won, I assume you mean the tests that the WA Government paid Judy Carman to do? Firstly, you are aware that Judy Carman’s Institute just consists of an internet site and a PO Box aren’t you? Any work needs to be done under GLP and someone without a laboratory or track record would not fill me with confidence in their ability to conduct GLP. This is why companies outsource their testing to accredited laboratories. Now I don’t know anything about these trials, as I heard from Bill Crabtree that the trials are secret. I haven’t seen any evidence the companies refused to give approval. Perhaps Judy Carman wanted to keep the trials secret from the companies as well?

As for the NFU, they represent less than 5% of all Canadian farmers. It would be a bit like me claiming that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation represents your views.

Watchful Eye, you obviously have a job to do. Petition the Australian Government to pay for all testing of any GM product anyone wants to bring forward. Personally, I am against subsidising MNCs with my tax dollars, but you go ahead.

Watchful Eye, the proteins have been tested as safe, so it wouldn’t matter if they did appear in canola oil. However, the only chance you might get protein in the oil is in cold-pressed oil – even then, it would be minute quantities and inactive. The manufacturing process, by heating the oil denatures the proteins.

The rate of food-related anaphylaxis in Australia doubled between 1993 and 1997 before any GM foods were on the market here. It has doubled again in the intervening 10 years. http://www.allergy.org.au/images/stories/pospapers/2007_economic_impact_allergies_report_13nov.pdf While cause for concern, it is clearly not evidence that GM foods are causing an increase in food allergies. The overwhelming majority of food allergies remain to hens eggs, peanuts and tree nuts – none of these are GE.

The CSIRO tests for allergies from inserting the bean gene to a pea were interesting. There should have been no allergies and the pre-GM process analysis of the proteins would have been safe as beans and peas are safe. The tests though showed there was a problem.
The animals not only showed allergies to the GM food during the testing but developed allergies to products such as eggs after the testing as it permanently affected their immune system.
Allergies and immune system damage was also found by Monsanto and Arpad Puztai with different GM products.

Hi Agronomist,
Co2 is a common gas in our atmosphere. It causes global warming only when it is out of balance with the other gases in the atmosphere.

In the same way Bt is present in the soil. It becomes a problem only when GM Bt crops produce large ammounts of it.

The problems reported are: Bt poisoning aquatic animals, residual Bt in the soil damaging fungi causing problems with the next crop and increased allergenicity.

Soil health is vital to the health of crops. Interesting websites on this are www.soilfoodweb.com.au and www.fungi.com/front/stamets/index.html

You linked to a report on allergies to Bt cotton in Indian cotton pickers. Some people were hospitalised for 9-15 days. These cotton workers had picked cotton for years but noticed allergies only with Bt cotton. Doctors reported a huge increase in allergies. These results deserve further investigation.

Rojo - you ask what is wrong with plants producing pesticide. Presumably farmers do not want pests to attack their crops. You therefore assume that plants producing the Bt pesticide will stop attack. Bt is not toxic to all insects. In India cotton Bt crops resistant to bollworm were attacked by mealy bugs instead.

So plants produced Bt pesticide that is shown to be allergenic, toxic to soil and aquatic life yet still get eaten by bugs. To me this is a failure.

Most tests on GM crops and food are animal production studies (ie to show animals gain weight when fed GM), very short (one dose of GM and if animal still alive 14 days later the GM is deemed safe)or rarely longer than 4 weeks.

Scientists who report GM having negative effects are attacked i.e. Arpad Pustai (fed rats GM potatoes and went public with their numerous health problems), Irina Ermakova (rats fed GM soy, pups dead, stunted or infertile) and Judy Carman (reports on why GM tests inadequate to show safe for us to eat)have all been mentioned in this blog. However their studies have not been repeated.

GM food needs to have long term, multi-generational, independent testing. The raw data must be presented and discussed

Agronomist you really do not know what you are talking about. I did not say the any tests were done. I commented that the WA government wants to do testing but cannot. Do you understand GM s are patented and no testing can be legally done unless permission is obtained from the patent holder? The only secrets are those the biotech companies hold. And hold them they will as they do not allow for any testing to de done that they cannot control the outcome of.
Rob from Canada the only ‘mountains of tests’ done are those funded by the corporations which hold the patents or by those they choose to do the tests on their behalf and can control. You obviously think you are better that the 700 scientists on the IAASTD project of which the biotech companies were part of. Sorry they didn’t come up with the answer you wanted, but the correct one for the world moving forward. This project was bigger than the biotech companies and they could not rig the results.
At the end of the day I do not have a problem with GM. I would be happy for GM lovers to eat as much of the stuff as they want and feed it to their children. I have an issue with the fact that GM farmers contaminate non GM farmers grains and in turn I end up without a choice to avoid GM. Contamination and labelling issues make it impossible for me to decide what I eat and give to my children. It’s a Nazi like mentality to dictate the food chain.
GM is not the answer to anything but big corporation’s profits and those paid by these corporations to be their mouth pieces. Time will certainly provide the answers and I hope all pro GM people can look their children in the eye and admit their failings in the future.

Lets see. in 1995 GT73 (Roundup Ready)was cleared by regulators in Canada and the US, in 2000 Australia and the EU in 1997 cleared it and China in 2004. So are you trying to tell this forum all these countries regulatory agencies accepted it without scrutiny of the safety data? Or are you saying the biotech companies are too smart for the regulators and have fooled them all?

In 1995 Canada, the US cleared HCN92 (Pat gene), in 1996 Japan, in 2001 Australia and in 2004 China. So once again are you suggesting all these countries were duped? Not very likely.

As I said there is not a single case documented of allergic responses to any commercial GM protein. Yes there are all kinds of wild accusations but zip proof.

So I will assume you did not read "Why the IAASTD Failed" how can we discuss it if you will not read it?

Seems none of the critics will admit the Pusztai paper was very poor science and proved nothing. Same with the Chapela paper and the Russian so-called research.

We are twelve years of commercialization and no eveidence of harm at all from GM crops and food.

I challenge the notion testing can not be done because of patents. Any researcher can test any GM product if they like but they had better get the science correct if they publish it. peer review can be harsh on bad science.

Rob from Canada why don't you follow up the patent laws. You are completely wrong with your statement that anyone can do testing on GMs. Your information is very flawed.
By the way Monsanto also told us for years that Round up was biodegradable but lied and were taken to court in Europe. They had to take this claim off the packaging. If you trust them go ahead but those who do not want GM should not be forced to.
In regards to politics just look at Monsantos history of bribes. Yes they have the money to determine the political outcome.