The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia plays the biotechnology cowboy > Comments

Australia plays the biotechnology cowboy : Comments

By Duncan Currie, published 16/5/2008

Genetically modified crops, if they escape or behave in an unexpected way, can cause damage to plants and biodiversity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Does the world never learn? We seem to continue playing God and taking risks that can affect the whole of the future of mankind!

When we detonated the first atomic bomb we really did NOT know if the resultant chain reaction could have continued to infinity, however in true human "endevour" we took the risk anyway and we WERE lucky!

Let us look at the problems we have created for ourselves here in Australia. We have allowed the establishment of the Prickly Pear, Green Cestrum (one leaf can kill a cow), Groundsel, Rubber Vine, Catsclaw, Lantana, Blackberry, Rabbits, Cane Toads and so the list goes on!......all this because we DID NOT research the problem sufficiently to assess the resultant risk factor!

Now we are worldwide allowing possibly the same mistakes to be made, only this time on a much grander scale,.....supposedly in the name of prevention of starvation for the Third World countries, but in actuality, to allow a small group of businesses to control the sale and distribution of the seed-stocks across the spectrum!

Nobody at this time knows exactly what the long-term results of Genetic Plant Modification can bring to humanity, so we should consider the fact that we have in the past been very lucky, but not plunge headlong into what could be a genetic plant armageddon!
Posted by Cuphandle, Friday, 16 May 2008 10:35:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Duncan, perhaps you might be able to explain to me why anti-biotechnology writers on GM crops on this forum so often fail to get simple facts right. What is so hard about checking sources?

There are not “three weeds” resistant to “the same herbicides” in Canada within three years due to outcrossing. In fact Canada has no cases of herbicide resistance in weeds to any of glyphosate, glufosinate or bromoxynil http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp ; the three herbicide traits introduced into GM canola.

Likewise an intensive study in Oaxaca in 2003 and 2004 failed to fined any transgenes in landraces of corn http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/35/12338 Of course, this doesn’t mean that GM corn was not present in Mexico, just that it wasn’t … well … “significant GM contamination” of “the genetic reserves of maize”.

It is Mexican farmers themselves that are choosing to bring in GM corn seed to plant. As corn in the US is a hybrid, the seed brought in for animal feed is pretty useless for planting in Mexico. Instead farmers drive across the border, buy seed for sowing and drive it back. http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN0732845620080307?sp=true

After 12 years of cultivation, there is not one single example of a GM crop escape causing measurable “environmental damage”. That is because most weedy traits are bred out of crop varieties. When they escape from cultivation, they often behave by going extinct. Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said for non-GM landscape plants that frequently escape and irrevocably alter ecosystems.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 16 May 2008 3:05:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The current crisis affecting world food supply, with skyrocketing prices for food, is a result of the mismatch between supply and demand for food.

Food supply globally has for nearly 50 years increased primarily due to technological innovation in farming. This innovation (particularly plant breeding) is a slow process. Bad regulations created by people who don’t understand plant science threaten this key tool for food security.

Ill conceived regulations touted by the author are slowing down the introduction of new and need crop varieties. For instance, hew rice varieties that could redress vitamin A deficiency have been delayed unnecessarily for about five years by legalist excess. This delay is leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths a year from vitamin A deficiency diseases.

Ill conceived lobbying to promote use of food resources for biofuel use in the EU and USA, all the name of ecological sustainability, are now driving up food prices world-wide, and triggering food-riots in many countries

Such harms from badly conceived policy action have been obvious to many for years, but usually it takes many more years before the general public realise the scope of the damage.

So where does the legal liability lie for the damage to health and life caused by legalistic impediments to future food security?

And if the law itself causes harm, should not a precautionary approach be applied and the law redesigned so that it itself does not cause harm?
Posted by GMO Pundit, Friday, 16 May 2008 4:20:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist continues the noble tradition of corrupted science through selective citations. His first is from an industry body. His second is disputed see, http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1641%2F0006-3568(2006)56%5B503%3ATCACVD%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
And his third ‘scientific source’ is a Reuters story. Perhaps Agronomist will apply a more rigourous standard to the so-called science that demonstrates the safety of GE crops. Our Regulator, FSANZ and OGTR do no testing and rely on company data, almost exclusively. Serious impacts on lab animals are regularly ignored (or the notion of testing dismissed).
The safety of GE crops has not been shown. In Australia, at the moment, there is little protection for farmers or consumers. Will agronomist agree that there should be strict liability provisions so that, in the event that something does go wrong, it is the biotech companies, not the victim who pays. (And please don’t try the line that consumers and farmers are currently protected – they’re not and even the Howard Government admitted as much)
Posted by next, Friday, 16 May 2008 9:58:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry next, my first cite was to an internationally-recognised clearing house for data on herbicide resistant weeds. If herbicide resistant weeds have been reported by anyone anywhere, they reside here. Instead I could have quoted the local weed scientists here whose response to this claim would have been “What planet are you from?”.

The paper you pointed to in order to “discredit” the work I pointed to, does no such thing. In fact, their response is (on page 508 if you care to look) “Have transgenes introgressed into maize FVs or wild relatives in Mexico? We don't know.” They speculate that they might have, but can only cite Quist and Chapela for evidence. As Quist and Chapela failed to control for an obvious artefact in their experiments, their results are meaningless. There might have been transgenes in maize in Mexico, but the methods used by Quist and Chapela were not appropriate for finding them. Ortiz et al. failed to find them using the appropriate methods. As I stated above, this doesn’t mean they are not there, just they could not be a “significant GM contamination” of “the genetic reserves of maize” as claimed in the article.

The third press report, simply demonstrates that Mexican farmers are driving across the border to pick up BT maize. That this practice occurs is widely known and here was a farmer willing to admit it.

Regulators of products world wide do not testing of the product. It is the responsibility of the proponent to provide evidence to convince the regulator that the product is safe. The proponents are required to provide all the data on the product collected. The dossier is then reviewed by the independent scientists at FSANZ and if they are not satisfied the product is not registered.

There have been more than 100 published animal studies on GM foods. Only a handful have shown any sort of adverse effect (and many of those because the protein introduced had an effect), which is exactly what you would expect from a procedure that is not dangerous per se.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 16 May 2008 11:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are so many reasons why we should be cautious about GM crops and the potential effects on humans whether it be through cross contamination/pollination or yet unkown impacts on the physical body through ingesting GM food.

The jury is still out on GM food. Just another bunch of powerful profit-motivated biotech companies absolving themselves of responsibility? They do not help their own case when they argue against transparency in labelling nor when they sue farmers for breach of patent such as in the Monsanto vs Schmeisser case; and I have even read talk of development of a terminator seed to ensure that ensuing seed from a crop cannot be re-sown. It is not rocket science to work out the potential devastating effects that this technology might have on global food production.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

Consumers in general don't want GM food, there has been much concern raised over the VIC and NSW governments decision to allow GM canola and much of the dissent is from other farmers who grow non-GM crops. Many of our export markets do not want GM food ie. Japan, parts of Europe.

Short sighted and profit motivated policies don't cut it on this issue. The science is not conclusive and to go ahead regardless and without relevant legislation to oversight the industry is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of governments.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 17 May 2008 12:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate about genetically modified foods need to be given the seriousness it deserves. Australia should not fear to go to Germany to articulate its position on genetically modified foods. I like the kind of debate that is going on in Australia: we have farmers demanding to be allowed to grow genetically modified crops and we have self-appointed representatives of organic farmers who are demanding that the government goes it easy on genetically modified organisms. Why on earth don't farmers be allowed the kind of crops they think will serve them better? Statistics show that more and more countries are growing genetically modified crops. We have thousands of farmers in the U.S., Canada, Argentina, China and even in South Africa growing genetically modified crops. There must be something good in these crops! Who can deny this statement? It's very easy to vilify biotech corporations such as Monsanto, DuPont and BASF. What, however, we need to remember is that they have an important role to play in alleviating food shortages in the world. I have always argued that those who want to grow organic crops must never be prevented from doing so. On the other hand, I would not like to see organic farmers threatening or frustrating genetically modified crops farmers. They, too, are entitled to plant crops of their choice. Blogger James has written a very interesting article on how genetically modified foods and their organic counterparts can help in alleviating food shortages. The post is available at this link (http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/05/gmos-and-organics-can-alleviate-food-crises.html). So, let's try to exercise restraint and civility when discussing the issue of genetically modified organisms.
Posted by Mwana, Saturday, 17 May 2008 3:59:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Percy Schmeiser case should be a warning to all farmers worldwide, that the big boys are gradually taking control over all of the seed-stocks and will inevitably eradicate ALL independent Seed Banks, giving those greedy, domineering, (Judiciary buying), money grubbers, totalitarian control over all the world foodstocks!

For anyone who disbelieves this statement,.....go and buy eg: Tomatoes from your local supermarket and try to grow plants from the seeds inside them, but be prepared to be dissapointed with the results, as the product, if any, will be totally devoid of any flavour or character that one would be normally expecting!

The farmers are being conned! The consumers are being conned! Even Governments are being conned!......by these self appointed Big Brother Capitalists who could NOT give a jot for the possible effects on world food stocks, or the consequential starvation resulting,...as long as they can make their easy blood-money from all their unsuspecting victims!
Posted by Cuphandle, Saturday, 17 May 2008 8:37:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cuphandle, may I suggest that you calm down a little, remove the blinkers and actually learning about the technologies in question?

You right on only one thing: consumers and governments are being conned, but not by the biotech companies. They are being conned by ideologically driven pseudo-'environmental' lobbies, often supported by organic farming marketers.

The rest of your post is full of inaccuracies, eg:
1) Percy Schmeiser LOST his case with Monsanto, with good reason. He was deliberately growing and saving GM seed without paying for it and got found out. Now he's tried to transform himself into some kind of some kind of moral crusader.

The only 'damages' he was ever awarded was $660 (I have not missed any zeros there, it really is $660) in a small claims out of court settlement. To give anyone with a clue an idea of how this guy operates, he is trumpeting it as a 'moral victory' over the evil company. What a joke.

2)In Australia, tomatoes are not and have never been genetically modified. They are all conventionally bred and grown.

I find it interesting that many people think that they know farmers business better than farmers, when they can't get even basic information right.

Here's an experiment, why don't you go and talk to your nearest cotton farmer and explain to them how much better you know the business and how GM technology is evil. See what they say. (PROTIP: take a first aid kit)
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 17 May 2008 9:37:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy you are right about tomatoes, the tasteless shop bought ones are hardier hybrids bred specifically to withstand transit and storage.

GM Cotton was allowed because it was bred for fibre not food so the risk was deemed minimal in those earlier stages of GM research.

Schmeisser claims he did not plant seed intentionally into his fields. He noticed that some stray rapeseed plants had shown resistance to herbicides when he sprayed around ditches and telegraph poles. Only Schmeisser himself knows the truth of that one I guess but it is also not unreasonable to imagine a large corporation would seek to discredit someone like Schmeisser who has strong grass roots support.

The concerns I have with GM foods is lack of research and science based evidence. Clinical trials on rats produced abnormalities to various organs (I believe it was something to do with GM proteins).

Why are GM foods not subject to the same stringent research and processes that pharmaceuticals are prior to release to the marketplace?

Some GM proponents have claimed that GM food has been with us for at least five to ten years and has been ingested by a largely unsuspecting public (because of poor labelling laws) with no ill effects. This is nonsense. How can such people argue that there have been no ill effects without acknowledging studies that show a rise in various allergy based disorders, behavioural disorders in children (and adults), respiratory disorders, increase in mental disorders and other immuno-response illnesses like IBS, CFS etc.

