Greg, your assumption that the the pool of genes in nature is closed is wrong. Change is the norm at the gene level in nature. On top of this continual re-engineering of genes by nature to produce new genes, every occurrence of sexual reproduction shuffles genes in the chromosomes so the gene expression is changed by more then ten fold compared to a single novel gene insertion by genetic modification.

Despite the cost to consumers all food which is in any way changed through gm food content is labelled. These rules, like the approval processes, entrench the advantages of larger companies in the food chain.

Food safety requires science and technology as most serious food borne illness are caused by natural processes. It is only with the use of modern science and chemistry that we are supplying a larger population with more and safer food than ever before.

Where once a farmer may have recognised the danger posed by a toxic weed contaminants or fungal and bacterial infection and destroyed that food supply (you hope), today modern pesticides and breeding, including gm, means more food is produced with less waste.

You appear to not understand that your call for labelling of chemically and physically identical foods, such as canola oil, will entrench the advantages and power of large companies.

If living organisms could not be patented, GM crops would not be patented but they are.
Monsanto's RR gene is patented and through alliances with seed companies is added to the existing crops that are covered under Plant Breeder Rights.
This year, Australian farmers growing GM canola for the first time pay:
At least twice as much for the seed.
A fee of $500/farm (which is half price for this year) for the paperwork involved in growing GM.
$10.20 "discounted" end point royalty - which means it is deducted when the farmer delivers his crop for sale.
How do farmers stop paying this fee?
All Argentinian pays an export tax on soy of 44.1% which was introduced to pay Monsanto their royalty on seed they had replanted. Brazilian farmers pay a royalty unless the non-GM farmer proves they have no GM which is impossible considering the sensitivity of the test and the ability to contaminate.
And what benefit does the farmer get? With RR canola, you can spray glyphosate up to 6 leaf stage. As a residual grass control is needed to prevent ryegrass causing massive yield penalties on emergence, an alternative grass killer is used (trifluralin).
GM is only a weed control system and Non-GM TT varieties offer better and cheaper weed control.

Hi Agronomist,
you are spreading confusion with your posts. A large study reported GM crops yield about the same as non-GM crops. However GM soy has been reported as yielding 5-10% less.

Crossing a plant with soil bacteria (Bt)can only happen in a laboratory. Eating a bit of soil is totally different to eating the Bt toxin genetically engineered into every plant cell. The methods to make this cross breeding work have unpredictable consequences.

Toxin producing Bt plants washing into streams is causing death, infertility and stunting in caddis fly and water fleas. These form the basis of the food chain. The effects of Bt on soil creatures has not been studied. It could also be affecting soil health and fertility.

You say naturally occuring genes cannot be patented. Rice Tec was granted the N. American rights for basmati rice. It claimed to have invented 20 traits and breeding processes. Subsequently this was challenged and 4 of the 20 claims were struck down. however the issue of biopiracy, protection of farmers rights and common knowledge is not clear.

If 3rd world farmers are able to make informed choices why is GM seed being given away for free in South Africa? Is this to contaminate open pollinated varieties so patents can be enforced?

Monsanto could give away open pollinated corn if it really wanted to help 3rd world farmers as it is now the largest commercial seed company in the world.

Why did Monsanto have a huge media campaign in India using Bollywood stars to promote Bt cotton? One star pulled out citing the suicide of farmers growing GM crops and GM crop failure as the reasons.

You say GM crops use less pesticide. The US Dept of Agriculture figures showed that since the introduction of GM crops pesticide use has increased 15 fold.

Data on pesticides will no longer be collected due to budget cuts. Many groups protested against this cut. Monsanto was conspicuous by not protesting against this.

GM crops are all about power, profit and control and so far there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.

David

You "point out to the dimwits, that eating GM foods has never been shown to be deleterious, so why all the fuss".

GM foods have "never been shown to be deleterious" because no one has looked for deleterious effects, and no one could look when the products have been widely released without labelling.

Some claim that the known increase in allergies is due to GM crops. We have no idea whether such claims are true or false. It would be good to know one way or the other. For that to happen, we would need product labelling and tests conducted by independent scientists. Sounds reasonable to me!

Check Medline and you'll find the few published studies on GM foods are funded or directly done by GM companies. Conflict of interest is a problem as we have seen with studies conducted with funding from pharmaceutical companies. Such studies return results that are much more favourable to the company than independently funded studies.

The large GM companies will not permit independent tests and farmers who provide seed for such tests risk huge fines. What's their problem with independent testing?

And if GM products have benefits, why do GM companies lobby so hard to oppose labelling?

It makes many people suspicious that the companies have something to hide.

Unbeholden

I think we should all be extremely concerned that the world's seed supply can be controlled by just a few and that there is no effective mechanisms in place to ensure that consumers can make informed choices about avoiding GM. Well done to Greg Revell for putting this information on the Internet. I'm certainly not convinced that GM is harm free and reports produced by the companies behind GM is no way to verify this is the case.

Non-GM farmer, I was strictly correct when I stated that living organisms cannot be patented. This has after all been tested in the Canadian Courts in Schmeiser v Monsanto 2004, the Canadian High Court found that Schmeiser did not have to pay profits from use of Roundup Ready canola as he did not use glyphosate on the crop and hence did not use the patent.

lillian, whether higher yields are obtained with GM crops depends on numerous factors, even for the same crop. In Australia, cotton growers get no more yield from Bt cotton because their cotton was previously fully protected from Helicoverpa damage by spraying insecticides. What the farmers get is having to spray 80% less insecticide. In India, cotton farmers do get more yield out of Bt cotton, because they were unable to afford the expensive pesticides Australian growers could.

Toxin producing Bt plants washing into streams is not causing death, infertility and stunting in caddis fly and water fleas. Insufficient Bt material is ending up in streams to create toxicity. And there have been quite a few studies of the effect of Bt on soil organisms. Given Bt is naturally present in soil, unsurprisingly negative impacts are few and far between.

Rice Tec was not given the N.American rights to Basmati rice. Rice Tec put in a patent on the use of 3 cultivars created by crosses between Basmati and American rice varieties. The use of Basmati in the patent claim title caused some consternation. Under review, Rice Tec reduced the number of claims to 5 and amended the title of the patent.

lillian, are you suggesting to me that Australian cotton growers are all mistaken and they have not in fact reduced their pesticide use with Bt cotton? What about the 90% of canola growers in Canada who no longer have to put 1-1.5 kg per hectare of pre-emergent herbicide out? Even the USDA agrees that pesticide use has decreases on Bt cotton, Roundup Ready cotton, Bt corn and Roundup Ready corn. Use has increased slightly on Roundup Ready soybeans.