:

Romania, Mexico, Spain, Columbia, France, Iran, Honduras, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany, Slovakia.

Denmark banned the spraying of glyphosates in September 2003.

The USEPA researchers suggested "glyphosate exposure possibly increases the risk of cancer but definitive conclusions could not be reached due to small sample sizes and confounding factors."

The US Department of Health found glyphosate and a glyphosate formulation were toxic to human placenta cell cultures and that glyphosate formulations were 10 to 100 times more acutely toxic to fish.

There is currently much evidence to warrant concern over the use of glyphosates.

Proponents of GM crops have a responsibility to look at all the current evidence from accredited institutions.

Australian governments have too often replaced one flawed technology with another but then so many of our politicians are blessed with great vision which far exceeds their ability.

dickie, you may like some more up to date info on Denmarks glyphosate restrictions. It appears the Autumn "ban" is no more.

Of course you may no be happy that the following link is from monsanto, but you will realise that what they say is heavily scrutinised, unlike sites that choose to reveal only partial truths.

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/denmark_bkg_05.pdf

If pro-GM activists really believed their misleading bulldust regarding GM crops, they would not refuse to accept liability for the problems associated with it. I do not think it is unreasonable for non-GM farmers to refuse to accept the economic loss that GM crops cause, particularly considering the GM sector also refuse this liability.
Interesting how the debate always regresses to the "Greenpeace alliance" rubbish. Neither Judy Carman or myself have ever been funded by Greenpeace but often accused of it. Talking to Greenpeace (or anyone else for that matter) does not make us "bedfellows". If the pro-GM activists talked to Greenpeace, you may find out that contrary to the bulldust spread, that there is only one national campaigner employed in Australia with the GM portfolio. Why are the pro-GM activists so worried about one person? I only met her for the first time last month when we were both at the same forum so claiming we are "bedfellows" is a bit odd eh?
Rick, Atrazine is banned in Europe for the same reason it is banned in Australian wet areas... it is unsuitable for wet areas but more suited to broadacre dryland areas. We have used Atrazine for decades and not noticed our frogs looking more feminine and they are breeding happily. If there were serious problems, it would be banned.
You are obviously just trying to create mischief by trying to remove non-GM opposition varieties. Shame on you.

Lets talk about the so-called economic losses from GM cross-pollination. Seems there is no exact value or level from cross pollination of organic crops from GM crops in any organic accreditation I have ever seen. So if there is no set limit there can not be any economic loss from loosing accreditation from GM cross pollination. Even the IFOAM does not recogize a threshold of GM crops cross pollination of organic crops and furthermore DOES NOT advocate testing to determine any level. Seems just claiming harm is good enough to demand a ban on a proven safe agricultural technology then. Hmmm.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912
shows bribes in Indonesia November 2006:-

"Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies of FDA,EPA and even the Supreme Court." This is a conflict of interest as these people would be making the laws that govern GM and the EPA is meant to be regulating.

http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1811 The judgement of ASA showing that Monsanto have been telling lies with regards to the health safety.

"January, this year, Monsanto was fined 15,000 euros (19,000 dollars)in a French court for misleading the public about the
environmental impact of herbicide Roundup".

"A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use. Monsanto's French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros".

"In 2005 Monsanto was caught smuggling South African produced GM Bollgard cotton seed into Indonesia disguised as rice. Monsanto was
fined for bribing Indonesian officials".

Quotes:-

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" — FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229

"In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do" - Dr. Henry Miller, in charge of biotechnology issues for the Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 1994

"For years, these guys said PCBs were safe, too. But there's obviously a corporate culture of deceiving the public." Mike Casey of the Environmental Working Group"

As I have said countless times, I demand to be able to have non-GM produce available to me as a consumer. Contamination occurs and this is proven beyond doubt. You cannot segregate non-GM and GM. I still believe that GM is a biohazard.