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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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