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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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