There is no evidence that GM foods caused these increases but suggests more research is needed.

Bugsy we non-farmers have a right to be able to eat food that has been fully tested and declared safe to humans. Farmers are not scientists. Farmers have access to the same information that we do and there are many farmers who are fighting against GM crops being planted near their fields (and they are not all organic farmers).

Are the anti-GM farmers real farmers? I would think they deserve the right to be heard as much as pro-GM farmers.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 17 May 2008 11:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy:
Here you go again true to form, arguing the toss and making out that anyone else who doesn`t subscribe to your pronouncements is a total blithering uneducated idiot!

Percy Schmeiser maintained that his (natural seedstock) crop was cross-pollinated by GM (contaminated) crops! There apparently was NO direct evidence that he was "trying to steal" unlicenced seedstock from Monsanto and regardless of whatever DID actually occur, there is still no guarantee that "natural" crops CANNOT be cross-pollinated by GM crops!

I can assure you that the Tomatoes produced here in Queensland on a commercial basis ARE either GM/Hybrid (which turn to sludge after ripening and taste like crap anyway!)

As far as being critical of farmers?......I have just been down and started my bore-pump and now have to go out and check my fences and stock, ....rather than sitting here all day thinking about whatever disparaging criticism I can heap upon other well-intentioned contributors to this thread!

I DO have a life to get on with,....DO YOU?
Posted by Cuphandle, Saturday, 17 May 2008 11:43:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

The only reason to believe there is lack of research and science based evidence on GM foods is if you are wilfully ignorant of the amount of research that goes into them.

>>Clinical trials on rats produced abnormalities to various organs (I believe it was something to do with GM proteins).<<

Nope didn't happen. Try again.

>>Why are GM foods not subject to the same stringent research and processes that pharmaceuticals are prior to release to the marketplace?<<

They are. Far more than any conventional crop that you would care to name also. Lack of evidence for harmful effects is not from lack of testing.

The problem here is also the same mindset that affects pharmaceutical companies. They don't mind the amount of research and testing that goes into producing treatments that work, but to be put on an equal par with placebos like homeopathic remedies is galling when they haven't been tested at all scientifically.

cont'd
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 17 May 2008 12:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article Duncan. If the pro-GM activists with a vested interest truly believed there was not a problem, they would not be fighting so hard to stop a strict liability regime being introduced where the GM company is made liable for the economic losses associated with introducing GM crops.
Who do the pro-GM lobbyist think should be liable for economic loss?
The non-GM grower (as proposed) and WHY?
The GM grower (our legal remedy under common law)?
The GM company and key beneficiary of GM crops?
If the GM company was liable, they would ensure that GM crops were contained, not insist it is the non-GM growers responsibility for trying to keep GM crops out of our non-GM crops.
The reason the Australian government is pushing GM where the industry gets to write their own rules is because the aim is to capitalize on their investments in biotechnology, not to protect consumers or farmers.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Saturday, 17 May 2008 5:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What testing of GM and what choice is offered?
Canola oil has NOT been tested and that is what consumers are expected to eat but it was not considered necessary. The remaining meal is not regulated as it is used for stock feed. Monsanto's 2008 USA user agreement for Roundup Ready canola warns farmers not to graze their stock on canola stubble as there is insufficient information to prove its safety, yet our regulator claims that it has been "rigorously tested" and proven safe for human consumption.
GM canola oil will not be labelled as GM as it is not regulated and it will not be possible to label canola oil as GM-free as it is not possible to have NO contamination which is what is required to label as GM-free or non-GM.
What choice?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Saturday, 17 May 2008 5:58:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist
In 2005 Pyrne and Lembke looked at all the in vivo (live animal rather than test tube based) feeding studies looking at the impacts of GE foods on human health. Of the 10 they found at that time, all 5 independent studies found significant indications of impacts on human health. The indications of health impacts were never followed up or investigated. FSANZ has consistently refused to review any of its approvals (and it, like OGTR, has never turned down a GE application). Relying on proponents to provide accurate data is completely misguided and there is a wealth of peer reviewed material that supports that position. Proponents have no standard nor burden of proof in the legislation. Companies regularly reach conclusions that support their position, change data and omit data (as do many scientists who receive funds from those companies - unfortunately an incrasingly common problem).
Re weed resistance, even the OGTR acknowledged that weed resistance was likely in GE canola and would require increased use of even more toxic herbicides such as paraquat. The work of Benbrook in the United STates - based on USDA data ,fully supports that - and concludes that GE plants will over time require far more chemicals than conventional crops. There is ample evidence for precaution that is sorely missing from Äustralian regulation.
Posted by next, Saturday, 17 May 2008 11:13:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a degree in biotechnology and the genetic manipulation that is being performed in plants and animals is no more than occurs in nature.
Look at the Brussels sprout. Mutated by nature into all sorts of vegetables we eat today.
Over the course of my university education we were required to insert a human gene into E. coli. Do you not find it amazing that we may be able to employ bacteria to produce proteins that are required by humans, proteins that some humans cannot produce and need to acquire from an external source. I for one am fed up with the whole frankenfruit Idea. It is ridiculous.
Posted by thecat, Saturday, 17 May 2008 11:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
non-gm,
are you sure our regulatory body has approved GM canola stubble for human use, otherwise you're not comparing apples with apples.

As canola oil cannot be tested for it's GM status(contains no DNA) it is rather pointless to gripe about that status. Effectively canola oil derived from GM and non GM canola is the same.
Exactly, what choice?

Cottonseed oil from GM seed is in the same category, and has been used in Australia as cooking oil and in margarines for the last decade, and does not contain the GM DNA either- if that makes it easier to accept.

Canola is not a common crop in my region, so I'm not fully aware of the proposed benefits of GM to that industry, though I suspect it revolves around the weed spectrum that tri-azine tolerant canola(ttc) targets. ttc currently suffers approx 20% yield loss compared to normal canola, and I assume Roundup Ready canola counters this loss with better yield, better weed control and less residual chemical use- which by their very nature last months in the soil.

GM cotton has had a positive impact resulting in approx 80% reduction in insecticides, something that is not measured in monetary savings alone.
Posted by rojo, Sunday, 18 May 2008 12:15:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The only reason to believe there is lack of research and science based evidence on GM foods is if you are wilfully ignorant of the amount of research that goes into them.”

Well I don’t think I am alone in the belief that there has not been enough research and conclusive findings for GM food thus far. I couldn’t remember the name of the report about the rat experiments but after a quick search it was the "Pusztai Report".

Bugsy, some links for your pleasure below:

http://www.rense.com/general65/rats.htm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm

Another one relating to maize MON863 is mentioned about half way down the screen at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

The CSIRO halted further research on GM pea crops because they were found to make mice sick. I believe in this case the right ethical decision was made based on scientific research but I don’t believe this is always the case particularly in the case of Monsanto/Bayer’s own research. ie. would put more trust in CSIRO than a corporation with a special interest(although CSIRO has favoured biotechnology research lately over organic or soil health programs and some level of funding does come from the private sector).

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1510290.htm

If scientists found GM peas adversely affected the immune system why not use this as a basis for caution and further studies. There is no conclusive research on the safety of GM food. Cuphandle is right in his first post when he/she says we never learn.

Bugsy, I am not sure how homeopathy comes into this, but I would agree with you and Richard Dawkins that the same stringent measures should be afforded to these placebo medicines. I guess the difference is (if we are comparing) that the diluted version probably does no physical harm other than a hole in the back pocket. I would not say the same about GM food (just yet anyway).
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 18 May 2008 11:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican:
>>There is no evidence that GM foods caused these increases but suggests more research is needed.<<

That's right, no evidence. Remember that when next you are on the receiving end of some nasty inference with no basis. Maybe something like "He/she hangs around children a lot. It's not proven that he's a pedophile, but it suggests more investigation is needed."
You see how that line of reasoning cannot be used.

>> we non-farmers have a right to be able to eat food that has been fully tested and declared safe to humans.<< Apart from the fact that it has been tested and declared safe, you are right,you do. That's why you can have a choice to eat non-GM food, simple. Nobody's stopping you.


>>Are the anti-GM farmers real farmers? I would think they deserve the right to be heard as much as pro-GM farmers<<

Yes, they do. But does the minority ever have the right to shout down the majority? This is not a democratic principle.
Pro-GM farmers should have a right to grow GM crops that have been tested and registered. Non-GM farmers also have a right to not grow grow GM-crops, that's fine.
In Percy Schmeisers case, he wanted it both ways, not pay the royalty fee that comes with growing the crop (patent protection) and reap the rewards.
But he got found out (shown in court) and now he has rewritten history to try and be a poster-coot for anti-GM campaigners.

Cuphandle,

If you're going to pretend to be a farmer, you may as well pretend to understand what a conventional hybrid is, how it's used and how that differs to GM. Those tomatoes are not bred for seed and you should know that. I am only pointing out the REAL errors in what you say Cuphandle, if you think that makes you look stupid, that's not my fault.

What angers me the most in all of this, is the attitde of a small minority of supposed farmers against the majority of their peers. But that's what happens in most of society I guess.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 18 May 2008 11:30:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see you are angry Bugsy but consumers become angry too when they have goods foisted apon them for the sake of a dollar if safety has taken a poor second in the development and marketing of that product.

"That's right, no evidence. Remember that when next you are on the receiving end of some nasty inference with no basis. Maybe something like "He/she hangs around children a lot. It's not proven that he's a pedophile, but it suggests more investigation is needed.
You see how that line of reasoning cannot be used."

This legal or justic system example is irrelevant and an incongruous comparison to use in relation to my earlier post.

I was making a statement that given the increases in various medical conditions (from as yet unknown causes) you cannot rule out GM food given the outcome of some of the studies I posted (which you have ignored).

If there is a correleation between the introduction of GM food and the increase in various medical conditions a scientist cannot ignore that correlation. Enough empirical and rhetorical evidence is very often used to provide the basis of futher research.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 18 May 2008 11:48:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

Ah, the Pusztai report. Here's what his colleague had to say about that: http://silver-server.dur.ac.uk/GM_Plants_Pages/Lancet.html

Shoddy science does no one any favours.

MON863 is not unsafe, it has been tested the results interpreted and reviewed by the European Commission.
The 'reinterpretation' of the data (funded by Greenpeace) was found to be erroneous. Talk about bias.

To quote the main conclusions from the European Commission:
• The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.
• EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of MON863 maize.
• Observed statistically significant differences reported by Monsanto, Séralini et al., and EFSA, were considered not to be biologically relevant. In the absence of any indications that the observed differences are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that this paper raises new issues with respect to the safety of MON 863 maize. Therefore, the GMO Panel sees no reason to revise its previous Opinions that the MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of its proposed use.

As I said: didn't happen.

You proposed the analogy with pharmaceuticals, I merely extended it. If you cannot see the real harm that can be done to people suffering from diseases that can be treated with real medicines by administering placebos instead, then I cannot have a real discussion with you.
As I said, it's ideologically driven, not science.

There are many correlations with the rise in allergies over the decades, eg. pollution, food additives, computers and stress.
The tiny amount of GM that anyone in Australia has consumed since 1990 would be nowhere near enough to account for any of what you believe.
Especially when combined with info from the feeding studies and looking at rates of these things in various countries and the amount of GM they consume- the correlations don't hold.

