The $12m/4 yr research findings found:
- GM performance questionable
- GM introduces additional liabilities for GM and non-GM farmers
- GM patents concentrate ownership, drive up costs, undermine economic sustainability and food security, inhibit seed-saving and restrict access to products needed for independent trials.

The reason US, Canada and Australia did not ratify these comments is because their governments are major investors in GM technology with all public plant breeding institutes forming alliances with the GM companies.

Our government is part of the problem, not part of the solution on GM technology but the public is becoming more aware that the regulations surrounding GM is nothing more than a public relations exercise and the promotions on GM is nothing more than hype.

Every survey on genetically engineered food shows the vast majority of Australians do not want GE food and crops. Then why has the Australian government backed their introduction and even questioned the research findings of the United Nations' International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development which show that GE does not have a place in the future of sustainable agriculture and in solving the world's food problems?

That the IAASTD report will impact UN and World Bank projects around the world will be welcome to many Australians who are dismayed by the Australian Government's abandonment of election promises regarding the adoption of GE food crops. We can only hope that it carries enough clout to shake some sense into our Government.
We have a Minister for Agriculture who has no background in agriculture, and a Geneticist as the Chief Scientist advising the Australian Government. It is no wonder Australia is heading in the wrong direction in agriculture.

Luckily the State governments (except NSW and Victoria whose state governments have also very heavily invested in GM technology) have taken an alternative path to Federal.
The Federal government has authority over health and environment. GM canola was claimed to be "rigorously tested and proven to be safe" but the GM canola oil was not tested at all and the remaining meal is not regulated because its stock feed. The GM company submits the data they want and by submitting stock feed data they avoid any regulation and the government does not ask for more.
GM canola oil is not labelled and because the government "accepted" contamination in our non-GM produce (no, we don't accept that)we are unable to provide canola for use in a labelled "GM-free" product as no contamination is accepted.
Considering the adverse health testing that has been found in the little testing that was done, why would consumers want to take the risk?
One of the findings of this committee was that the patented seed was not available for independent testing. I agree it should be.
What are GM investors so frightened of?

I find it very strange that while the Rudd government's platform was all for protecting the environment, no sooner do they get into office than they reverse themselves on the issue of genetically modified foods. As a consumer and a world traveler, I find it very odd that when so many foreign organisms, both flora and fauna, are banned from entering the country, GM organisms which are completely new to the planet are willy nilly allowed in, as if they were manna sent down by God.

As a retired cockie going on 88, but still very interested in the great grandkids running the growing family business, have been trying to get them interested in growing Indian mustard, formerly a worrying weed in wheat crops which had been introduced from India in the non-bulk days the seeds illegally stuck in the steel strapped bales which contained the three bushell sacks called wheat bags.

As Indian mustard is actually an original parent of canola and will virtually survive on just a smell of moisture, one wonders why it has not been made use of to grow for diesel fuel?

As I can't get any sense out of anyone over here in the West, was wondering if any of our group has ever heard of Indan mustard?

Doesn't seem to be anyone old enough around to remember?

Cheers, BB, WA.

Common-sense says that an unnatural genetic modification of a living creation is more likely to result in a new creation that is less than perfect as opposed to natural genetic interaction by mutual agreement of two related species, or within a species.

It is therefore easy to appreciate the results of the United Nations' International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). It is hard to imagine that any national or international institution will ignore its major findings in future decisions on agricultural research and development. But Australia has, in the company of the U.S. and Canada, three countries wedded to the biotechnology companies.

There have been scores of studies over the past two decades that have invariably shown that GM crops underperform in yield, use more chemicals and deplete the soil of valuable micro-organisms. Australia is now in the process, which hopefully will be reversed if the NSW and VIC governments are prepared to read the report by the IASSTD. There is always the indication that there are hidden forces at work that continually promote genetic modification despite the lack of true peer-reviewed research. The only research accepted by governments is that provided by the very purveyors of GM seeds, etc

What a dereliction of duty by Australian, Canadian and American Governments in refusing to endorse the IAASTD report. There is a repugnant stench to this puppetry and campaign funds.
Farmers the word over must farm smarter and reduce and eliminate their dependence on toxic chemicals, artificial fertilisers and GM crops. It is certainly possible, it does require a degree of commitment and above average intelligence to succeed as a sustainable steward of the land. The scientists who contributed to the IAASTD report are to be commended. They obviously took their job very seriously and it would appear that they were able to avoid the coercion of multinationals with a bias and vested interest.

