Non-GM farmer, I think if you looked at the data you would find the protein introduced into the peas belongs to a family of proteins well known to be allergenic. You would also find that sugar residues are important for generating a response. The different sugar residues used by peas compared with beans meant this protein produced a response in mice. However, proteins like EPSPS that do not belong to families with allergenic potential and do not get sugars added won’t produce a response.

lillian, Bt content of soil varies naturally by over 1000-fold. The total number of bacteria is 100-3000 million per gram. With 25% being Bt, that is 5x10^17 Bt per hectare. I don’t think the added Bt from crops is going to change the concentration all that much. Also, Bt crops have now been grown for 12 years, continuously in some fields, and no obvious problems have arisen.

Bt poisoning in aquatic animals is, as I have shown, a factor of concentration. The amount required in waterways is huge.

If you had read that study on Bt cotton labourers in India, you would have noticed that labourers without exposure to Bt crops were specifically excluded, as were those exposed but without symptoms. So, no the symptoms were not only with Bt cotton. The authors chose to focus only on those individuals reporting symptoms from Bt cotton and from this trying to convince that Bt was allergenic.

In Pusztai’s study the rats fed control potatoes had just as many changes to their intestines as those fed GM potatoes. http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/02/analysis-of-pusztai-study-on-gm.html

In Ermakova’s study there was high mortality in the control rats. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/ermakovas-gm-soy-trials-in-rats-get.html

Both these studies are flawed. I don’t know of any GM stuidies by Carman.

won, are you telling me that the WA Government has not given more than $90,000 to Judy Carman to do a GM feeding study? I would count that as evidence that the WA Government can do studies, wouldn’t you? The patent only stops the crops being grown for financial gain without permission, not tested. I could go out and run a test tomorrow.

No agronomist, you can't run out and do a test tomorrow. You need permission to do any testing at all (agronomic and health) and the company needs to be involved in release of information.

Read Monsantos contract and read the IAASTD report which is a $12m / 4 year research project funded byt FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank and WHO). They found GM performance was questionable, GM introduces additional liabilities for GM and non-GM farmers, GM patents concentrate ownership, drive up costs, undermine economic sustainability and food security, inhibits seed-saving and restricts access to products needed for independent trials.

Yes, the sugar residues are important for generating a response but why are the sugars different in the final GM product than in the pre-GM product that is analysed under the regulatory system. There was an increase in glucosilinates in GM canola which indicates the final structure of the final protein is different than the amino acid backbone that is analysed. We as consumers only care about the product we are expected to eat and the regulatory system should not avoid testing it and then promote that the product is "rigorously tested and proven safe" when it is not.

The reason researchers, governments, seed industry, agronomists, marketers etc are pushing GM is because they plan on making more money out of plant breeding. Who ultimately pays for this? Its farmers that can't afford it. Who will ultimately pay for it? Consumers. Its a pyramid selling arrangement where the GM industry and the R&D industry want to take a cut out of all food produced.

Farmers and consumers can't afford industry parasites.

Hi Agronomist

You are making assumptions about the effect of GM Bt crops on the environment ie

“I don’t think the added Bt from crops is going to change the concentration all that much. Also, Bt crops have now been grown for 12 years, continuously in some fields, and no obvious problems have arisen. “

This ignores the studies I have listed showing there are reported problems with toxicity to aquatic creatures and soil and reports of allergies.

Assumptions that ignore evidence to the contrary show a belief system not scientific rigour.

Arpad Pustai is a reputable scientist who was not anti-GM when he fed rats GM potato. He worked for the Rowlett Institute and considered he would routinely test GM foods to show they were safe.

He was so concerned with the results of the tests that he went public with them. For this he was sacked and vilified. No GM food on our shelves has received the same level of testing that Pustai did.

Ermakova has been attacked for her study. However it has not been repeated and so her findings cannot be discounted.

Dr Judy Carman is an epidemiologist. She worked on the AIDS epidemic in Sydney and was asked to determine whether rabbit Calicivirus would harm people it was accidentally released. She has done numerous animal feeding trials. Therefore she is eminently qualified to do a GM canola oil feeding trial.

You mention that many countries have passed GM food as safe and question whether they all could be wrong.