Your reasoning is fallacious, and the statisticians know it.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 18 May 2008 12:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking at what appear to be some of this forums sponsor, I am not surprised at the magnitude of pro biotech comments.
One thing that has struck me about the so called 'debate' on genetically engineered food crops (and cotton - cottonseed oil is sold as edible) is the degree to which pro GM advocates indulge in attacking messengers - rather than answering questions.
For example, Jeffrey M. Smith - author of Seeds of Deception and the very recent Genetic Roulette - has thrown down a challenge to GM advocates and scientists. In Genetic Roulette he has set out a daunting list of possible health dangers arising from the consumption of food made from GM constructs. He has invited GM advocates to set out - in scientific terms - where his claims are wrong.
Last I knew, the response has been personal attacks on Smith. Shooting the messenger!
Why, I want to know, has no biotech scientist or corporation risen to his challenge?
If what he has presented in his book is wrong, surely it must be within the competence of scientists in the pay of the biotech corporations to demonstrate, in clear scientific terms, where he is in error.

Every farmer, every consumer, should pour a liberal dose of salt on any claims by the biotech industry. My experience over several years is that the truth behind most (if not all) biotech mantras - is the opposite to what the mantra claims.
This most particularly applies to the biotech - and chemical - giant Monsanto.
Anyone who in any way trusts Monsanto should take a good hard look at reality.
A French TV production company has recently released a powerful DVD (French/English/German) called The World According to Monsanto. This 109 minute documentary presents a damning indictment of this giant corporation, starting after WWII through to the present day. How anybody could buy the Monsanto line after watching this outstanding production is beyond me!
The DVD can be obtained from the producers
http://www.arte-boutique.fr/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754
Posted by tassiepaul, Monday, 19 May 2008 10:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy wrote:

"Ah, the Pusztai report. Here's what his colleague had to say about that: http://silver-server.dur.ac.uk/GM_Plants_Pages/Lancet.html

Shoddy science does no one any favours."

Your resort to a smear of scientists is pretty transparent. And you don't mention that Pusztai was subsequetly vindicated by an expert panel. (Google "Pusztai vindicated", for example.)

It's interesting, isn't it, that the pro-GM lobby always claims "sound science" for industry-partnered studies and "junk science" for the views of independently-commissioned scientists.

Given that this is a very disputed area and there is much evidence suggesting danger to our health, economy and environment, I would suggest we practice precaution until regulators start requiring rigorous testing. This is the majority of Australians' views on GM, but it seems too radical a proposition for the pro-GM lobby, who are slaves to progress propaganda and want to inflict GM on an unwitting market.

Thank you, Duncan Currie, for an excellent article.
Posted by Katherine Wilson, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 9:32:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said, this 'debate' against GM-foods is mostly ideologically driven.

Isn't it amazing that if you say that a particular anti-GM study is flawed or irrelevant, it's a 'smear' against the researcher and that study still outweighs any number of studies that find nothing to suggest that it's unsafe. Of course, it's not a smear to suggest that all researchers working on or advocating the use of GM crops are being paid by biotech companies or the Monsanto boogeyman, even when that is not the case.

As has been noted before, the potatoes Pusztai used were not for commercial release and never have been. In fact, they were a part of the testing and screening process that anti-GM groups say doesn't exist!

Then, to top it all off all GM work is smeared with the same brush, when in fact they can and should be looked at on a case by case basis.

For every thousand scientists working on GM plants, testing for safety, efficacy etc., there is always one scientist who will say something else (often about a limited study on a non-released product!), and that one will be given a louder voice than all the others by political groups with strong ideologies.

The message to the next generation is clear: stay away from controversial science or you'll regret it too. No wonder the number of new scientists is decreasing, you aren't paid enough to put up with all that crap.

Meanwhile, all of the problems associated with conventional cropping continue accumulate (increasing pesticide use and associated residues, fertilisers etc) without any incentives or alternatives to reduce them. And the idea that organic farming can save the world and feed the current starving millions is more ideologically based than reality. The insects will see to that.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:53:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recently read an article by Kofi Anan in which he listed numerous areas of research which needs following up to make an impact on the world food crisis. Herbicide resistance was not amongst them. Yet this appears to the sole concern of those who insist that GMO's are the solution to world hunger. GMOs are the solution for the problems of multinational agribusiness wishing to further maximise their already huge profits.
Nearly every food crop in use today is the result of thousands of years of modification by farmers and researchers, a process which continues. One of the worst aspect of the current debate is that under threat is not only the Australian canola crop, but the future funding of agricultural research other than into genetic modification. This is why the defence of GM is so shrill and why it has such huge amounts of money thrown at it in propaganda and bribes. There are many overseas instances where promising research has been shut down on the empty promises of hucksters flogging non-existent future GMOs "just around the corner".
Posted by Ned Ludd II, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 12:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GMO pundit, even if so-called golden rice worked - which is dubious; and even if there was any hope of a separate production and distribution system so that the rice reached those in need - which there isn't, there are numerous ways of dealing with VAD that are less expensive, easier to distribute, easier to prodce - including twice yearly supplements at the grand cost of 8 cents per person per year. Golden rice, like the rest of GE, is a corporate scam designed to give ownership over food production - and prices - to companies that will never care about the public interest.
Posted by next, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:41:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, you have no idea what you're talking about. When you dismiss a peer reviewed paper (Seralini) in favour of regulatory opinions from bodies such as FSANZ); when you dismiss Puzsztai's work (considered by many in the peer review literature to be the most comprehensive and best designed of studies into the health impacts on GE) in favour of data supplied by corporations to regulators who never, ever say no - you can't disguise either your ignorance or your bias with petulance and self-righteousness. It's time for you to tone down a bit - and perhaps even find the time to do some real research and stop reading industry and government pamphlets.
Posted by next, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been variously described as self-righteous, petulant, shrill, ignorant, biased, a slave to propaganda, a spokesperson for Monsanto (actually asked how much I get paid- in another thread!).

Of course that is because it is based on (anti-science, anti-capitalist) ideology, one I just happen to disagree with.

By all means have regulatory bodies, I think that's great. Rigorous testing? Terrific! I agree- do the toxicology, the works. Get rid of the failures. But when the regulators look at the data and the testing comes back to say that the product in question is not harmful, then can we use the product? If not, and you still don't believe them, what was the point? I get the feeling that certain interest groups will not be happy until all research in this area is completely stopped. That's ideology, not science.

As for my ignorance 'next' I have looked at the original data and the rehashed paper (Seralini) and looked at the statistics analysis from the European Union, which is how I am confident in what I am saying. I suggest you do the same.

Here's a few to get you started:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/scientific_reports/mon863_ratfeeding.Par.0001.File.dat/sc_rep_efsa_stat_review.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/02648wu132m07804/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-4GV2NS2-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6a2f31186785c3f9aff0dd1296556029

http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Spring2007/GMOFeature.htm
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 11:48:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ned Ludd II: "I recently read an article by Kofi Anan in which he listed numerous areas of research which needs following up to make an impact on the world food crisis. Herbicide resistance was not amongst them. Yet this appears to the sole concern of those who insist that GMO's are the solution to world hunger."

A couple of points in this are not correct - herbicide tolerance is not primarily aimed at increasing yield (ie producing more food), but in making farming (specifically weed management) easier for farmers.

Most GMOs proposed for use in the developing world to fight hunger are those to combat insect pests, to protect crops against fungus (mould) post-harvest, or to allow crops to thrive in arid/salty/acid etc soils. These are the traits that will increase yield. Currently, there is 60% loss of crops throughout the world. The developing world doesn't lose that amount, so you know that poor farmers are losing more than 60%! This is wasteful not only for them,efforts, but for the world's resources as well. (All that effort, nutrients, water etc to benefit insects - they can look after themselves, thanks)

Also, I don't think anyone claims GMOs are the absolute and sole solution to hunger - if only it were that easy! - but a technology worth exploring to help ease the food crisis. The problem has many aspects. For example, GMOs might raise your yields but won't stop warlords then commandeering your harvest for their troops. Similarly, stopping wars would be great but that won't help you survive if you're still subject to yearly plagues of locusts or drought.

It will require a multi-pronged attack to beat hunger, and farmers must be allowed every innovation and the support needed to become self-sufficient, and hopefully to then have excess to sell so they can rise out of a precarious, subsistence lifestyle. I wish NGOs were putting their effort into developing GMOs to help the poor, rather than complaining about those that do. If you are not part of (even a partial) solution, you are part of the problem.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 1:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist and Bugsy might be able to answer this - I am simply not well enough read on the topic with not enough time to dredge up the answers:

Are there any studies that look at the chemical composition of standard canola oil compared to GM canola oil? If the chemical composition of the oils is the same or substantially similar, then there should be no cause for concern for human (or other animal) consumption. The same should apply to other GM foods.

The potential impact on the environment is another matter, and cross-pollination of GM canola with weedy relatives is the main cause for concern (turnip and radish). However, are other chemicals that can be used to control these weeds that are not glyhposate based, and indeed need to be used to control them in a non-cropping environment (a cattle farmer cant use roundup on turnip without killing off all of the other vegetable matter and needs to use a selective broad-leaf herbicide anyway). The concern coming from this though is that weeds being sprayed within the crops (including grasses and other volunteer seedlings from previous crops) will develop glyphosate resistance unless good rotation methods are used
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 1:56:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
next: "...when you dismiss Puzsztai's work (considered by many in the peer review literature to be the most comprehensive and best designed of studies into the health impacts on GE)..."

I am surprised to hear it has been considered comprehensive and well-designed - I understood that bad design was one of the main bases of criticism of the Pusztai study - are you sure? Bit of a moot point now, seeing the amount of time that has passed since the study, but just for my interest and completeness of understanding of the matter, could you direct me to the statements of those in the literature who hold that view?

Actually, it is worth stressing the amount of time that has passed since the Pusztai work. In such a fast-moving research area, where breakthroughs are being made every day, work quickly gets out-dated and the Pusztai results (valid or not) are not really applicable to the technology of today - it's like arguing the results of testing the first VS Beetle against the safety aspects of a Prius!

I also notice that people are dismissing the whole field of GMOs rather than looking at individual products case-by-case. Throwing babies out with bathwater is generally not a good idea, but discarding a whole research area based on perceived results of testing one or two products is very shortsighted and unduly restrictive. It's the equivalent of saying "God, Windows [name your version] is crap; let's ban computers" or (cars again!) "Skodas are crap; we should abandon development of cars altogether".
Posted by ScienceLaw, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 5:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sciencelaw,

I don't think anyone is arguing to throw the babies out with the bathwater nor are they arguing against the merit of individual test results and case studies.

What is wanted is a more transparency in GM research and further research.

Some of the antics of the biotechs like Monsanto etal are enough to throw doubt on GM food as a whole.

You said: "It's the equivalent of saying "God, Windows [name your version] is crap; let's ban computers" or (cars again!) "Skodas are crap; we should abandon development of cars altogether".

No-one has argued: "GM is crap; let's ban food". That is what your analogy suggests.

What we are saying is "GM is crap; lets ban GM until further testing and science absolutely confirms its safety in the marketplace.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:14:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Awesome effort, Bugsy.

Without your comments there would have been a distinct lack of balance in the discussion. As it is, I get to see both sides of the debate. Thanks.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 23 May 2008 4:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
next, Pyrme and Lembke had their piece published in 2003 and used papers up to 2002. They also restricted themselves to journal literature, with the exception of a couple of pieces from Arpad Pusztai. By 2004, over 40 peer-reviewed papers where animals had been fed GM foods or food material were found in PubMed http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html
This list does not include all the studies that need to be provided to regulators. It also includes more than a dozen papers not in Pryme's list. By 2006, more than 150 studies (both animal and test tube) published in journals were collected here http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html
I don’t think I am far from the mark in suggesting there are over 100 studies on animals.

