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.