roushy,

"if the somewhat paranoid, highly defensive pro-GM lobby team"

"If I hear another ProGMer go on about how emotional or irrational NoGMers are, or that NoGMers should even dare question anything GM at all , I'll puke."

Well that sounds like a balanced view indeed, and the edited in-context program should certainly clear the air.

rojo84_10 AT hotmail.com if you require a farmers perspective, sorry no scientific bona fides, only experience.

What I will say about the anti-GM lobby is their willingness to include all manners of disinformation, whether it be the supposed reasons for the Argentinian soy tax, corporation control/seed monopoly, or heaven forbid - profit. It's a position that displays weakness of argument which is why the fall-back to the dogma of "seeds of deception" and ad-hominem attacks on counterparties exist. By all means prove GM is harmful in any way to humans or the environment and farmers will listen. I agree put up or shut up.
Any use in discussion of verifiable material, preferably of a non-conspiratorial nature, will be most welcome and is well overdue. Good luck.

The notion that patents only apply to novel uses and not to living organisms is actually a furphy. Following the onco mouse case in Canada which supported long-held precedents that patents could not be given over living organisms, the Canadian high court effectively (but not explicitly) reversed this position in the Schmeiser case. You cannot hold and control a patent over a novel organism in a living organism without also controlling the living organism. How do you separate the patented component of a biologically reproducing organism from the organism itself. The court's support for this kind of extreme reductionist view of life has rendered the limits and constraints on patents virtually meaningless. By the way, the notion of novelty is pretty much dead in patents - the patenting of junk jeans - along with a host of bio-piracy cases are converting patent law into a colonising law of 'occupation/possession equals ownership.'
Anyone who thinks that intellectual property rights law isn't a handmaiden to the savage push for corporate control of food is simply dreaming.

Rob from Canada.
Thanks you and the sites said it better than I have.
I've read much of it before but couldn't remember where. I’ve now listed the site
This is the stuff I would like to see Agronomist and the pro team address.

What I said or meant to stress was it is the manner of 3rd world penetration and domination that concerns me and currently the two can’t reasonably discussed in isolation. This is clearly reinforced on this site. i.e. If they'll pull these strokes where laws are tight well…. Leopards and spots come to mind! You mess with food you mess with survival of real people not just (amoral) profitability calculations

The potential damage they're doing in the 3rd world without the same level of controls is frightening.

I do think however, that GM will be important at some time once we learn how to ensure adequate testing and control the mega corps to the point where by the public isn’t abused by their seeming manic drive for extra ordinary profits.

Cheers
examinator

Hi Rojo,
You say you are spraying on much less pesticide thanks to Bt cotton. I'm sure that is so however since every Bt cotton plant is a pesticide factory this does not mean that there is less pesticide in your fields.

As you mention the reduction in sprayed on pesticide will only be maintained as long as pests do not develop immunity. Even with refuges for insects, continual growing of Bt and GM crops will produce resistance in insect populations. It is just what nature is designed to do - adapt.

Robert Kremer, a microbiologist from the US Department of Agriculture found that every time Roundup is applied there is a spike in the soil bourne fungus Fusarium. This causes disease in crops.

"In Northern NSW and Queensland Fusarium is devastating cotton at a cost of about $100 million a year". Full details in this article http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/gm-foods-can-be-dangerous-but-you-do-the-research/2007/12/13/1197135654134.html

Finally Don Huber, emeritus Professor on Botany and Plant Pathology of Pardue University Indiana has done studies showing that Roundup prevents plants taking up nutrients from the soil.

This could cause mineral and vitamin deficiencies in crops and affect the health of people and animals who eat them. This is especially relevant in Australia as we have old and fragile soils

Exterminator

I do not understand your post entirely. Yes the developing world is using GM crops and yes the poor farmers are benefiting from that use. China will very soon commercialize many crops so no one company will "control the food supply" India and Brazil are not far behind.

I am somewhat familiar with the testing of GM crops. What in particular would you like to see strenthened? They are already by far the most highly tested food ever. They are the only food compared to known allergens. Not one single illnes has ever been documented linked to consumption of GM ingredients. This is my second post today so I will not be able to respond til tomorrow.
Cheers

Why is it that organic farmers are allowed to use Bt to control insects and no one seems concerned about the said insects becoming resistant, but as soon as the GM scientists put a Bt gene in something you all start screaming. It seems like rank hypocrisy to me.

David