As for Seralini’s work, others have pointed out the statistical trap he fell into. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html

Country Gal, the composition tests of GM and non-GM oil have to be conducted for regulatory purposes. Some journal papers have been published on the topic, although most are for crops with GM changed oil profile.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a46807h10422g042/
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a756843403~db=all

It seems that canola can cross with wild radish, but at low frequencies. Wild turnip is not a risk.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fjljdtjd514enyx1/
http://abe.dynamicweb.dk/images/files/Gene%20flow%20to%20other%20Brassiceae%20species%20report%20-%20April%2002.pdf
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/A97138.htm
http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/PS%20GM%20canola%20book.pdf
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 24 May 2008 11:21:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What have we got after 13 years since commercial release of GM? The same two traits they started with, not false promises being fullfilled. 68% is herbicide tolerant, 19% is Bt (the crop produces its own insecticide rather than spraying it on the outside) and both 13%. Between 70-80% is Roundup Ready which means the crop is resistant to glyphosate which is happening in our weeds without us wanting it to. It took one year for enterprising drug barons to produce non-GM glyphosate tolerant coca plantations after the aerial spraying of glyphosate on illegal plantations was introduced which proves you do not need GM to produce the "benefit".
GM is an aggressive plant breeding technique where a gene from soil bacteria is forced into the DNA of plant with the assistance of viral invaders. Considering one bent gene in a human gives you Downes syndrome, it is worth considering the damage to existing genes in the DNA. It is not natural but it is different enough to gain a patent where farmers become contract growers to the patent owner.
The aim is to gain a patent over the food supply, not to provide a benefit. This is done through alliances with public and private plant breeders.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Sunday, 25 May 2008 1:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie, what a rant. Pity you can’t managed to get your facts correct, again. For existing commercial traits there are 5 types of herbicide resistance, at least 7 types of insect resistance, hybrid system in canola, shelf life in carnations, flower color in carnations (several traits), virus resistance in papaya (1 trait), squash (3 separate traits) and potato (2 separate traits), and delayed softening gene in tomato. The tomato and potato traits are no longer grown commercially. (US list here http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html)

As to your idea that GM “is forced into the DNA of plant with the assistance of viral invaders”, nothing could be further from the truth. The DNA is inserted using Agrobacterium (a soil bacterium that naturally inserts DNA into plant genomes) or ballistics. The only viral bits used are gene promoters (and bits of virus for virus resistant crops) and not all crops have these. http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/Haseloff/teaching/PlantBiotech2006/page4/assets/Tzfira2006.pdf

Downs syndrome is of course trisomy for chromosome 21, not a single “bent gene”, but a whole extra chromosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

If you can’t get simple facts like these right, why should we believe anything else you say?
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 25 May 2008 2:38:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist

Are you in any way affiliated with or have vested interests in corporations like Monsanto et al?

I ask this because, according to your posts, you cannot entertain the simple fact that while GM has much to offer it is still very much in the category of too soon to determine long term environmental and biological effects.

I agree that we should not be throwing baby out with bath water, but do not wish to see a world wide 'thalidomide' reaction in our food and world-wide eco-system.

More testing, from more INDEPENDENT scientists, techs and farmers is required, before any further release of GM.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 25 May 2008 3:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican: "You said: "It's the equivalent of saying "God, Windows [name your version] is crap; let's ban computers" or (cars again!) "Skodas are crap; we should abandon development of cars altogether".

No-one has argued: "GM is crap; let's ban food". That is what your analogy suggests."

Pelican, that's not what my analogy suggests. I don't want to get bogged down on this, as of course no analogy can be perfect. However, the point I was making is that you cannot take one manifestation of a technology and argue that to ban all manifestations of it. I was not accusing you of wanting to ban the field of application of the GM technology (agriculture/food); I did not say "Windows is bad, let's ban communication" or "Skodas are bad - let's ban transport".

Yes, we are in agreement about individual testing, case-by-case; and I take your point that you want proof of safety case-by-case before you will accept each crop. However, I take issue with the endless amount of testing that people want done, and the impossibility of achieving their desired position (has anyone ever proven apples are safe? No, just that they are not unsafe; and that consumption over time has shown little adverse effect - the same standards as held for the current GM foods. Impossible to prove they, or anything, is completely safe).

I also question why people who accept the rulings of FSANZ etc in respect of everything else they buy and eat (and I am happy to do this, in light of Australia's v good food safety record), suddenly effectively accuse it of incompetence/corruption/slavery to Big Biotech when it contradicts their own rusted-on view (for which they can show little substantive evidence, natch) that something will poison us. Unless they can point to consistent dissatisfaction with FSANZ's procedures and findings on other novel foods, singling out its GM rulings is a position evidently based on anti-GM politics rather than sincere health concerns.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Sunday, 25 May 2008 3:14:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle to Agronomist: "You cannot entertain the simple fact that while GM has much to offer it is still very much in the category of too soon to determine long term environmental and biological effects".

Fractelle, you have hit the issue on the head - but what you state is not a "fact". I broadly agree with Agronomist (and salute his/her evident in-depth knowledge of the field), and taking the liberty to speak on "our side's" behalf, I am comfortable that it is not too soon to determine that the effects of the present GM crops and foods that have been licensed for growing and consumption are unlikely to be harmful. We may not know all the effects, but testing and regulatory analysis has shown enough to say that such foods are at least as safe as conventional (non-GM) equivalents.

I respect your caution, but it concerns me that this "timing" argument is often raised by those also arguing against field testing, investment in GM research, controlled release, etc - ie the developments that would allow longterm analysis of eg environmental effect.

In terms of longterm health effects - how do you monitor this, if you ban the foods outright? The limited number of GM foods approved have been tested in many countries; the GM canola now allowed to be grown in Australia was reviewed by an expert committee based on submissions from all sides; how much more testing need be done before release? Anti-GM activists are never happy with the amount of in vitro and animal testing done (see lists referenced earlier in this thread); or they argue that animal testing is not applicable to humans - so what would satisfy them? Basically, nothing; because the argument is not about the merits or health or environmental effects or benefits of GM, it's about banning it regardless. They do not want to see these issues resolved; they want a complete ban.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Sunday, 25 May 2008 3:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am reminded of the revolutionary breakthrough for farmers in the ‘40s when organchlorines hit the market. These were most effective pesticides. By the 60’s the rumblings commenced and finally OCs were suspected or recognised carcinogens, mutagens or teratogens – think “Agent Orange.”

Monsanto, Dow et al, have resisted compensating the Vietnamese for the dreadful bioaccumulative human health legacy of Agent Orange, which should be regarded as a crime against humanity.

A ban on chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor use in Australia, did not occur until the end of last century – some 40 years after scientists began to suspect that these chemicals were impacting on human, animal and environmental health.

That Roundup Ready can be sprayed 2 to 5 times more on edible crops than other pesticides gives me cause for concern. Transgenes from engineered grasses are now being discovered in the wild overseas and should this continue, we will eventually be denied the freedom to choose.

What do the better informed have to say on this issue?
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 25 May 2008 4:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, I am not employed by or otherwise get money from Monsanto. I work with farmers who grow crops (hence my moniker). I have dealings with the agrichemical companies, because as an agronomist I have to know about their products.

I know farmers who are in their 13th year of growing GM crops. That is longer than I have owned a DVD player or an I-Pod. There are more than 10 million farmers across the World, who have successfully grown GM crops. How much more testing by independent farmers is needed? Every land-grant University in the US (there are some 60 of them) as well as many Universities in Canada have programs examining the performance of GM crops and some have done so for more than a decade and a half. How much more testing is required?

GM food crops have been tested to a far greater extent than any other food we eat and have not been found to be dangerous. Those 100+ studies I spoke of make me reasonably confident that there is not a problem with GM per se. In contrast, if kiwi fruit was a GM crop, it would never pass regulation.

Dickie it was the US military’s choice to use defoliants in Vietnam. Even then pesticide labels warned of the need for protective clothing. The US military simply did not care whether the products were safe or not.

Do you know that most canola in Australia is currently sprayed with up to 2 kg/ha or more of herbicides banned in Europe? If you don’t believe me, ask Julie "Non-GM Farmer" Newman. In Canada this problem doesn't exist because of GM canola. GM canola has reduced the herbicide load in the environment and reduced the risk of triazines in water ways.

As ScienceLaw so eloquently says, this discussion is ideologically driven. No amount of testing will ever be enough
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 25 May 2008 5:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist

I do not write here from an ideology point of view but one of history.

You defend Monsanto, Dow et al, holding the US government responsible for the spraying of Agent Orange over Vietnam. However, during the 80's Monsanto, Dow et al were ordered to pay some $184 million to US veterans - victims of AO.

What is astonishing in recent months is the denial by these companies that Agent Orange has anything to do with the dreadful afflictions the Vietnmese now suffer from.

One cannot trivialise this attitude when the man-made substances these companies manufactured (dioxins) have now changed the entire face of the globe. Bioaccumulative dioxins may take centuries to eradicate. They have now invaded the entire food chain. Even the Artic Inuits are now contaminated with PCBs and dioxins due to their marine diet.

I am aware of the herbicides Australia imprudently continues to use but we also continue to be force-fed dioxins through diet - a bygone legacy of our ignorance and our gullibility.

You must realise that the same companies are now promoting GM crops which may be of benefit to man, however, it is difficult to become exuberant over this technology when Monsanto et al still refuse to take responsibility for the tragedy they have already inflicted on all life forms.

For the present, I intend adhering to the Precautionary Principle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3798581.stm
Posted by dickie, Monday, 26 May 2008 12:33:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To All:
I hate to come across as the "bogeyman" but I can understand why the opposition to GM is so ongoing!

It is alright for the advocates of GM to say that it is okay and there are no problems with GM cropping, but please, let us NOT forget that simple admission that the US Defence Department authorised the use of Agent Orange to commit genocide on a nation that was involved in their own Civil War,....and that is exactly what it was, regardless of what the warmongers may say!

Look around you and take particular note of the incidence of obesity in the community ( not just here in Australia but in all of the westernised countries!)...some of the critics say that the obese are just a bunch of pigs who simply over-eat and do no work, but let us consider that the real cause could be in something that we are taking in to our bodies ( could be foodstuffs, chemicals, or anything that passes the lips and lungs!).....how do we know or can be guaranteed that we are not all being slowly poisoned by these companies who "fiddle" with genetics and produce Genetically Modified seedstocks and foodstuffs, all to enhance their own particular profit margins?

This is "food" for thought and obesity could be the first signs of what the concerned are advising caution!
Posted by Cuphandle, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:41:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aggressive agronomist appears to be working more on attacking people with opinions than providing a balance in the debate.
Firstly, in Canada all herbicide tolerant varieties are registered under the same regulatory process as GM as they are considered novel traits. No triazine tolerant varieties have been registered which is understandable as triazine is more suited to the weeds in Australia not Canada. Australia's worst weeds in canola are radish and ryegrass where Canada does not have these listed as problem weeds.
We need a herbicide that controls radish and turnip because there is no post emergent control so Bayer Cropsciences GM variety would not be suitable as glufosinate ammonium does not control radish or turnip.
We also need a residual control for ryegrass as multiple germinations are common and yield penalties are considerable. Neither chemical for GM varieties have a residual control but triazine has.
Contrary to Agronomists rant, triazine has not been banned in Europe. See the APVMA website. It is considered safe but the GM industry is pushing an anti-atrazine campaign to remove the popular opposition variety.
We were told at the WA GM committee that independent trials would not be fair on the GM companies as they have nothing better to offer than what we already have. So why are we being told they have and why are the costs so exhorbitantly high?
The percentages given of traits were from ISAAA reports showing the traits mentioned did not account for any significant acreage of commercial adoption.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:57:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Agent Orange'? 'the obesity epidemic'? 'dioxins & PCBs'? The Vietnam War?