The assumption that GM food is safe should not rest on the numbers of countries where it has passed regulatory approval. It should rest on the quality of the evidence on the health effects of GM foods. As I have previously stated, most tests done on animals are animal production studies to show they gain weight when fed GM food. They are not studies to show the effects of GM food on human health.

You mentioned a multigenerational study of rats done in the 1990’s. Please give details of this study.

Non-GM farmer, yes I could do a test tomorrow. In Canada you can buy Roundup Ready and Clearfield canola seed and could run an agronomic test without permission. You merely have to pay the royalties on the bags of seed. You do know what glucosinolates are don’t you? They don’t change the amino acid backbone of proteins. Canola was bred to have low levels of glucosinolates in the seed. Tests in Canada in 1996 and 1997 showed GM canola had lower glucosinolates than did non-GM canola. http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/4/223.htm and to 2001 http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FAGS%2FAGS142_03%2FS0021859604004393a.pdf&code=0e55f901597081e083c2e95bce65491e

lillian, I responded to one study you mentioned showing the study had the equivalent of 50g/L of corn kernels in water – completely unrealistic concentrations. The second study had too little detail. We know AFM respond to nutrient conditions in the soil. The abstract did not say whether soil nutrient conditions had been measured or what they were. It also didn’t indicate whether there were nutrient composition differences between the corn lines that might explain the response. Other studies have found no difference http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/20/6577 http://www.ajol.info/viewarticle.php?jid=259&id=34899 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7CW5-4NNPB70-3&_user=162644&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=162644&md5=427ed531ff9e016db4401eabc1f0c464 even after 4 years of corn http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/2/647 What do we make of this?

Perhaps I should re-iterate – Pusztai’s experiment was flawed. Even the Royal Society said so http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6170 Given the study didn’t really tell us anything, Pusztai’s big mistake was thinking that it did.

Again I should re-iterate. There was already one study out there before Ermakova started and it reported no significant effect and no deaths in the control animals http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-49V77YW-1&_user=162644&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=162644&md5=86d1451dfd5cb68cb83ef6f8cad5afb9 – so it has in a sense been repeated. The full methods of Ermakova’s study have not been published so it would be very difficult to repeat exactly.

As for Judy Carman, a search of pubmed turns up 4 papers – none are feeding studies. So her track record in animal feeding studies is what exactly?

hi all,

1. My intention to organise a filmed debate / forum was genuine. Thanks for the 'hand up', Rojo, indeed, farmers will be contacted and involved. I have some other projects ready to go first however.

2. Agronomist ( and others ) - as you would know but choose to ignore or deny I suspect - here is an extract from the email ( I recommend everyone read the whole piece, it's not long, see link at bottom ):

Starts here :

...Email from Dr Brian John (GM Free Cymru) to Professor Mike Gasson (ACNFP Chairman):

You say this:

"…Dr Ermakova's findings are not consistent with those described in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2004. In a well controlled study no adverse effects were found......…"

http://food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfpgmsoya.pdf

The following points are relevant, and have been made by a number of scientists who have looked at both studies:

1. Brake and Evenson had a completely different - and highly specific - focus in their GM soya study (testicular development in young male rats) and aspects of their study were very poorly described. The authors may know a lot about sperm and testes analytical techniques, and male fertility issues, but it does not follow that they are experts in nutritional studies.

For 2,3,4,5,6,7,8..( go to link below )

....9. Ermakova was so surprised by her own results re offspring mortality rates that she repeated the experiment three times, with similar results. This is not the action of a slapdash or biased scientist. She also asked histologists to perform analyses of some of the organs of "Non-GM" rats and "GM rats". They investigated testes and liver and found great changes in the cells of these organs similar to those found by the Italian scientist M.Malatesta.

What we are saying is this: there are even more problems and uncertainties associated with the Brake / Evenson study than there are with the Ermakove study......"

Here is the full version : ( refer to Document 3a specifically )

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp_75_11_gmsoya.pdf

Is your argument always a case of 'my scientist is better than your scientist' ?

...Thanks

Here are just a few of the many (some independent) research papers on safety of GM crops and food.
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/gen_safety.html

And for one type of GM canola...
http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=GT73%2C+RT73

The fact is there is MOUNTAINS of safety data. There is no evidence of harm from consumption of GM crops.

I wonder why 25 Nobel Laureates support agricultural biotechnology.