There are myriad reasons why farmers must wean themselves off the toxic “chemical” approach to farming. It is unsustainable and it is ludicrous that they pour millions of litres of these toxic substances on our soil and food. It is equally irresponsible that nitrogenous fertilisers are force fed to crops. A high percentage of this fertiliser volatilises into the atmosphere or percolates through the soil profile finishing up in aquifers / river systems. Agricultural chemicals and artificial fertilisers have a deleterious impact on soil biology; natures volunteers that work 24/7 and only requiring some thoughtful consideration.

The price escalation of fertiliser may be a blessing in disguise for the environment, forcing farmers to evaluate their situation.

There is compelling evidence that links GMOs as the catalyst behind the CCD in bees and a suspected link between GMOs and Morgellons Disease.

At present three of the world’s greatest pollinators are disappearing in America since the introduction of GMO crops. First it was the bees, then the birds and now bats. GMOs and chemicals are high on the list of suspects. Food allergies have skyrocketed since GMOs were clandestinely sequestered into the American food chain.

Governments and farmers must heed the IAASTD report and other independent research on GM crops. As a retired farmer and consumer I consider myself to be very well read on this subject, therefore I will vigorously avoid GM and GM food at all cost

Testing - lost comment

After reading the executive summary of the IAASTD report (and fully agreeing with it I must add) and then this article and the comments on this forum and
an odd sensation happened, I realised how full of crap Greenpeace must be.

I really think that before commenting further everyone who reads this article should read the Executive Summary of the final report of the IAASTD.

http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_210408_Final.pdf

Did Jan van Aken attend? What he says and what is written in the summary don't appear to be reconciled. Or maybe Jan has a comprehension problem? That can often happen when English is not ones first language.
to quote the report: "While approving the above statement the following governments did not fully approve the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report and their reservations are entered in the Annex.
Australia, Canada, United States of America (3 countries)".

No mention of China either, who apparently joined the USA (but not Australia?) on not fully supporting a particular section (on GM crops). HMMM, spin spin spin?

But all involved indeed did approve the summary (if not fully and in certain areas outlined in the annex). However, anyone who thinks that this report needs "ratification" (ie Non-GM Farmer) needs to remember that this is only a report (one generally agreed upon by all parties except for specific entries) and not a treaty. Also, Non-GM farmers conclusions about the document don't appear to be the actual case either, in what appears to me to be a case of reading into the words more than is there.

It's also not surprising that the same rent-a-crowd greenies all comment as if it is Jan's article is the Truth, and make wild speculations and assumptions as to the contents of the documents without reading them. That seems to be the standard these days.

I'm afraid I failed to come up with any reference to Genetic Modification being a waste of money(or being a detriment) in the IAASTD summaries, although there is indeed ref to uncertainty and consumer acceptance of GM.
In fact the IAASTD report includes trangenics as one of the continuing tools in agriculture.

Australia didn't endorse the report: "The wide range of observations and views presented however, are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions and options in the report."
At least Aust was involved unlike Germany and the Netherlands who failed to participate.

"Considering the adverse health testing that has been found in the little testing that was done"
Could you elaborate please.

"There is compelling evidence that links GMOs as the catalyst behind the CCD in bees and a suspected link between GMOs and Morgellons Disease."

Compelling CCD evidence? Scant at best, to the point of being baseless. http://www.americanfarm.com/TopStory5.01.07f.html . GM also doesn't explain the losses in areas where GM is not grown, and conversley the lack of the disorder in major GM growing areas.
As to Morgellons:
"Many dermatologists refute the suggestion that this is an actual disease but instead indicate that many of these patients have psychological problems or other common skin disorders" 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology.

Should the disease actually exist, where is the link that GM is the cause and not simply because it happens to use agrobacterium(cited presence in a "Morgellon" case, though the agrobacterium source is not speculated upon).

These sort of insinuations are a sad reflection of how poor the case is against GMO's. Sure we have every right to be uncertain about new technology, but why do some have to misrepresent the facts or draw wild aspersions when they obviously don't know if GM is unsafe.

Bugsy you beat me to it, but I'll post anyway, I'll have to read and type faster. I haven't gone as far as calling greenpeace crap, but it is a logical conclusion.

Bushbred, there has been some talk about growing mustard(not sure if they said indian specifically) seeds over here in NSW for biodiesel, grow well(take their word for it) in our unreliable conditions and have high oil content. I don't think they can compete for price with the value of other grains and oilseeds at the moment though.