My goodness, you guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Sure, it's not an ideological debate, I believe you.

While this 'debate' is getting a bit weird but is showing the mindsets behind the rhetoric.

Meanwhile non-GM farmer seems to out on her own with complaining about not enough traits from GM are being used or researched! Also, wanting to use MORE residual triazine herbicides that affect frogs and waterways quite badly.
eg. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/8/5476

This 'debate' makes for some strange bedfellows alright. Pseudo-greenies and heavy conventional chemical users on the same side, awesome!

Just as an anecdote, I was chatting to a GM-cotton farmer a few weeks ago, and it appears that the Bt cotton has been so successful there has arisen a new OH&S issue that they never had before: SPIDERS!
The insect load in their crops has become so large (with no associated moth damage) that the spiders are thriving and the farmhands are worried about being bitten (a couple already have). Oh yeah, sounds like an environmental disaster- NOT. Biodiversity is much greater than with heavy pesticide use, but maybe the spiders will just take over and kill us all.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 26 May 2008 10:25:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the contributors to this thread says that the purpose of GMOs is to make farming easier. Monsanto, if they are honest, would admit that the main purpose is to make profits for Monsanto. Therein lies the main objection. With previous environmental/health disasters, we had no way of telling how much of the propaganda is spin and how much reality.I am not moved by being told that a GM protagonist eats GMOs for breakfast, lunch and dinner without ill effects. What we are concerned about is the methodology of genetic modifcation.
With traditional plant breeding, each step in development is allowed ample time to demonstrate whether the strain is viable and beneficial. With chemicals and GMOs, we have no such assurance. The most telling environmental disaster was the use of Thalidomide; who could have predicted that it would have horrific effects on the unborn, after all the testing that was done before the release to the public which used pregnant woment as experimental subjects? We also now have chapter and verse to prove our suspicions that if there are negative findings in company-run tests these are routinely suppressed.
Some if the deleterious effects of GMOs are totally predictable, if not obvious. Pro GM correspondents, in discussing third-world impacts, generally coyly side-step the unfortunate detail that third-world agriculturalists cannot afford GM crops which cost money - which they haven't got - before they are even sown, as well as during the time when they have to pour on glyphosate herbicide which they cannot afford, and that they have to do this every time even when these crops fail for reasons other than pest infestations. This tilting of the playing field in favour of first-world mechanical farming may well be coincidental but given past experience I doubt it.
Finally, phoney projections of GM miracles have already impacted government funding of conventional research in quite unrelated fields, particularly in countries where government agencies are open to corruption which is made a lot easier when there is a real or pretended alternative which is claimed to be more 'efficient".
Posted by Ned Ludd II, Monday, 26 May 2008 12:38:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aggression aside, why are so many ordinary people becoming activists? Mainly it is because of the lies we are being told and the lack of choice and fair risk management. Who takes the risk? Those that are not prepared to.
Consumers don't want to take the risk and are realising choice will be denied.
GM canola oil escapes legislated labelling and consumers want a non-GM option but farmers will not be able to provide that non-GM option because of the additional costs and liabilities involved.
Consumers must rely on the regulatory process which has not done ANY testing on GM oil. It is up to the GM industry to provide their own testing data and they decided to submit stock feeding trials which escapes regulation because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed.
Farmers do not want to market on a consumer rejected market but will be forced to take the risk because the GM industry wrote the rules forcing unfair costs and liabilities on the non-GM farmer. We are told that there is no economic risk but we will be forced to pay if our concerns are right because selling as GM-free will be impossible.
It disgusts me that money has driven governments and the research sector to force GM on a reluctant population without fair risk management.
The regulatory process is nothing more than a public relations exercise because the Federal policy was structured around "How can governments capitalize on our investments in biotechnology" rather than how can we manage the problems. The public sector alliances with multinationals has led to public R&D redirected from common good to corporate profits.
Who pays for the additional costs that make these profits? Farmers who can't afford to!
Globally the experience has shown that farmers are being forced to pay additional costs because of lack of choice, not because of willingness or ability to pay these costs. Farmers are also faced with consumers wanting to pay less for GM so exactly how can farming be sustainable in such a funding vacuum?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Monday, 26 May 2008 1:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie, I am not defending Monsanto or Dow, merely pointing out where the blame where it truly belongs: the US Military. The lawsuits you mention had an out of court settlement. In fact, it is often economically more efficient for companies to settle lawsuits through out of court payouts than to continue to have resources tied up in courts. An out of court settlement provides for no admission of guilt. The fact that you seem to think otherwise confirms my earlier statement about ideology.

Julie, you continue to make unsupportable statements. Canada invented triazine-tolerant canola. They grew it on a small area until the introduction of new, better herbicide-tolerant canola. We have been over this ground before, so you know this.

Triazine-tolerant canola does not appear on the lists of novel traits in Canada because its invention pre-dated that system.

I am afraid atrazine and simazine have been banned in Europe. Here is the documentation. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/oj_atrazine.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/oj_simazine.pdf

Once again you have been found out providing false assertions.

Julie, I got involved in the discussions here, not because I am particularly gung ho about GM crops (they are after all just a tool for farmers), but because of the fibs you tell about Canadian farming on this forum. If being non-GM was so good, there would be no need for you to make up fairy tales about Canadian agriculture. The fact that you seem obsessed with making up stuff about GM crops leads me to the conclusion that you suspect GM is better and need to muddy the water so no-one else will notice. Sorry, more than 10 million farmers around the world seem to have noticed.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 26 May 2008 5:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist:
I have to defend "Dickie" with reference to the statement that you made: "An out of court settlement provides for no admission of guilt. The fact that you seem to think otherwise confirms my earlier statement about ideology"

I beg to differ, as far as an "out of court settlement" goes! Any person that negotiates an out of court settlement generally does so to avoid loss of the court action (and subsequent notoriety and ensuing costs), loss of face and loss of finances! These actions are only employed by persons or companies who are guilty of wrongdoing and take this avenue as the most expedient way out of their predicament!

I hardly think that a statement or indication of leaning toward this line of thought should condemn one as an "ideologist!"

You yourself could be branded an ideologist as you have regularly exhibited a rabid support for this ongoing hero type worship of Monsanto and the ilk who care nought for humanity save the opportunity to make some fast profits and could NOT give a hoot for any dangers involved in their "little?" schemes.

If you want GM crops then be my guest, but please do NOT force them on the people who are just trying to execise caution and prefer to be "safe" rather than "sorry!"
Posted by Cuphandle, Monday, 26 May 2008 5:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cuphandle to Agronomist: "you have regularly exhibited a rabid support for this ongoing hero type worship of Monsanto and the ilk who care nought for humanity save the opportunity to make some fast profits and could NOT give a hoot for any dangers involved in their "little?" schemes."

As someone who has worked both in industry and in a law firm, I am often surprised at the lack of understanding in the general community about how a business (especially a big business, in a competitive market) operates.

It is not in Monsanto's interests to sell poor or dangerous products; they would swiftly go out of business, both because of lack of follow-up sales and new customers, and because of having to pay damages if their products caused loss. Basically, you do not poison your customers, for fast profits would then be short-lived profits.

You may not subscribe to the view that Monsanto cares for its customers as "humanity", but surely such an evil, money-obsessed, child-strangling juggernaut as you believe it to be would want to keep the money flowing in?

Monsanto needs to keep farmers coming back. Each year, when a farmer decides what he/she will grow, they can choose the Monsanto product or a competitor's product. It's not like buying a car, where a manufacturer/distributor can sell to a buyer only once in 10 years or so, so it's not a great loss if they are not thrilled with the purchase. With yearly cropping, you have to keep innovating and keep your customers happy.

Farmers are pretty canny in my experience; it's hard to impress them; they are not susceptible to hype; and they trust each other's opinions and recommendations. You have to work hard to get and keep their custom.

And "Rabid"? "Hero-worship"? A little OTT there, Cuppers.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Monday, 26 May 2008 6:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Me just now: "It's not like buying a car, where a manufacturer/distributor can sell to a buyer only once in 10 years or so, so it's not a great loss if they are not thrilled with the purchase."

Oops, just slurred the car industry - didn't mean to suggest (nor do I believe) that it doesn't care about its customers and the quality of its products - just wanting to highlight the need for a producer of low-priced, short-lived products (such as seeds) to be highly conscious of the need for repeated sales, cf a seller of high-priced goods where purchases are made at more lengthy intervals, whose focus can afford to be a bit different.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Monday, 26 May 2008 7:01:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ScienceLaw/Agronomist

I endeavour to refrain from casting aspersions on reputable companies, however, proponents of GM need to understand that discerning folk must engage in some independent research - a "character check" if you like.

The number of ethical institutes criticising Montano is quite remarkable.

Unflattering articles about Monsanto have been raised on ScienceAlert, Global Research.Ca, Centre for Food Safety, Rockefeller Foundation, India Resource Centre, Biosafety Info Centre Malaysia etc etc.

When one reads an example such as the following, from the Public Patent Foundation, alarm bells start to go off:

"NEW YORK – July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers."

Are these the farmers you speak of ScienceLaw?

So gentlemen what can we make of the following article, published only last month?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

And an earlier scientific review on Roundup written around 2005:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mzTgNuXueEgJ:www.walterreeves.com/tools_chemicals/article.phtml%3Fcat%3D22%26id%3D889+round-up+health+impacts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=au&lr=lang_en

These reports are not reassuring I'm afraid.
Posted by dickie, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:50:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Canadian farmers were, we're told there will be GM canola yield advantages of 30-40% but you can see by the USDA statistics that there was no yield advantage when GM canola was introduced. Why would there be? The GM trait only gives chemical resistance like our non-GM crops.
Agonomist implies that TT varieties are not preferred in Canada when they have not been grown since regulation was adopted when GM crops were introduced. He implies that Australia will have the advantages of weed control that Canada had when we have different weeds and different chemical control needs where GM crops don't offer anything better than what we already have. He contradicts the Australian regulatory body for chemicals claiming Simazine and Atrazine have been banned in Europe as APVMA claim it has not, that it has only been restricted in the same manner Australia has restricted use in waterlogged areas.

While some farmers may prefer GM, many do not but pay the costs and market loss associated with GM. Argentina introduced an export tax for ALL farmers to pay Monsanto for user fees and now export tax has increased to over 44%, hence the massive protests. Brazilian farmers ALL have 2% of their income deducted from grain payments unless they prove there is NO GM present which is too difficult and too expensive. In Canada, the non-GM choice is a very old, very short season variety grown right up the northern area of Canada or Clearfield which is treated the same as GM.

Globally, the non-GM choice is disappearing due to plant breeding alliances with multinationals.

US is heavily subsidised and 80% of their subsidies are allocated to their GM crops, soy, cotton and corn and farmers are relying on off-farm income to remain sustainable. Will our government compensate us for forcing us to take these losses?

The reason why the research sector want to partner with multinationals such as Monsanto is because of their ability to collect payments by farmers not wanting to deal with them.

