More arm waving, biased, scare mongering, emotional claptrap from the anti GM Luddites.

By inhibiting the research and testing of crops tailored to thrive in otherwise harsh climatic environments these Luddites can complain that not enough research is being done to prove the safety of the end product.

These are the same people that in the late 1800s would have banned electricity generation because women and children could be electrocuted. Thank goodness we had more effective political leadership then.

firstly to Bob, excellent article, Thankyou and keep up the great work.
to Bruce,sad to see such a negative response.
Remember DDT.......
I would recommend you read a book 'Seeds of Deception', do some checking re it's contents and be shocked.

Promote Organics & bioDynamics re Food. GM is anti-nature.

"Our planet produces enough food to feed its entire population". More food production is not the only answer to world hunger."
I'm guessing gene ethics don't extend to general ethics, because whilst our planet does indeed produce enough food to feed it's population, thats the here and now. Unfortunately forecasts predict a increase in population to 9 billion by 2050, but also this population will have a demand that consumes twice that of the present population. Bob thinks we should be doing that without mechanisation and big oil it seems. A joyious return to subsistance farming.
Now I'm quite happy with the "precautionary principle" but GM technology has been around for over 10 years in commercial production in Australia alone, let alone worldwide. Without a whimper of ill effect. In fact the whole article manages to skip around any evidence relating to why GM crops are not part of the solution to global needs.
Somehow Monsanto is bad because it's big yet Microsoft with equal or greater influence in it's field gets favourable mention? Have some consistancy, please.
Comment is made about little in the GM pipeline in the next 10-20 years, but the requirements we'll have are generations hence. I'm afraid there is little foresight in the anti-GM campaign, and little information.

"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." (IAASTD)
isn't quite the same as Bob's "The 2,500 page report found no conclusive evidence that GM crops can increase productivity". Obviously they did find yield increases, but I note with interest that they didn't quantify the supposed declines. Bob profers a 5-10% decrease in "some" GM corn/beans, but the increases can be up to 33%. Not quite the whole story is it. The IAASTD view GM as a tool, but recognise it isn't the answer to all the problems.

For a piece on GM theres a lot of talk about obesity, Howard and sustainable living. Some of which is relevant but none of which justifies an anti-GM stance.

People who can choose, choose non-GM.
GM is not yet reliably tested for long-term effects on consumers, despite what the review boards in Aussie might say [since they are stacked with industry employees, who obviously have a conflict of interest].
In Europe, they don't accept GM food. Same in Japan. Tasmania is winning big contracts because it is still separate from GM. Why not WA?
Farmers work like peasants for their GM corporation, who control what seeds the can use, and what chemicals they have to use to get the seed to grow.
GM is totally reliant on petroleum products- for equipment fuel, fertilizer, and biocides- therefore GM is unsustainable against Peak Oil. Local, well-designed and managed permaculture gardens do very well with no petrol products on small and [as community gardens] medium levels.
The more access you have to local, non-GM ['Heritage'] seed, the less you have to leave your food security to Monsanto and other TNCs who see food as just another commodity to manipulate for profit.

Japan chooses not to grow GM but seems to have no problem importing it.
http://www.grdc.com.au/director/events/groundcover?item_id=E875E53EFF6AA51EA55177E7F527CCBA&article_id=E921F029DCE3624CB640331BDBA1BED1

"Tasmania is winning big contracts because it is still separate from GM. Why not WA?" excellent question, and a quandry for those in power that continue to refuse to allow GM crops in WA.

"Farmers work like peasants for their GM corporation, who control what seeds the can use, and what chemicals they have to use to get the seed to grow." They don't have to, they can continue exactly as they have always done.

"GM is totally reliant on petroleum products- for equipment fuel, fertilizer, and biocides- therefore GM is unsustainable against Peak Oil."
as opposed to conventional farming? What part of GM is bad on that score?

Another typical emotional anti-science rant from one of the 'anything but GM' brigade. If GM food plants aren't an economic proposition for farmers, then they won't plant them, but campaigners like Phelps want to deny farmers (in both rich and poor countries) the opportunity to make their own decision.
And Phelps says: "Shifting from industrial agribusiness to sustainable farming is essential and means investing in research and development to help farmers optimise their use of land and water resources." Farming will be sustainable if we give farmers the fullest possible range of tools to choose from and the information they need to become sustainable, but Phelps denies them many of tools in the toolbox because he is anti-GM. And GM plants are the products of the very research and development that Phelps is calling for. Because he doesn't like this R&D outcome, however, he now wants to limit R&D to things that he approves of. This can only lead to a narrowing of the R&D outcomes and this displays an anti-science mentality which his shallow, emotional article simply doesn't justify.

An excellent article Bob, particularly the exposure of the government R&D sector. It is for this reason that those of us who reveal the pro-GM propaganda are attacked so vehemently.

With the introduction of the TRIPS and UPOV agreements, Australian research was able to patent techniques and intellectual property from the research undertaken. Unfortunately, research institutes were also faced with increased costs and restricted access to plant breeding technologies because technologies normally freely traded are covered by expensive patents. This led to the requirement to attract corporate investment and alliances to plant breeding, particularly for biotechnology where numerous patents were involved in each variety produced.

In 1999, CSIRO responded to a Senate question: “How best can Australia capitalize on its publicly funded biotechnology?”

"In most cases, Australia alone does not have the resources or market access, or often the total required intellectual property, to take successful discoveries in biotechnology to the global markets these products can command and need to recoup investment in R&D.“

“The multinationals recognise that this country has some of the most effective plant gene technology research teams in the world and that these are likely to be of consequence in the development of their own business systems. They are willing, in most cases, to consider trades with some of their intellectual property.”

