OK Non-GM
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. It seem the webpage link under my name does not work but the link in the text of my message acouple back certainly does.

I will start then. Please explain how using ionizing radiation to randomly mutate DNA throughout the entire genome of a plant and NEVER knowing which DNA , how much DNA or where in the genome the mutations have occurred is safer than knowing exactly what gene has been added, where it is added at what levels it is expressed in every tissue of the plant. At present there are over 2200 different varieties of crops that have been created by completely random mutations of the DNA by radiation mutation breeding.(IAEA) At least the same number have been created by random mutations(again completely uncharacterized) using chemicals. I would like to understand how you feel these techiques can possibly be considered safer than the relatively precise method of inserting a known gene of known function into a plant and then doing extensive analysis of that GM plant BEFORE it is commercialized.

As for the corruption accusations, please go to my website and red the paper on safety by the German Scientific Organization. Surely this is outside of the influense of Monsanto. http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager

Cheers

OK Julie
Perhaps the first question is a bit difficult for you to answer. lets try this one. Please explain to this forum how all three levels of the Canadian Court System that found Percy Schmeiser quilty were wrong. I have two articles on my website that detail why all three levels found him quilty. My personal favourite is Goliath vs Goliath. Aptly titled as the so-called grass roots campaign against GM crops and food is anything but grass roots.

I was wondering why you think 30,000 Canadian farmers now grow GM canola? This represents about 75% of the canola farmers in Canada. Are they less than smart or perhaps, just perhaps GM Canola is a better product and the SMART farmers know it.

OK now in order for us to have a debate (that you claim to want) you must now respond. Have a nice day

Dear Dickie:
What are your documents claiming that “Monsanto has played dirty”? So far all I see are internet rumours and trivial technicalities, such as that in South Africa Monsanto did not reference a paper from Seralini that, as Agronomist and others have pointed out, is overwhelmingly rejected by EU regulators and other scientists.

A predecessor of the current Monsanto some 30 years ago made Agent Orange, on contract from the US government. Monsanto itself has changed, having sold off its chemical business long ago. The people of the old Monsanto are long since gone. If compensation is to be paid, shouldn’t it be from the US government, not from people who had nothing to do with it?

Your comment about conflicts of interest in the WA government brings us back to Edwards essay. Perhaps go read it again.

Again, who are these “food regulatory authorities ….. infiltrated by senior representatives from Monsanto” ? Give us some names and what they did.

RobW’s link in the text worked for me. Thanks, Rob, for bringing it to our attention. There is some challenging reading here for Safe, Dickie, Julie and others.

Julie:

Others can (and have) judged your alliance with Greenpeace and GeneEthics. The amount of money is not the issue.

Again, is there any substantial difference between NCF’s position(s) and those of Greenpeace or GeneEthics, and if so, what is it?

Even after years now, you have still not answered obvious questions of representation.

If the “NCF has never been secretive” as you claim, why can we not find out what is the membership of NCF? Is it more than 10 people? Who can join and how?

When you write that “Networks don't run like the established farm lobby groups”, can we safely assume that you don’t have elections or bylaws and that you and maybe 1-2 other people make all the key decisions/policy statements?

You indicate that you “distribute information to other organisations to influence policy”. Who decides NCF policy positions and how? At least other farm groups have votes that are reported in the media. What about NCF?

Roush, Here's just a few excerpts at your request:

1 The Washington Post (2002) revealed Monsanto documents showing that the company routinely dumped PCB's in Anniston, Alabama and covered up its behaviour for more than 40 years. 3,500 local residents won a huge victory landmark in an environmental lawsuit. 15,000 additional area residents have filed another lawsuit citing health problems etc.

Monsanto argued that since they have contaminated the entire planet they are innocent of all liability.

2. Democracy Now (2003)

Monsanto is suing a small milk producer in Oakhurst that advertises its milk contains no artificial growth hormone. Monsanto claims the ads give the public the impressions AGH are not safe.

3. January 05

Monsanto fined $1.5 million for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted one of its employees paid the senior official two years ago in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its cotton.

4. The Hindhu (2006)

The state government has filed several cases against Monsanto and its Mumbai sister company for various irregularities in BT cotton supply leading to large scale (over 3000) farmer suicides in the state of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Kemner vs. Monsanto Trial

Cover-up on the toxicity of and scientific fudging of dioxin health impacts. Citizens sue Monsanto.

6. Korea Times 15/2/06

In 1984, US chemical giants including Dow and Monsanto paid out $180 million to US war veterans.

In a landmark decision last month, the Seoul High Court ruled two US makers of Agent Orange, Dow and Monsanto, to pay $63 billion to a group of 6,700 Korean war veterans.

7. The Guardian 12/2/07

Evidence has emerged that Monsanto paid contractors to dump thousands of tonnes of highly toxic waste in a British landfill site, knowing that these chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environmental agency has launched an enquiry after the chemicals were found polluting ground water supplies and the atmosphere, 30 years after they were dumped.

To view the full reports (and more) please go to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/monsanto

Roush, additional information on this predatory company is available on request.

Dickie:

1) This has nothing to do with GM crop technology
2)This has nothing to do with GM crop technology. Although I guess it is within GM tech as a whole, but only on GM produced hormones which are injected. Monsanto has a right to sue if they believe that companies are implying their technology is unsafe (and making money from this implication) without any cause. If there is proper data that that shows that this technology is unsafe, then it should be withdrawn, but if there isn't any data then it is a scare campaign and a libel.

3) As stated previously, Monsanto themselves investigated and turned themselves in.

4)The state of Andhra Pradesh is suing over a dispute on the recommended cost of the seed, not over the technology itself. They are certainly not suing over farmer suicides.

5) This has nothing to do with GM technology.

6)This certainly has nothing to do with GM technology.

7)This also has nothing to do with GM technology.

There are hardly any instances of "playing dirty" with GM crops as far as I can tell from these snippets. Most of these environmental disasters seem to be from the chemical company and even then many are from over 30 to 50 years ago! Sure some of the chemical pollution of the past has been horrendous, but that has no bearing on GM technology.

Julie

Seems you do not want to answer my first three questions so here is another. Live Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria have been sprayed on organic crops for decades. Every critic of Gm crops say this is perfectly safe with 5000 odd genes being expressed in each live bacteria but when the one gene in the bacteria that actually does kill the pest insects is put in a plant so that the plant can protect itself without pesticides these same people find it scary and unsafe. Why?

OK perhaps you would like to discuss with me why the Chapela paper that allegedly found GM corn in Mexico was disavowed by Nature. Here is a hint, go to my website and see the detailed publication that shows Chapela showed exactly nothing with his poor molecular biology data. Oh and a study by Allison Snow four years later found exactly no GM corn in the same area. So much for the corn in Mexico being threatened by GM corn. In reality Mexican farmers are very adept at growing different varieties of corn in close proximity. Hmmm

Remember it was you who invited myself to debate this subject. I have put several points forward and you have not responded. Are you going to further support my post a while back where I told of how critics of GM crops never really want to debate with someone who know about the pseudoscience the critics push. Prove me wrong.