Why should we be forced to subsidise the GM industry?
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 10:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cuphandle, it is a bit more complicated than you are suggesting. The payout in law suits may simply be a financial decision. This was a large complex lawsuit that had dragged on for 6 years. The defendants would have incurred significant costs in legal fees with more in the offing. Even if they went to trial and won, there was no prospect of costs being returned from the plaintiffs. There can come a point where a payout by the insurance company is preferable to having you own resources tied up in a lawsuit. In fact, liability was explicitly denied by Dow and others at the time.

dickie, this is what the author of the “major new study” had to say about Geoffrey Lean’s treatment of his work. http://www.seedtoday.com/info/ST_articles.html?ID=56952

“These statements, among other assertions in Mr. Lean’s article are ripe for clarification. This brief piece is my attempt to set the record straight before the perversion of my research findings and the resulting backlash go any further.”
As for Relyea’s work, the story you point to has major deficiencies. Firstly, the concentration used by Relyea was equivalent to 64 L/ha of product. This is more than 20 times more than would normally be used in agricultural situations. Secondly, Relyea used a formulation that has no recommendation for aquatic use. Such a use would be illegal. Instead, there are “frog friendly” formulations of glyphosate that are registered for use in these situations – but not at the rate used by Relyea. If you used a herbicide product in a place where it is illegal to use it and at concentrations much higher than normal use you might get an effect. This is why herbicide products are regulated.

Julie, just briefly, you might like to look here for a comparison of Canadian yields with Australian yields. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-price-premium-in-australia-but-big.html This confirms what everyone in Canada knows, Canadian canola yields are on the up.

You should read the EU Commission Decisions I posted. They announce the withdrawal of authorizations for simazine and atrazine products. That makes a ban on use.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, you and Sciencelaw appear as nothing more than apologists for the GM multinationals.

Do you actually believe everything that these corporations have to say about their product. A product, that, apart from anything other problems, takes from farmers the right to reseed their crops from previous harvests. Just that alone is placing our entire food supply in the hands of global monopolies.

Also, do you really believe that you know the long-term environmental and biological effects of genetically altered plants and animals? If you claim that you do then please tell me the numbers for the next lottery draw, you must be omniscient indeed.

I agree that there is much potential for GM. No argument there. But two things continue to bother me:

1. That the 'ownership' of this technology is by companies, who have demonstrated repeatedly their lack of concern for the public good.

2. The pressure these same organisations are placing on farmers and governments to agree to the mass introduction and the extreme haste to grow these foods.

Do you trust Monsanto? If so, WHY?

See:

http://www.diggers.com.au/SeedsDesignedToDieFromMonsanto.htm

"There are 1.4 billion indigenous people and peasant farmers whose whole livelihood revolves around selecting and saving seed for next year’s crop planting. They select and adapt local varieties to their unique needs. If Terminator were commercialised their livelihoods would be threatened for no other purpose than to transfer ownership and control of our publicly owned food crops to GE crop companies."
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 2:46:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please stick to better references Agronomist. Your pro-GM blog does not outrank the US Department of Ag statistics as Pratley has used selective and deceptive 5 year averaging.

USDA statistics show Canadian (GM) and US (GM) yields are similar to Australian (Non-GM) yields while canola yields in EU (Non-GM) are double ours.
Yields dropped in US at the same time Canada's yield peaked which proves that seasonal conditions are the key reason, not GM.
Australia has had several years of significant yield affecting droughts while Canada has recently had a couple of good seasons so nothing to do with GM/Non-GM. Please don't support deceptive data.

Monsanto's aim to control the worlds food supply by patenting 100% of the seeds sown was revealed by Arthur Anderson Consulting at an earlier biotech conference. One of the key elements to the strategy was the alliance with governments in order to gain support and control over public plant breeding. Basically it appears our goverment and public research sector were extremely willing to sell us out.

I have written to APVMA for better clarification on Atrazine restrictions in Europe as their Q&A states "Atrazine has not been banned in Europe". Their review findings for Australian conditions are at http://www.apvma.gov.au/media/mr0802.shtml where they show quite clearly that Atrazine is not a problem in Australian broadacre conditions. It seems to me that the pro-GM sector is just trying anything they can to remove the opposition.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 3:59:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, I work with farmers who use technology from these companies. I don’t have to believe anything the companies say, because I can see it with my own eyes in the hands of farmers. It is just a tool. It has uses and it has problems. It just turns out that the uses by far and away outweigh the problems I see.

I don’t trust Monsanto. I have looked at the issues, walked in the crops, talked with farmers who grow them, held the seed in my hands, eaten the products. I trust myself.

As for damage to the environment, GM crops have been grown for 12 years and now grown over 125 million hectares. They have had only positive impacts on the environment. Less pesticide use in cotton, less tillage in soybeans, both in canola. This is largely predictable, because annual crops are bred in such a way to reduce weedy traits. Weedy traits are bad for crops (although good for pastures). If they are not going to become serious weeds, what sort of environmental harm are they going to do?

The so-called “Terminator” was a patent owned by the USDA and DeltaPine. It was an idea. The 1.4 billion farmers who save seeds will continue to be able to save their own seeds. Terminator, even if it were commercialised, would not affect them, because they would not buy it.

Julie, I don’t have a blog, I am an agronomist remember. Regardless of what will or won’t happen in Australia, the yield benefit is real in Canada. You can see it every year in the Prairie Canola Variety Trials. http://www.canola-council.org/uploads/pcvt/prairie_canola_variety_trials_2003.pdf http://www.canola-council.org/uploads/pcvt/prairie_canola_variety_trials_2004.pdf http://www.canola-council.org/uploads/pcvt/prairie_canola_variety_trials_2005.pdf http://www.canola-council.org/uploads/pcvt/prairie_canola_variety_trials_2006.pdf http://www.canola-council.org/uploads/dec6_cd_pvct.pdf

I don’t know why you want to keep denying this is the case. If non-GM yielded so well, surely the evidence would be there in Canada? Why doesn’t it? All the evidence is that yields are going backwards in Australia. How else do you explain the highest yielding years in Australia were 1993 and 1990 whereas in Canada they were 2005 and 2006? 15 years of drought?
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 6:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry for the delay in responding ScienceLaw. You are right we don't need to get bogged down in the semantics of analogies. :)

For those who are pro-GMO why do you find it so difficult to accept that there is a risk introducing new biotechnology after so short a period of study and scrutiny? "Gene escape" or mutation is an absolute scientific possibility. These effects have not been studied.

I am not saying all biotechs are big bad monsters but when the emphasis is more on the profit margin than allocating the essential time needed for further and more comprehensive study problems will arise.

I know that some GMO projects have been shelved because of various problems eg. the Brazilnut gene used in soybean that was found to pass on an allergen effect just for one and I will give credit where it is due.

Why is there not as much money being spent on researching organic agriculture or on soil health. Perhaps because that particular area of science is not being driven by the biotechs.

Last year the CSIRO got rid of two leading scientists in these fields because they spoke out about GM crops and whose emphasis was on sustainable organic methods and soil health and nutrient rich food. Hardly a bipartisan approach and a sad day for science.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 11:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, please explain how GM canola will give less pesticide and less tillage? It can't!
Australian farmers already use minimum till techniques and we already use herbicide tolerant canola. RR growers are advised that in order to control resistance to glyphosate, they will need to reintroduce tillage or the far more toxic sprayseed as a knockdown alternative. Neither glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium have a residual effect on weeds so more chemicals will be required to keep weeds under control eg. trifluralin is recommended for emergence. With RR, glyphosate can only be applied up to 6 leaf stage so an alternative post emergent weed control will be needed for late emerging weeds. All farmers will need to add another chemical to glyphosate to knockdown glyphosate tolerant volunteer canolas.
That equates to more tillage and more chemical.

You referred me to GM pundits blogspot for yield data and that yield data was based on 5 year averages which was deceptive.

Yes Australia has had droughts that have seriously impacted on yields, everyone knows that. Yield benefit is from the non-GM variety the GM trait is added to, not the GM trait which only gives chemical resistance as farmers use other chemical options to control weeds. Canadian Non-GM canola has been withdrawn from sale except for a very uncompetitive variety so of course it will be outyielded in trials. Australia's yield potential is not going backwards, and if it is, farmers should be refusing to pay so much for our GRDC levies.

But the key issue for GM is the lack of choice and denial of fair risk management. Farmers and consumers do not want to take the economic and health risks involved. If we are forced to, we should be compensated for it.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:37:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, I suppose people on OLO would describe me as pro-GM so I will answer you. I am not sure what you mean by a “short period of study or scrutiny”. The risk assessments for GM canola were conducted in Canada in the early 1990s and for some other GM crops even earlier. GM crops have been studied intensively ever since. A search just of the Weed Technology and Weed Science journals turns up over 200 papers with studies of GM crops over the past 14 years.

I agree that “gene escape”, if you mean GM material outside cropped land, is inevitable. I have seen it for myself. However, I suggest that it is having no significant environmental impact. Crop plants rarely persist outside cropped fields. Just because something happens, doesn’t make it bad. Mutations happen all the time in non-GM plants. Why would mutations be worse in GM plants compared to non-GM plants?

Julie, the figure on Dr. Tribe’s blog illustrates that Canadian canola yields have been increasing. You could have found the same information at StatsCanada, but this visual representation makes it obvious. As you should know comparing Canadian yields with European (or Australian) yields is silly because the growing conditions are different. What is important is the trend. The trend in Canada is clearly up (something you continue to deny despite the evidence), the trend in Australia is at best static, depending on the timescale you want to use. I can’t see there is anything terribly wrong with using a 5-year moving average for this exercise. It is just one way of introducing a trend line.

Julie, once again you are wrong. There are many non-GM canola lines available in Canada. Most are Clearfield. In Manitoba alone, there is one variety without HT (less than 0.5% of canola grown in the province doesn’t have HT), 12 Clearfields, 8 Libertys and 23 RRs to choose from in the recommended list. You can still find some older non-HT varieties around; they are just not carried by the seed companies because no one wants to grow them. http://www.seedmb.ca/
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 5:03:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have just confirmed what I said. Clearfield is treated as GM, regulated as GM, charged like GM and "there is one variety without HT"
You said "You can still find some older non-HT varieties around; they are just not carried by the seed companies because no one wants to grow them." This confirms that non-GM varieties have been deregistered and hence not available from seed companies.

What is concerning is that Canadian farmers need to grade and treat their seed prior to planting it if they are saving their own. The seed grading factories that have been authorised to distribute a particular chemical used on canola for controlling a particular disease, submit a register of all farmers using this chemical to the chemical company concerned. Then farmers receive letters from Monsanto claiming that their seed samples show RR genes and therefore the farmer owes Monsanto the user fee. They either pay up and promise confidentiality or get taken to court. Either way they lose. The limit of contamination that triggers this letter is at the discretion of the GM company.

Unlike US and Canada, Australia has an end point royalty system which will allow the GM company to deduct whatever user fee they like from our grain payments and the trigger level to do so is up to the discretion of the GM company. This is outrageous but does occur in Brazil which is under the same system. We want fair risk management to prevent this happening but it has been denied!
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 6:19:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer "Then farmers receive letters from Monsanto claiming that their seed samples show RR genes and therefore the farmer owes Monsanto the user fee. They either pay up and promise confidentiality or get taken to court. Either way they lose. The limit of contamination that triggers this letter is at the discretion of the GM company."

