Please how can you possibly argue that GM food is safe when genetech companies won't allow as many independent studies as possible for publication and peer review. It is impossible to prove either way until independent research is done.

If Genetech companies were not afraid that results of independent test would show GM food is unsafe they could have allowed hundreds of feeding tests already.

It's as simple as that.

They obviously know they are not safe. All the pro GM activists should also want these independent studies to take place and prove their position. Allow them to happen. Publish and debate the results like real scientists do.

The genetech companies together should come out and say that if GM is found to be bad for the environment, health or bees, in the future, they would take complete financial and legal responsibility to fix it at any cost. If they are so sure GM is safe they should put their money where their mouth is. GM farmers should also be responsible for any contamination to other farms or government property. Whoever wants it should pay for it. Those who do not want it should not be forced to have it.

Hi Rob and Agronomist
The figure of 1,500 to 3,000 more bt toxin in GM than sprayed plants was taken from Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith.

He also recounts how when Bt was sprayed in Vancouver, to fight a gypsy moth infestation, nearly 250 people reported reactions, mostly allergy or flu like symptoms.

There have been reports that Indian cotton workers have had allergies when picking GM cotton. Also there have been deaths of sheep when they grazed on the GM cotton plants after harvest.

A new report on Bt shows that Bt GM plants leave residues in the soil that negatively affects the fungi. http://www.ifoam.org/events/ifoam_conferences/owc/modules/abstracts_pdfs/turrini_abs_GMO.pdf Healthy soil, with healthy fungi, are vital to good crop growth. The work of Paul Stamets on fungi and the Soil Food Web Institute is fascinating. They show that the health of the soil is key to healthy crops and food.

Please can you give details of the four generational rat study done in the 1990's?

Some excellent posts that pretty well some up the debate.

Agronomics and Economics:
Against side: Want to discuss details and independent trials on a case by casis as GM canola offers nothing better than what we already have in non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties). For example, Pratleys report showed a 5 year study resulting in a $7/ha advantage and if the additional costs were integrated and if the non-GM comparisons were treated correctly (ie. weed control), the claimed agronomic and economic benefits would easily be negated.
For side: Prefer a football team mentality of pro-GM versus anti-GM rather than in depth discussion about the traits offered. For example, GM canola offers no residual control of weeds, Glyphosate can not be applied after 6 leaf stage and Glufosinate ammonium does not control radish and turnip. Want to rely on promotions and paper summaries of data prepared by the industries with a vested interest without discussing detail that exposes the misleading assumptions.

Health and food choice:
Against side: Want independent health testing that actually tests the GM food. Want a choice to avoid GM foods until satisfied.
For side: Happy claiming a regulatory process that relies on industry self management is satisfactory. ie. GM canola was proven as "safe" but the oil from GM canola was not tested - the products from the origin of the gene was analysed rather than the product itself and no animal feeding studies were done on GM canola oil. The tests done were stock feed related (breast meat depth, carcass weight etc) which is relevent to stock feed which is not regulated as FSANZ has no authority over stock feed. Happy claiming that coexistence will work when there is no intention for it to work as this will deny consumer choice.

If the GM industry truly believed in the agronomic, economic benefits and truly disbelieved the health risks, why not prove it? Why not allow GM products to be independently tested? What are you so frightened of, the truth?

Watchful Eye
"By their fruits shall ye know them"
Indeed!

A useful guide to The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation can be found in a recent book "Seeds of Destruction" by F. William Engdahl.
http://globalresearch.ca/books/SoD.html
"What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production." (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)

By their fruits, the world is getting to know them. The industry mantras are losing their power. The global corporate agendas are coming apart at the seams with the collapse of the established economic and financial order.

No doubt the biotech fellow travelers will regurgitate their vicious attacks on Dr Pusztai.
Those with open eyes will know exactly how and why this man of great integrity and courage was crucified. Understanding that speaks volumes about where the biotech industry comes from.

We trust these corporations to our great peril!

I will try again. Which test that are currently done on GM crops before they are commercialized would you like to be increased and why? It is very well documented that GM crops are tested between 10-50 times that of conventional crops. Recent research has confirmed that GM crops have far less genomic DNA perturbations compared to conventional bred crops. Every GM crop has the engineered DNA extensively characterized wrt sequence, position, expresssion levels and effects on near genetic loci. etc, etc,etc. GM are the only ones compared to known allergens. All macro and some micro nutrients are compared with parental varieties and must be substantially equivilent. So please tell us which test you would have the regulators request above the present ones? These tests are not picked by the developers but by World experts including the UN-FAO thru CODEX, WHO and endorsed by National Academies of Science and other regulatory bodies like European Food Standards Agency, FDA, Health Canada etc.

Please go to my website for links to authorities around the world.

So what the producers of GM crops, the regulators of all food and the scientists who evaluate the science have all done over the past twelve years is produce safe food. That is why scientists not affiliated with the developers support the products.

Watchful Eye, you seem to forget that a lot of testing is already done. Regulatory regimes around the world insist that companies bringing these products to market conduct a wide range of health testing studies under GLP conditions and deliver ALL the data for review. I don’t see the companies bringing these products to market being at all concerned about additional testing being done, so long as it is done under GLP conditions with the correct controls. In fact, the companies often outsource the testing to labs that are expert in doing this sort of work.

As to independence, you need to think about who you want to pay for the testing. At the moment regulators insist the proponents do and it is up to the proponents to demonstrate through the data that the product is at least as safe as the conventional product. If you wanted to shift the costs of testing on to taxpayers, I am sure the corporations would love it. After all it costs millions for these tests to be done.

There are a lot of studies out there now: http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html The vast majority find no significant difference. This is why I am not overly concerned.

lillian, Bt content of soil. Large pdf. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=203101&blobtype=pdf In 1989 – before any commercial use of Bt containing crops, Bacillus thuringiensis could be found in 1 g samples of more than 70% of soils around the world and represented 28% of all bacteria isolated.

On allergies in cotton farmers in India, I assume you mean this study http://www.indiagminfo.org/Independent%20studies%20&%20papers%20on%20GM%20crops%20in%20India/On%20BT%20Cotton%20&%20Health%20impacts/BT_Health_Report-NBA-JSA.pdf ? 23 labourers’ interviews were included, no controls. Labourers without symptoms were specifically excluded from the study as were those that had symptoms, but who weren’t exposed to Bt crops. The labourers reported symptoms that were entirely consistent with those expected from working in hot, dusty conditions among plants – such as hand picking cotton.