Bugsy and others are engaging in the nitpick strategy. Focus on a few highly specific areas of dispute and fail to deal with the point of the story and the IAASTD report. The Report does not repudiate GM foods but it's conclusion that they are of marginal assistance in the demands of 21st century agriculture is the reason that the 3 countries mentioned and the biotech companies (hand in glove we know) took their balls and bats and went home.
The report highlights the need for new and different approaches to agriculture - and these by any reading do not include GM. They may include other biotech solutions that are less unpredictable, less tied to corporate ownership and less risky to food security and soveriegnty. This report completely demolishes almost every myth that the biotech industry and their science sycophants have propagated for years - GM will not solve anything.

Nitpick strategy 'next'? No. The conclusions that you and others have reached about what the document actually says just simply do not exist.

<<The Report does not repudiate GM foods but it's conclusion that they are of marginal assistance in the demands of 21st century agriculture is the reason that the 3 countries mentioned and the biotech companies (hand in glove we know) took their balls and bats and went home.>>

This is not in the report at all, did you read it? The 3 countries mentioned actually DID endorse the report, but not without reservations on specific areas noted in the Annex. On the GM issue, Australia doesn't seem to have had any specific objections (that was China and America). Hardly "taking their bat and balls and going home".

I actually think the report is a good one, and highlights the need to maintain research in agriculture generally and not to invest too heavily in GM to the detriment of research in other areas.

I AGREE with this report. But to whip the unwashed masses into a frenzy over things that did not happen, this I don't think is in anyone's interest and highlights the ideological bias that some people will read into even neutral texts.

I have read the summary of the report as well. I would like to congratulate Bugsy and Rojo for taking the time to also inform themselves. I get the distinct impression that Jan van Aken either attended some other meeting, or simply interpreted the report to fit in with some pre-conceived prejudices.

Personally, I believe the process was fundamentally flawed for obtaining a clear interpretation of what current agricultural science informs. Instead, there is a consensus view that is informed more by ideology than it is by science. Despite this view, I recognise that there are many points that are correct for their time and place, but not necessarily correct for other times and places. The focus on small subsistence farm holdings feeding the local community, might indeed be the appropriate strategy in some places, but seems to be to be totally out of place in northern Alberta.

Bugsy, you're in part right. The biotech companies refused to continue participation because of the position of the report on GE/GM. That was explicitly supported by the US. Australia's concerns weren't explicitly because of their concerns about the report's position on GE.
That said, the report does not support the notion that GE can solve world hunger; does not see it as a solution to poverty and sees GE as an impediment to both food security and food sovereignty. In fact, considering the breadth of interests involved in producing the report, it's rather dim view of GE is quite damning.
I'm glad you like the report - (I have read it by the way)...It sets out the kinds of changes that we need to make in order for agriculture to at least move towards sustainability. That doesn't need to include GE.

A timely and sensible article. Thank you Jan van Aken. Articles such as yours allows the Australian public to debate and obtain additional information on the issue of GM crops.

I believe, at this stage where there is much controversy, denials and accusations, we should adhere to the precautionary principle - a principle often ignored by successive governments who are responsible for past agricultural catastrophes:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

For those who wish to peddle the following propaganda, or similar:

"I realised how full of crap Greenpeace must be."

I remind them that Greenpeace, for many decades, has had their main research and scientific laboratories at Exeter University in the UK.

They employ eminent scientists to research a number of disciplines:

Toxicology, organic and inorganic analytical chemistry, biochemistry and terrestrial and marine ecology. In addition, Greenpeace have well qualified consultants around the world all contributing to this research.

Discerning citizens in Australia are well aware that government scientists are constantly gagged and threatened if they divulge the truth. In 2007, all governments in Australia (state and federal) were exposed by researchers from UWA, for gagging and threatening academics, forcing them to keep their mouths shut on emerging revelations about health and environmental issues.

Now last Thursday's West Australian has reported that "WA health workers have been ordered to tell senior bureaucrats and spin doctors about all "contentious or sensitive" freedom of information requests, prompting accusations the Health Department is more worried about potentially embarrassing FOI disclosures than accountability."

These cover-ups further exacerbate the public's distrust of current governments. How then can we obtain accurate and honest information on GM crops when there are so many conflicting reports around the globe?

At least most people accept that Greenpeace reports without fear or favour.