I cannot believe this is correct. Patent law does not work this way. In particular, the burden of proof is on Monsanto - they must prove a farmer has infringed RR patents (like "innocent until proven guilty"), and standard of proof is high (actually difficult for a patentee to win infringement cases!).

If a farmer receives a nasty letter, denies having RR and Monsanto sues, he/she can apply to have the action struck out as unsubstantiated (no case to answer), a cheap application to make. Monsanto would have to prove a primafacie case, or be struck out and pay his/her costs (very embarrassing).

If he/she has a small amount of RR due to adventitious presence, again, he/she can say "no case to answer" and ask Monsanto to remove it. I'd imagine adventitious presence could readily be distinguished from the Percy Schmeiser-style sowing of the GM crop, by looking at extent and position of the RR plants. Again, the burden of proof would be on Monsanto to show the farmer actually sowed the crop. For a small amount of plants, adjacent a fence adjacent a neighbour's GM crop - do you really believe our (or US) courts would find infringement?

Analagously, if your designer shirt blows off your clothes line into my yard, would a court hold me guilty of theft? You would need an eyewitness or film of me taking it from your line to prove guilt! (If after it blew into my yard, I then sold it - ie appropriated it as mine - I could then be found guilty; this is where Percy Schmeiser rightfully went down.)

In a nutshell, if you were accused of something you hadn't done - would you simply pay up? I wouldn't!! (cont. below)
Posted by ScienceLaw, Thursday, 29 May 2008 11:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This week, on the 7.30 Report, an American (Canadian??) expert claimed that you must now eat 3 apples to obtain the nutrition of just one, grown in the '50s.

How does the nutritional value of GM compare with the current produce grown in Australia?
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie, not exactly. Clearfield is regulated as a novel food in Canada, but it still goes through less regulatory approvals than a GM crop. Atrazine-resistant canola, were it to be introduced now would also be regulated as a novel food. Clearfield is not GM. You don’t regard it as GM and neither do markets. In any case, the Liberty and RR hybrids still outyield the Clearfield hybrids in the PCVT, so you are still not right.

The non-HT varieties have not been deregistered, they remain on the register. Just because they are registered, doesn’t mean seed companies have to sell them. There is a thing called demand. I think you will find 52 non-HT spring types and 8 non-HT spring hybrids on the list of registered varieties. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/variet/rapecole.shtml

Julie, when Canadian farmers get their seed treated prior to sowing it is with a fungicide, not with Roundup. How on earth would Monsanto be able to work out who is saving RR canola seed from a list of farmers getting fungicide treatment on their seeds? It is not like the seed is colored any differently and the works is not going to run hundreds of strip tests for the benefit of Monsanto. This is fantasyland stuff. Most farmer pursued by Monsanto for breach of patent were dobbed in by their neighbors who were doing the right thing.

dickie, nutritional status of GM vs non-GM canola can be found here. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A388_Final_Assessment_Report.pdf#search=%22canola%22 http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A372%20Final%20AR.pdf#search=%22canola%22
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A363%20FA.pdf

Other GM crop assessments are available from the FSANZ website. You can find the Canadian assessments here http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dde.shtml , but I guess you would be more interested in the Australian ones. There is also more information in the Australian assessments.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who said canola seed was treated with glyphosate? It is treated with fungicide and the QA process involves taking down the name and amount of canola seed graded and retaining samples. This is direct from Terry Boehm from Canadian Farmers Union who is very involved in the politics of seed royalties and he has evidence of farmers receiving such letters.

He also explained that hundreds of non-GM varieties have been deregistered and it is not possible to buy the non-GM variety without the RR gene added to it to make it GM. I did not say Clearfield was GM.

A GM living organism and its progeny are covered by a patent owned by a multinational company. There is no doubting that Percy deliberately selected for the RR trait as he sprayed his contaminated canola with glyphosate then saved the seed.

I am more concerned with cases like the Nelsons where he publicly stated GM soy yielded less than non-GM and he was sued when he went back to non-GM. He thought it was a matter of just proving his innocence but it took years, a huge amount of money and he and his family suffered terribly from stress. Farmers want to avoid this so yes, they do pay when threatened.

There is as yet, no amount established by law that triggers "guilty" and action is at the discretion of the GM patent owner.

In Australia we have an endpoint royalty system. What amount of GM will trigger a deduction of royalties?

In Brazil it is a positive test. Testing for GM canola is accurate to test positive for 1 seed in 1,000 or 0.1% contamination. Yes, if charged, we could take expensive action against Monsanto to prove the contamination was accidental but wouldn't it be more sense to set a limit to protect this from happening? We were told to "trust Monsanto" when we requested risk management. Sorry, but that is not good enough.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non-GM Farmer: "Nelsons publicly stated GM soy yielded less than non-GM and he was sued when he went back to non-GM. He thought it a matter of just proving his innocence but it took years, huge amount of money and he and his family suffered terribly from stress. Farmers want to avoid this so yes, they do pay when threatened."

I've not looked into this case, but again I'm surprised if this is the case. If he harvested GM soy, stated publicly he was reverting to non-GM, took standard steps to minimise volunteers, yet was sued over GM volunteer plants, he still should simply have applied to have the case struck out.

There is a concept in common law, the "non-voluntary bailee" - if you have something belonging to someone else you do not want, you are not responsible for it (eg if I park my car in your drive and say I don't want it anymore, if you don't want it you're not obliged to pay registration/insurance, and are entitled to have it towed away if I don't collect it).

Why not invite the company to collect their plants, if they allege you have any; charging them of course for any damage they do to the rest of your crop, and for your loss of non-GM crop pushed out by the GM crop?

You don't have to prove innocence; as I said before, Monsanto have to prove their case. Judges don't like insubstantial actions clogging the court system. A couple of struck-out cases, and the courts would view them as vexatious litigants and not allow further ones without proof upfront.

"In Australia we have an endpoint royalty system. What amount of GM will trigger a deduction of royalties?"

A company would need to prove infringement (difficult for adventitious presence/volunteers). Royalties, if the Court awarded them, generallywould be "fair market rate" - not at the company's discretion. In my view unlikely to be awarded unless sizable amount of GM, with evidence the farmer took active steps to exploit the patented seeds, with knowledge - even so, Percy escaped them!
Posted by ScienceLaw, Thursday, 29 May 2008 1:34:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the law protected individuals from unfair corporate practises without requiring expensive legal action to intervene, the courts would not be so busy.

I have been in contact with other victims of persecution but the Nelson case http://www.nelsonfarm.net/ is interesting.
To quote some key elements:

- Monsanto continues its lawsuit against a North Dakota family farm, despite an independent body’s ruling that it found no evidence of wrongdoing.
- "They (Monsanto) haven’t got any evidence," says Mark Fraase, the attorney representing the Nelsons. "They can’t gather any, yet they persist."

- The North Dakota State Seed Arbitration Board found no support for Monsanto’s claims in its March 27 hearing on the matter. "The evidence does not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Nelson Farm is infringing on any Monsanto patents for RR soybeans by planting, growing, and harvesting unlicensed saved RR soybean seed without authorization from Monsanto, or that Nelson Farm will continue to so infringe. Nelson Farm did not plant any saved RR soybean seed in 1998, 1999, or 2000," according to the non-binding Board ruling. Representatives for Monsanto were absent. The Seed Arbitration Board frowned on Monsanto’s actions in the case. According to its decision: "Nelson Farm has been cooperative with Monsanto in its investigations and testing. Monsanto, however, has not been very cooperative with Nelson Farm, withholding information on tests, not telling Nelson Farm where it sampled for testing in 1999, and failing to attend an arbitration hearing requested by Nelson Farm to define and resolve seed dispute issues."

- Perhaps more troubling, he says, is the fact that 40 percent of the fields that Monsanto claims it tested weren’t on the Nelsons’ farm.

Monsanto not only pursued legal action and dragged it out for years but sent letters to seed distributors banning Nelsons from purchasing any Monsanto products. It was persecution against a farmer stating the poor performance of GM.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Thursday, 29 May 2008 7:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Terry Boehm is indeed as you say very involved in politics. It is just that he represents only a small fraction of all Canadian farmers and hardly any of the canola acreage.

The seed graders retain a sample of seed that is treated. This is normal business practice and helps ensure that the right seed gets back out to the grower concerned (varieties can be checked for example). But this practice does not allow the companies to determine who is growing GM seed as you were claiming.

I think I have already demonstrated there are plenty of non-GM varieties registered in Canada. Why would the seed companies be wanting to introduce lots more non HT varieties that no one wants to plant? It makes no sense.

Non-GM farmer “Clearfield is treated as GM, regulated as GM, charged like GM”
Non-GM farmer “I did not say Clearfield was GM”

I didn’t say you said Clearfield was GM.

Agronomist “You don’t regard it as GM and neither do markets.”

So now you want to accuse me of saying things I didn’t say.

Non-GM farmer “There is no doubting that Percy deliberately selected for the RR trait”

Were you swindled then when you paid for Percy Schmeiser to tell a bunch of lies to Australian farmers?

The Nelsons are old news. They settled out of court in 2001. We won’t know the full details because of the confidentiality clauses in the settlement.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 29 May 2008 8:53:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is very very important for farmers to know the legal implications of patents and patent collection associated with GM crops.
Percy established by very lengthy and expensive legal defence that the patent owner owns the patent even if it arrives on farm by accidental means and the farmer has not signed the contract. Percy did not apply glyphosate and hence did not use the GM trait and, contrary to the claim by Monsanto, he legally established that farmers are not required to pay for the trait if they don't use it.
Many Australians have not heard of the aggressive bullyboy tactics adopted by Monsanto to collect royalties and the Nelson case is a classic example.
Australian farmers do not need to worry about being sued, our concern is how the end point royalties are going to be deducted because, unlike Canada and USA, Australia signed the UPOV 91 International Treaty accepting EPR's as an acceptable method of research payments. With EPR's the patent owner can deduct their payment from our grain payments when we deliver our grain. If we object, we must sue the company to recover our money.
How is an EPR going to work with GM?
Brazil uses EPR and even non-GM farmers pay if their grain triggers a positive test. That is anticompetitive practise and must be prevented
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Friday, 30 May 2008 1:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie, I notice that you have been ignoring the questions I have been posing and continuing to spout nonsense. Therefore, I take it that you agree that:

1) Percy Schmeiser deliberately planted 1000 acres of his farm to Roundup Ready canola and his claims to have been "picked on" by Monsanto are just so much posturing.

2) Canadian canola yields are continuing to increase, despite their adoption of GM canola.

3) Australian canola yields are not increasing, despite 100% of the crop remaining non-GM.

4) That atrazine and simazine can no longer be used legally in the EU.

5) That it is possible for Canadian canola growers to grow non-GM canola, just that most of them don't want to do so.

6) That Canada continues to be able to sell its Canola to many countries.

7) That more herbicides are used on Atrazine resistant canola in Australia than are used on Roundup Ready canola in Canada.

8) That Canadian canola growers report aditional yield and profict out of growing GM canola.

Now next time, you can safely leave these topics alone and I won't have to keep pointing you to the evidence supporting the statements.