The regulatory process was set up as a public relations exercise to promote biotechnology investment, not to find a problem. GM canola oil was proven as "safe for human consumption" when the oil was not tested at all and the remaining meal escapes regulation because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed.

Governments are promising segregation and choice when there is no intention to deliver it. Lying to the public is only a short term solution.

To adequately feed and NOURISH the world's ever-growing population - yes - we do need more food than what is available now. The burning question is WHICH foods? Is the answer more of what is currently being produced (Yield) or is it an increase in varieties to ensure a nourishing diet rather than simply a calorific increase - two VERY different arguments.

The disconnect between humans knowing how their bodies function and the on-going reduction in the number of foods available to nourish them is continuing to rocket along.

Three generations ago, the varieties of foodstuffs was in the tens of thousands; according to recent calculations (and I'm sorry I don't have the source at my fingertips) this has diminished. Now, 90 per cent of all food consumed across the planet is derived from around 30 species.

This is as a result of industrialised agriculture deliberately selecting certain breeds (animals and plants)and growing them in monocultures to the exclusion of any other species. (Think of the advertisements for herbicides - Terminate / dominate / eradicate...)

The developers and proponents of genetic engineering are wrapped up in the paradigm of 'more-of-the-same'. In the context of changing climates, we need an expansion of species diversity - already developed through natural selection to cope with the vagaries and varieties of differing climates and weather patterns BUT..... there isn't much income to be generated through this strategy.

With the notion of INNOVATION high in government policy, the current definition revolves around the development of a technology or process which can be commercialised. Yes, GE seeds can be on-sold BUT the process of halting the use of patented biocides and allowing the natural biodiversity to establish and strengthen improves only the landholders income.......

When will the Departments of Agriculture cease supporting Agri-business and instead become the Ministries of Food?

Cheers and much feasting on Low Human Interference Foods,

the Bush Goddess

Bernie writes: "Another typical anti-science rant". People who question the value of GM technologies are calling for more science, not less. More rigorous testing, and so on.

Many senior geneticists, toxicologists and health scientists have warned of hazards of GM foods. Just a few examples: Professor Gilles Eric Séralini, Emeritus Professor Richard Strohman, Professor Patrick Brown, Emeritus Professor Richard Lacey, Dr Rosemary Stanton, Dr Judy Carman, Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, Dr Mae Wan-Ho, Professor Barry Commoner, Dr Michael Antoniou, Prof Stuart A Newman, Nobel Prize winner George Wald, Dr David Suzuki... on the list goes. Are these scientists "anti-science"?

Katherine: thanks for your post. As a scientist, I have found over the years that some scientists will come out in support of or in opposition to an issue for a host of reasons: they may be genuinely concerned; they may be seeking funding for research; they may be trying to raise their standing in academic circles; or, if opposed, they may be nothing more than conservatives who are inherently cautious about change - any change, even for the better.
I do not recognise many of the names in your list of scientists who have spoken out against GMOs but I could just as easily provide you with a much larger list of scientists who support GM technology: those who work for agri-businesses; academics who are doing research; and so on.
The important point is not WHO is opposed but WHY they are opposed and ON WHAT GROUNDS. To date, I am unconvinced of the vast bulk of claims made in opposition to GM food, although I support stricter food labelling laws and on-going rigorous research to ensure the safety of GM foods. To date, and Phelps article is a typical example, there are numerous emotional claims made against GMOs, most of them not backed up by scientific research but by people's concerns about "what if....". The reality is that it is almost impossible to prove a negative and, with millions of people eating millions of meals every day containing GM foods, the evidence of adverse impacts simply does not exist

I'm a dairy farmer and member of the VFF and Landcare. I oppose GM crops because I support sustainable farming of my soils and pasture.
GM crops are a dead end, and they are NOT tested on soils, other crops, or humans.
So my question to Bernie and the other supporters is, what is your job, and why are you so keen on this stuff. There are plenty of other ways to maximize production.

Wozza: I've been a member of a south west WA landcare group since 1991 and an a board member of the local catchment management group. I'm not a farmer but a trained scientist and a former state MP. In 2001, I was the opposition spokesman on biotechnology when legislation was introduced into the WA parliament so I went to a lot of trouble to research the issues, concerns and claimed benefits of GMOs. The bottom line is that the multitude of emotional claims against GM technology are overwhelmingly without foundation.
As for the affect of GM plants on soils and other crops, they remain plants (they're not a new type of organism after all) and they will have impacts that will be essentially no different to other similar plants. I can't see how resistance to a particular herbicide can cause a GM plant to have any adverse impact on the soil, for example, if the overall use of that herbicide is reduced by 60% compared to non-GM plants.
If there are plenty of alternatives to GM plants, can you supply links to information on the salt tolerant wheat that WA farmers would love to use in the salinised sections of their property, to request just one example of an alternative.
Overall, I'm comfortable with the use of new technology to make the world a better place to live and, in my view, GM should be part of our future.

wozza, "I oppose GM crops because I support sustainable farming of my soils and pasture."

I would question on what basis you believe this, I haven't seen anyone claim potential damage to the soil, and after 10 years of growing GM cotton have seen no effect on soil. Obviously pasture is not desireable in a crop, so I can't comment on that but would wonder why you would expect an effect on it since you aren't using glyphosate on pasture anyway. The Bt gene(for insects) is from a soil bacterium in the first place.

Sometimes you wonder where organic producers are coming from, they don't use glyphosate(if they are genuine) so resistance really won't affect them. They can use Bt sprays, so concern from that repect is quite hollow.

The more I think about it GM is quite likely the only really sustainable way to farm, no relying on pesticides, perhaps work on nitrogen nodulation like legumes, alleopathy and drought genes. What's not to like about the future? You never know if you don't have a go.