I would say: "be thankful for that."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-dumps-antigm-expert/2007/05/26/1179601737365.html

Finally something very positive from the World through the IAASTD has come through but what does Australia do,follow the genocididal tendencies of the US. So much for our environmentally aware government.
All in Australia should be totally disgusted as us beekeepers and farmers are. We all need to do all we can to rid Australia of GMO's, from what I know of them and the company and people behind it, this should never of been allowed. So after us surviving a six year drought we are now facing the GM Canola, worse then any drought for at least you know where it is. But no one but the few planting it knows where the gm canola is. So we are facing the death of our bees the death of our agricultural industry both organic & conventional and forget about our exports.Not to mention the environment. So I urge each and every one of you to do all you can to help us get this out of the country now.
Lets all of us steer Australia in the right direction now before it is too late.

For embedded links see: http://tinyurl.com/6cpv5l

At the risk of being an arm chair critic given that I have not read the report - we have today and have had for many many years, not some time in the future, known how to literarily double our food growth in half the foot print ; do it organically; produce clean free energy as a byproduct; do it sustainably; and clean up the environment to boot! All this and more using tried and true time proven parmaculture and biodynamic methods already in public domain - so who is stopping us?

Australia, the US, Canada and their cronies. That who. Could it be stealing markets from fossil fuels, cleaning environment and an abundance of nutrient rich foods that keep us healthy be a little to threatening for the predatory corporations? These rich snobs with their self serving experts shills have repeatedly abused due diligence and continue to injure us. Their excuse. No money, Yet lots of money for wars at a drop of a had! They have usurped all our tax dollars to deliberately create from, richness and abundance, unconscionable wars and scarcity and environmental damage for personal gain for their cronies.

Just the cost of one year war in Iraq could easily pay for all the infrastructure for permanently establish abundance for all. But will they? And will we demand accountability or continue to be abused?

See:

Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food

GE Labelling - Government Adamant To Pass Bills C-51 & C-52

The Machinations Of The New World Order - The Farmer

Contrary to Bugsys comment that "Non-GM farmers conclusions about the document don't appear to be the actual case either". A copy of the relevent section in the report confirms my summary:

- GM performance questionable
- GM introduces additional liabilities for GM and non-GM farmers
- GM patents concentrate ownership, drive up costs, undermine economic sustainability and food security, inhibit seed-saving and restrict access to products needed for independent trials.

Direct from http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_210408_Final.pdf

"The application of modern biotechnology outside containment, such as the use of GM crops is much more contentious. For example, data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others.

Higher level drivers of biotechnology R&D, such as IPR frameworks, determine what products become available. While this attracts investment in agriculture, it can also concentrate ownership of agricultural resources. An emphasis on modern biotechnology without ensuring adequate support for other agricultural research can alter education and training programs and reduce the number of professionals in other core agricultural sciences. This situation can be self-reinforcing since today’s students define tomorrow’s educational and training opportunities.

The use of patents for transgenes introduces additional issues. In developing countries especially, instruments such as patents may drive up costs, restrict experimentation by the individual farmer or public researcher while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability. In this regard, there is particular concern about present IPR instruments eventually inhibiting seed-saving, exchange, sale and access to proprietary materials necessary for the independent research community to conduct analyses and long term experimentation on impacts. Farmers face new liabilities: GM farmers may become liable for adventitious presence if it causes loss of market certification and income to neighboring organic farmers, and conventional farmers may become liable to GM seed producers if transgenes are detected in their crops."

I stand behind what I said Non-GM Farmer.

-Yield variability does not equal "questionable performance" in reality, but to an anti-GM lobbyist guess it does. That GM crops can yield up to 30% higher is noted. It is not noted however under what circumstances yield declines occur. Yield declines happen under particular circumstances, as with all crops and varieties. Such as in heat-stress susceptible GM-soy which was found to yield less under high-heat climatic conditions. This is only relevant to particular areas. The same happens with all varieties, some are suited to particular conditions and some are not. These are not random variables. As a farmer I know you know this.

-All you have done with the other points is taken "concerns" and hypotheticals and turned them into assertions and "research findings".

This was not a "research" exercise, it was a review exercise. The millions of dollars spent went on travel and accommodation and administration costs for delegates mostly. It's on their website.

Oh, and Australia helped pay for it, along with Canada and the USA. How about that.

Try reading the full report rather than the summary.
The reason the GM industry stormed off the committee was because the report did not promote the usual pro-GM propaganda.
Yields also work in reverse, the higher yields could well have been due to better conditions or favoured trials. Why would GM crops yield worse in drought?