As to the Nelsons, as I have said, they settled out of court in 2001 and a confidentiality statement means we will never know exactly what happened. Given that continued speculation now is useless.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 31 May 2008 5:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, I agree that:
- That governments, scientists and industry players should not be subserviant to their GM agribusiness patrons because it sacrifices truth and fair risk management.
- The GM industry should be responsible for reimbursing any farmer that suffers economic loss from GM.
- That farmers must be aware of the laws surrounding GM crop patents and fair risk management should be introduced to avoid adverse unfair impacts.
- That independent performance testing of GM crops should be performed prior to any lifting of the moratoria as contracts prevent independent trials once commercialised.
- That independent health testing should be performed prior to any acceptance by regulatory bodies as "safe".
- That GM products should all be labelled.
- That Australian conditions are very different to Canadian conditions and therefore weed comparisons and control need to be taken into perspective.
- That Canadian and US yields did NOT improve when GM canola was adopted.
- That an increase in costs and market rejection, with no yield improvement equates to a negative financial figure for farmers.
- That you are extremely biased on the pro-GM side and we will continue to have a difference of opinion until we can resolve the issues related to commercial release rather than ignore them.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Monday, 2 June 2008 3:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie, so you disagree with me on all these points? Just to help you and readers out I provide a list of resources for each point. At least it will keep the resources together.

1) Percy Schmeiser deliberately planted 1000 acres of his farm to Roundup Ready canola and his claims to have been "picked on" by Monsanto are just so much posturing.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

2) Canadian canola yields are continuing to increase, despite their adoption of GM canola.

http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.aspx

3) Australian canola yields are not increasing, despite 100% of the crop remaining non-GM.

http://abareonlineshop.com/Pdffiles/acs07.pdf page 178

4) That atrazine and simazine can no longer be used legally in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/oj_atrazine.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/oj_simazine.pdf

5) That it is possible for Canadian canola growers to grow non-GM canola, just that most of them don't want to do so.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/variet/rapecole.shtml

6) That Canada continues to be able to sell its Canola to many countries.

http://www.canola-council.org/seed_exports_historic.aspx

7) That more herbicides are used on Atrazine resistant canola in Australia than are used on Roundup Ready canola in Canada.

http://www.croplifeaustralia.org.au/files/biotechnology/information/Conservation%20farming%20systems%20and%20canola%20final%20report.pdf
http://www.monsanto.ca/_pdfs/labels_msds/ru_wmax_label_english.pdf page 27
http://www.monsanto.ca/seeds_traits/roundup_ready/canola/programs.asp

8) That Canadian canola growers report additional yield and profit out of growing GM canola.

http://www.canola-council.org/facts_gmo.aspx
http://www.canola-council.org/gmo_toc.aspx

So rather than deal with all those other issues you have raised, at the moment I want to get these old ones dealt with. So next time you raise these points I will be able to state correctly that you know what you are saying is untrue.

Thanx
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 2 June 2008 7:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMF, I note your comments, and accept that "deep pockets" can be used to stall proceedings and starve out smaller parties, but I still find it hard to believe that in the case of an innocent party (a) they would pay up as if they had infringed and (b) the court system (I reiterate it is loaded towards the "accused" - the burden of proof is on the accuser) would allow a baseless claim to continue to that point.

Otherwise, why aren't more patentees (or just any old company who has wised up to this!) simply accusing widely and waiting for the money to roll in? Why would you need to actually work?

My previous posts were aimed at showing there are cheap options for innocent parties to counteract baseless accusations. Our own patent legislation prohibits "unjustified threats" of patent infringement, to deter patentees from standing over the innocent. I have not researched the Nelsons' case - and they may be the exception - but it seems to me that someone in their situation who pays up may not be whiter than white. Percy Schmeiser is a good example of this. Thank you for being big enough to note that he did actively choose and replant the patented seed - many anti-GMers are still denying this, even though this was admitted by him and the findings upheld up to the highest court in Canada.

The Nelsons may have been a far more deserving test case than Percy - why was the anti-GM money not applied to supporting them, rather than him (who I feel, by the results of his case and his continued Greenpeace-funded puppet show being trucked around the world, is damaging the credibility both of your cause and of any truly innocent grower).

UPOV 91 relates to Plant Breeder's Rights (PBRs), rather than patents. It is a different system of intellectual property right registration. GM plants are not usually PBR'd, and in fact Monsanto have no current registrations in Australia. Thus they could not enforce rights under UPOV here. Further, Australia's PBR legislation specifically allows for farm-saved seed.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 11:16:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are just not even remotely interested in the other angle.
Lets look at yields:
Statistics show there was NO increase in yields when GM canola was introduced to Canada and yet Canadian farmers were promised 30-40% increase in yields.
If you look at annual figures you will show there was no average increase in yields except for good seasons. The same years that Canada had an increase in yield, USA had a decrease in yield yet they were also growing GM canola.
Australia on the other hand showed severe droughts but not every year. The yields where the droughts were not severe, yields were similar to US and Canada.
Of course when you do a 5 year average you will not see the similarities of yields that you would looking at annual figures.
When you look at the "benefit" offered to Australian farmers, it is NOT yield, it is weed control. When you look at the chemicals offered, they do not control our worst weeds as well as they would in Canada so Australian farmers will need to use more chemicals (such as trifluralin) to counter the lack of residual grass control that glyphosate offers.
Also, it is a severe restriction not being able to apply glyphosate post the 6 leaf stage (which our canola has already reached).
Your debate lacks reason if you are not looking at what we are being offered.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 11:26:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The one thing I find extremely concerning as regards Science Law and Agronomist is the complete lack of scepticism with the GE corporations.

With not a hint of doubt, both swallow, hook, line and sinker every claim made by Monsanto et al.

It is only by questioning that we learn, by checking and rechecking our findings that we find faults within a system or a product.

In this case the product has enormous potential to completely imbalance our eco-system. I am not saying that this will come to pass, but unless we are very cautious indeed, this new technology has the ability to completely change life on earth.

Why are you so trusting? And what is wrong with taking time on this technology? We failed to do so with nuclear (radioactive half-life, Chernobyl) and in chemical products (DDT, Thalidomide).

For people who claim expertise, you appear very gullible.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 12:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julie, I am interested in the “other side”, I am just not interested when if flies in the face of reason. I have provided the evidence for the points I have made. I am afraid I can do no more. If you don’t want to accept reality, I really can’t help you. What I can say is that you are now denying reality knowing you are wrong. The evidence is there for all to see.

As to whether GM canola will work in Australia or not, I am more sanguine than you. I have seen farmers in Canada make GM canola work for them. Surprisingly, they use it in ways that the companies did not originally encourage. Farmers are great innovators and I expect Australian farmers are no worse than Canadian farmers at this. Of course, Australian farmers have never had the opportunity to see what they can make of the crop. I can provide evidence that GM canola does work. You can provide no evidence that it doesn’t. The vast majority of farmers that have grown GM canola, still grow it. If you are right, these crops will disappear from Australia almost immediately, therefore, there would be no harm in allowing farmers to try it out. What are you afraid of?

Fractelle, I am guessing you don’t read my posts carefully. Instead because I don’t agree with your position, I must “swallow, hook, line and sinker every claim made by Monsanto et al.” I suggest you re-read my comments to you on 25th May. I have looked at this carefully myself. My opinions on the issue are my own influenced by my careful reading, experience with these crops and experience with farmers who grow these crops. I have documented my position with the evidence. Perhaps I could ask you for the evidence to back: “the product has enormous potential to completely imbalance our eco-system” or “has the ability to completely change life on earth”. Where is the data showing these effects are likely? I could provide lots showing these effects are unlikely.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 2:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our stance regarding GM is to avoid non-GM farmers being adversely impacted.

Percy's case exposed the difference in patent law.

The reason governments and researchers are so keen to get in bed with the GM companies is that they have the ability to collect far greater profits.

To quote pg 14/15 GRDC Groundcover May-June 2008:
"Monsanto has opted to charge grain growers in a way that resembles and End Point Royalty system". Yes, you can save your seed with EPR but you get charged for all produce from the farmer saved seed you plant.

The costs are ridiculous:
Seed prices are not available but it has been rumoured to be more than twice the price of non-GM.
Stewardship fee $1000/property (half price this year)
"Discounted" grain technology fee (EPR) of $10.20/tonne (wow...if that is a discount, what is the real price going to be?)

Personally I think farmers planting it have not done their profitability calculations but that is their problem.

What becomes my problem as a non-GM farmer is this quote from the same page:
"Executive director of the Australian Oilseeds Federation Rosemary Richards says that growers wanting to market their grain as non-GM must ensure the status of their seed prior to planting. Also, the grower will need to demonstrate traceability through the supply chain. This could involve procedures such as vendor declaration, monitoring contractors and delivery to storage in compliance with customer requirements."

This is very costly and very time consuming. Why should we be adversely impacted by someone elses decision to grow GM?

Yes agro agronomist, I am glad others can see where the truth lies. The GM gene only gives resistance to a chemical in the same way our non-GM crops do. It doesn't yield more.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 3:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NonGMF: “Percy established by very lengthy and expensive legal defence that the patent owner owns the [patented seed] even if it arrives on farm by accidental means”

Well that was a wise use of his time and money – did he (and do you) honestly think that someone else’s goods that arrive on your property by accident should belong to you? I gave the example above of my designer shirt blowing off my clothesline into your yard – does it become yours? What about if I leave my umbrella on the train, or my handbag at a restaurant – can I not get them back? Wow, can you, Percy and all your similar-thinking friends come to my place, and accidently leave your wallets, please?

And what about litigation for “contamination” – it’s your seed, now it’s on your property, isn’t it, so how can you blame Monsanto?

Re Monsanto withholding info from the Nelsons on tests – get a court order (eg subpoena/file notice to produce). If 40% of properties sampled were not the Nelsons – do you think the courts would have accepted that sample evidence?

You state “It is very important for farmer to know the legal implications of patents…” yet I feel you do not inform yourself when this could be done easily (you would have heard of a subpoena), preferring to take an alarmist viewpoint rather than a common-sense, this can’t be right, let’s research a bit more closely approach, because the alarmist view plays better to the public and scares farmers.

I also feel you mislead farmers; for example, you accept that “Australian farmers do not need to worry about being sued”, yet you (if Agro is correct in his identification of you) routinely scaremonger in the press that ending the moratoria will expose non-GM farmers to litigation by Monsanto/Bayer over adventitious presence. You state “Monsanto aims to patent all the world’s seed” when a brief review of the principles of patenting would show this is impossible.
Posted by ScienceLaw, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 2:32:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was not Percy suing Monsanto. Monsanto was suing Percy for a user fee and he opted to defend himself. He was not guilty of stealing their trait, he was guilty for selecting for it after he found contamination but he was not guilty for using the trait and therefore was not required to pay the exhorbitant user fee that Monsanto was suing him for.
This is the whole silly point about the GM patent, the product is not controllable but the patent still exists in its unwanted progeny and the patent is owned by Monsanto. If they own the patent, they own the gene and therefore should be liable for any economic loss their patented product causes. Its worse than your shirt theory because at least your shirt is not breeding while it is in the neighbours yard.

We as non-GM farmers don't want their patented GM seed, it is trespassing on our property and our legal defence is to sue the GM farmer under the same tort law as spray drift issues. The GM grower knows that they can not contain their product so they know that GM will drift over the fence and they should either take steps to avoid it or pay for any economic loss it causes.
Read the Nelsons case, Monsanto just dragged the court action out for years. Common sense did not play any part in their threatening action.

A subpoena of what information?

Laws are not adequate because they rely on precedents which is what Percy set. Why should a farmer dedicate so much time and money to fight Monsanto for something that should have been prevented in the first place?

No, I don't scaremonger without reason. I have not claimed farmers will be exposed to Monsanto/Bayer litigation since around 2002 when end point royalties were discussed at farm lobby level. I do say that we need to ensure a limit is set to ensure an end point royalty is not claimed for contamination.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 3:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy