Isnt it completely obvious that somewhere down the line (decades, even centuries) there will INEVITABLY be all sorts of unintended biological consequences from the use of GM foods.

Pandoras box.

And what a hoot suggesting that such "foods" which will be available to the already poor especially as they are controlled by profit seeking multi-nationals, who already have an appalling malfeasance record. And a record of lies, bullying and manipulations are somehow going to turn out to be the benefactors of the starving masses, most of whom are starving because of the way the global food system is structured. And the wealth system altogether. Has anyone ever noticed that ALL the wealth already goes to the already wealthy.

Especially as it is their legal obligation of such companies to maximise the profits of the company for the benefits of their shareholders.

The consequences will be both out there in nature, via all sorts of mutations, and also more importantly, via the emergence of new weird and wonderful, and most probably untreatable, diseases in human beings.
And even genetic mutations in human beings too.

The same disease and mutation possibilities of course applies to other animals too,including the many members of the bird family.

Many humans can only slowly metabolize the fats from genetically modified foods.It can clog capillaries in the eye and result in blindness in vulnerable people.The fat collects in all parts of the body.Ask the fat Americans (there are millions of them)how good is the GM food they eat.

A well-reasoned article that makes a sensible contribution to the debate. We know that technological change can make a major contribution to the welfare of the poor - the green revolution showed that. GM has the potential to do the same, but we must weigh each case in turn, not let techophilia or technophobia blind us to the potential risks and potential benefits.

This is the most disingenuous article of the week. "Alarm-raising without evidence"? regards cross-polination & gene-flow? More studies required? Yes, let's have more studies, and more still, until we get the results we're hoping for.

Mobile phones and aeroplanes are optional. How they can be compared to food is beyond me.

Mate, the risk of not going GM is that the GM industry will make smaller profits. There are umpteeen articles on GM on this site. This adds zilch to the debate.

Ah yes. The plan's coming along nicely.

Keep calling opponents nutters and luddites and it's only a matter of time before Aussies will be captured by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow and the other chemical companies.

These are the same monsters who invented organochlorines. These bioaccumulative chemicals have now pervaded every eco-system on the planet. These are the chemicals they dumped on the Vietnamese people who are paying dearly in perpetuity. Monsanto continued to flog Agent Orange to the US government knowing the health and environment risks.

These are the chemicals which are endocrine disruptors - mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic.

These are the chemicals which have contaminated our food chain, soil, air and water. They do not break down.

These are the reasons for the Stockholm Convention - a desperate bid to rid countries of these dreadful poisons. Some 60 nations have ratified the agreement to eliminate or reduce their uses.

So now Monsanto et al must look for new markets. Now it's Roundup time (Glyphosate!) This stuff kills frogs. God knows what else since only time will tell but it can be sprayed up to 18 times without affecting the crop. Then we consume this "fresh" produce.

This GM technology has already been flogged off to developing countries - together with enticements.

In the meantime Messrs Gates and Rockefeller have it all worked out. An inaccessible vault of GM seeds in preparation for Doomsday!

In which decade will the bun fight begin?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Albert Weale's article seems pretty reasonable and unbiased but he neglects to consider the questions of cost and control in his comments.
When big business (and Monsanto is big business) lobbies for something it is NEVER on behalf of the poor or disadvantaged. Its all about profits and it puts a great deal of money and effort behind its "cause" a lot of which goes into "influencing" governments and "buying" research institutions or setting up "independent think tanks".

Sure in some cases the benefits of particular GM crops may outweigh the risks but if the big corporations are behind the push then it pays to be wary... very, very wary.

When I read yet another pro-gm article posing as a concern for the state of the poor, I feel ill. The first reality is that increased corporate ownership of the food chain - from seed to plate - cannot and will not ever lead to better food security, less hunger or better health for the poor of the world. GM is all about corporate control. And before someone else jumps up and touts the 'public'golden rice - remember this - R&D into golden rice has cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The cost of vitamin A supplements for an adult annually is 8 cents. Delivery is accurate and easy. Even if golden rice works - highly debateable - delivery to those with VAD requires highly segregated and specific harvest, storage, delivery systems that simply don't exist in poorer rural communities. It's a joke - and those who continue to prop up the GM industry in the name of the needs of others are a disgrace.

Bennie – I don’t give a fig for the profits of the GM industry, but the risk of not going GM is that we lose out on the potential benefits. The article is calling for those benefits to be taken into account when we evaluate GM. Seems fair to me.

Dickie – the tone of this article (unlike your post) is very even-handed– no “nutters and luddites” to be seen. The article accepts that there is a potential downside to GM, hence arguing for a case-by-case assessment of risks and benefits.

Kulu – I agree Monstanto is no charity. The fact that is does what it does for profit, however, doesn’t make it evil or malign, any more than the supermarket that sells you your food is malign. GM food producers should only be allowed to sell their products if they’re safe, and will only make a profit selling them if farmers think they’re better than the alternative and consumer are willing to buy them. I acknowledge your point about controls and costs being shifted, though.

Next – GM is not identical with “corporate ownership,” and I believe that providing alternative crops that are potentially more drought-tolerant, insect-resistant, higher-yielding etc will improve food security.

GM crops do not stop poverty, as the seeds must be paid for, the chemicals used Round Up must be paid for. GM crops do not stop poor health, production must continue, regardless of availability healthy work force or not. GM crops are not the answer to sustainability, no rain means no crops, regardless of what kind they are. GM crops will not stop HIV/AIDS the costs only excerbate the poverty. Use GM corn to make petrol substitute, but gosh it does not come out any cheaper. if it does not stand up to strutiny throw it out.

GM foods?? Leave me out of them. IF the American GM grains are so good why wont starving nations accept them ... free of charge?? (I know, a certain leader is starving his people deliberately) BUT if GM grains are not harmfull, why are they not sold openly in Western shops ?? Cloning in animals is dangerous and so is cloning in produce.

I do not believe it's safe (now or in the future) so I want the choice. 'To eat, or not to eat,' .. that is the question.

Rhian

Could you be a tad more specific please - more scientific? Perhaps it is also appropriate to remind you that “those who ignore the past are bound to repeat it.”

In the matter of GM crops, you will find the same players who gave us the previous Green Revolution – the poisoning of the planet. Of course you would need to have a basic understanding of environmental toxicology:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/07/07/the-toxic-consequences-of-the-green-revolution.html?PageNr=1

As in the previous “green” revolution, the promotion of false miracles prevail and while there is much literature analyzing, criticizing and condemning the downfalls of the Green Revolution, there is very limited evidence to suggest that modern day agronomists and biotechnologists have learned anything significant from the events that have been transpiring since the 60s and 70s.

Nuffield Bioethics has publicly expressed gratitude to Professor Gordon Conway, former President of the Rockefeller Foundation. The Green Revolution push we are seeing in Africa is really his brainchild. This philanthropy – plus 5 percent, has come in the context of pushing a very distinct corporate agenda - to open markets for US corporations.

For example in Kenya the Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in sponsoring Florence Wambugu's sweet potato project because they want to open Africa up to GMOs. So if you give the impression that a genetically modified sweet potato can work because it is the poor person's crop, there will be more willingness to accept GMO's. This is a form of investment, a corporatized agenda for resource extraction from Africa:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/gmos/2007/05trojan.pdf

That Professor Weale has chosen to criticize Prince Charles over his concerns with GM crops, says little for this institute when the evidence of the tragedies and the desperate state of many of the citizens of India are well documented:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

http://www.ddsindia.com/www/pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20APress%20Release%20Bh%20evidence%20Moratoeium%20July%2008.pdf

Will we receive a "more reasoned debate" from Professor Weale in response to these posts? I see no copyright on this article. Perhaps it was not he who has provided us with the document?

Cheers

PS: "Food security" Rhian? Do please read the links this time.

Dickie, we have been over some of this ground before, but it is fair to say that BT cotton in India is not responsible for the problems described in those links. The problems that are leading to Indian farmers committing suicide are many and include land being split in to ever smaller holding and dowry creep as probably the greatest. Bt cotton in India has generally improved the lot of Indian farmers and arguably has reduced the number of suicides. Some reading to get you started.

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/public/FullTextRP.jsp?rpid=rp00268

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2006-09-04_vgandhi.pdf

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jun252004/1628.pdf

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118589801/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T5T-4DPYKNP-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f06b3a08119a561f1888c4f047f74560

http://www.misereor.org/fileadmin/user_upload/misereor_org/englisch/BaumwollestudieWarangal-India.pdf

Likewise, BT cotton has greatly reduced the number of pesticide poisonings among small landholders in China. The usefulness of crops will depend very much on how crops are currently grown and what benefits (and downsides) the new crops provide. BT cotton has proved successful in one way or another just about everywhere it is grown. That is why the number of farmers growing the crop in India continues to grow. These farmers can generally make more money and apply less pesticide.

http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/orb/pdf/Pray.2002.pdf

http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/conf/2003/gmopoverty/pdf/pray.pdf

http://www.ccap.org.cn/PDF/EJ-04-11.pdf

These are clear benefits. I would imagine that Roundup Ready canola would be a significant benefit in Australia because farmers could stop spraying atrazine, a herbicide know to be toxic to frogs.

watch the bee die off come to australia
when we go gm

this in-sect-acide food crop has caused infertility in cattle
but what happens to a dumb bee comming to the flower ?

it gets poisend [dies going home]
next thing the weakend secumb to the hive mite
and gm has earned its bitter fruits

the bible has laws for food purity
saying to sepperate the tares from the wheat etc

gm is a huge con

infertile seeds means genes for infertility goes into our bodies
[and adults all of a sudden cant breed]
google up gm fertility rates

and my satan [mon santo] will stand revealed
as the greedy deciever it has been revealed to be to many;
except to those holding shares or jobs serving satan

we shall learn in time hy-bred seed is mans greatest curse
built on greed

[they used their funding to buy up most of the regular seed stock suppliers] and other political and legal machinations owning genes [facilitated by traiterous [treasonous govts and sleeping watchdog's [public servants]
aided and abeted by bankers /lawyers , and scientists who were , media , and party politricks ,as well as decieved by their very educators.

Thank's for those links Agronomist

Unfortunately, with the exception of the survey on suicides, they are all potentially obsolete. You will note the oldest link I have provided is May 2007 and I have a preference for the most recent data on GM crops.

The link I provided on suicides is recent (November.) Furthermore, the author Andrew Malone, claims he visited India to arrive at his conclusions. This year he was awarded the Feature writer of the year. I am unable to find any links which dispute his claims.

In addition, Prince Charles has set up the charity, Bhumi Vardaan Foundation to address the plight of India's suicide farmers and to encourage farmers to adopt organic farming practices.

One of the links I provided is written by the African Centre for Biosafety. I am afraid they do not share your enthusiasm for GM crops.

Mark Curtis is currently an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde and has been Visiting Research Fellow at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, Paris and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Auswaertige Politik, Bonn. He had this to say:

“Agricultural aid directly promotes agribusiness by donors pressing for ‘high-tech’ solutions to global hunger in their policy advice to developing countries. The increased use of fertilizer, chemicals and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is seen by most donors as part of the ‘solution’ to global hunger; behind this, lies an industry of manufacturers, scientists linked to corporations and foundations.

"USAID is leading the push for countries to adopt GMOs in their farming while the World Bank is strongly supportive, despite evidence that biotechnology companies have yet to introduce a single GM crop that actually increases yield.”

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:HN0JQ6NEWwgJ:markcurtis.wordpress.com/+IFPRI+captured+by+rockefeller+monsanto&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Agronomist. Many countries in Europe have banned atrazine. Australia has no valid excuse to continue with the use of this hazardous chemical. Nor do they have any excuse to continue using endosulfan a chlorinated compound – banned in 55 countries. We in this nation should be asking “who is regulating the regulators!”

Recent analytical testing has revealed pesticides in and on Australian fresh produce far exceed the recommended safe levels.

Informed comment on dickies link-
" It is sad that someone who has visited rural India for just four days can claim to understand all the complexities of the problems of our farmers and attribute their plight to modern biotechnology. Mr. Malone, being an idiologist presents a completely inaccurate view on the situation. Had spent a few more days to understand the massive social benefits that have accrued to farmers in India due to the introduction of GM cotton seeds, would he realize that income of Indian cotton farmers has increased dramatically over the last 5 years, the education level of GM cotton farmer families has risen faster, their health and nutrition has improved vis - a - vis non GM farmers and the country has doubled cotton production to 30 million bales of cotton making it self sufficient and an exporter from an importer five years ago. This has a single leading reason why the 5 million odd people working in textiles still have jobs today.
- Shirish, India, 03/11/2008 14:16 "

The simple facts are that Indian farmers have increased production by growing Bt cotton, seed price is closer to $8 per kg (not the $250 dickies link suggests) which can create $200+ worth of extra yield. All while using less chemical, which presumably isn't free. When you see farmers in India apply insecticides with no protective gear, and see them literally coated in it, it makes Bt seem a godsend for farmers. Anyone critical of Bt in this light has got rocks in their head.
Unfortunately drought is a destructive force to any farmer, in any part of the world, and that extra profit from Bt will not eventuate under such conditions. It no doubt would be very tough if your first couple of years growing the crop were a failure.

ho ho rojo
quote<<understand the massive social benefits that have accrued to farmers in India due to the introduction of GM cotton seeds, would he realize that income of Indian cotton farmers has increased dramatically over the last 5 years, ,>>

ARE YOU CLAIMING EVERY FARMER CONVERTED OVER TO GM?
or is this just convenient PR

<<the education level of GM cotton farmer families has risen faster,>>

BY WHAT MEASURE IS THIS LONG TERM EFFECT ATTRIBUTABLE TO GM?

<< their health and nutrition has improved vis - a - vis non GM farmers ..>>
READ THAT BRO
NON GM FARMERS
GOT IT?
if health has improved how did mon-santano physiclly cure people

beware of believing those who decieve

those who's very profits depend on mutating
undigestable rubbish as food

who want to controle their monetory franchise by use of terminator teqnology
[ie patents expire
but death genes dosnt ]

for the rest of time mon satano will controle seed
get it
for ever

patrent expires
[ownership dont
get it

dickie, no the African Centre for Biosafety do not share my enthusiasm, because of course they are an activist group set up solely to oppose GM crops. Even if a crop were totally benign and was to provide massive benefits to third world farmers, ACB would still oppose it.

Mark Curtis is a British author who writes articles for the Guardian and books opposing UK foreign policy. I doubt he is that knowledgeable about BT crops in India.

Some more on benefits of BT cotton in India.

http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/mop-04/fbae-cotton-en.doc

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1812/version/1/files/npre20081812-1.pdf

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Quaim-Economic-Cotton-India-2006.pdf

http://wcrc.confex.com/wcrc/2007/techprogram/P1987.HTM

one under god, you can spout a lot of rubbish. Farm incomes of cotton farmers in India have on average risen, because some 3.8 million Indian cotton growers are using BT cotton. This decreases their pesticide costs and increases their yield. Both contribute to higher farm income even with the higher costs of seed. Over 60% of the cotton are in India is now BT. Increased farm incomes allows farmers to improve their lives including training and sending their children to school. They also save time by not having to spray insecticides more than a dozen times a year. In both China and India, OH&S for pesticide use by small farmers is non-existent. They frequently poison themselves. Back in the early 1990s more than 400 Chinese farmers a year died through accidental pesticide poisoning.

It is also funny how myths perpetuate. Terminator technology was never more than a name given by activists to a patent. The patent was never developed. Yet the anti-GM activists won’t let go of this fiction.

Agronomist.
I agree there is a lot of scientific humbug/misinformation out there regarding the perceived risk of ingesting them.
Like most people I am not qualified in the relevant scientific disciplines to be able to make a scientifically informed decision.

Notwithstanding this the issue that needs addressing is the one you avoid. That of the efficacy “life science Corporations" (sic) when it comes to their pursuit of profits. One doesn’t need to be a geneticist to observe that these corporations have little regard for individuals particularly when it comes to their enormous profits.
Sheer logic tells you that if there weren’t enormous net profits the chemical Corporations wouldn’t have morphed into LSCs, purveyors of GM Seeds.

These Corporations clearly aren’t interested in a competitive market place. See www.competitivemarkets.com
Rather their interest is in being gatekeepers of world agriculture. From a business perspective this is the ideal situation, but as history adequately displays in any such battle the poor suffer. Put another way Lord Acton’s dictum must be considered “Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”

One could also point out that very little R&D get done on plants that don’t result in massive profits for the Corporations.

This indifference to humans weighs heavily on the consumer. If you can’t trust the source the outcome is equally suspect (GIGO). I would also point out that just because corporation avoid sanctions that doesn’t mean they are innocent.

Currently there exist a belief in Mega Corporations that because of Hydra structures and size they are virtually untouchable….too big to be allowed to crash (e.g. Wall street Banks)

In essence I’m saying that if one can’t or don’t trust the source then the product must engender real fear. Under these circumstances it is impossible to separate the source/means from the result. Any GM advocate therefore needs to assuage the concern about the Corporations' morality first.

under one god, the quote(yes quote) actually compares gm and non-gm farmers, somewhat favourably for gm growers. I haven't assumed that all growers have chosen to grow gm cotton, but apparently most have.

"BY WHAT MEASURE IS THIS LONG TERM EFFECT ATTRIBUTABLE TO GM"
well interestingly enough the farmers can actually afford to send their kids to school and don't have to resort to exploiting said children for labour. Spraying crops regularly is time consuming.

"if health has improved how did mon-santano physiclly cure people"
prevention is the best cure of all. Less chemical exposure-less problems. Less stress could be beneficial too.

"beware of believing those who decieve"
well said, perhaps you need to have a real look at what you're taking as credible information eg terminator genes, Indian suicides or bees.

Shock/horror that a company could actually be driven by profit, I can't believe it in this day and age. The ABC Learning model is much better. belly up and all.

Tell me, did you make up the "my satan" bit yourself?

GM frightens me. I am not a scientist but my gut feeling is 'avoid it if possible'. Producers and advocates of GM foods also use the point GM foods will enable us to feed the starving people of the world. Three points here...

1. Someone still makes a profit by feeding the poor.

and

2. IF it's so safe, why is America giving away their GM produce to starving nations?? Because they can't sell it!! It's called 'Foreign Aid" and the farmers still get paid.

and

The third point is ... by interferring with nature , the world population will continue to grow. We can't afford the luxury of over populating the world. Over population is part of the world's problem. Then again, maybe GM can solve that problem too..... GM crops so the consumer is left infertile ::)

dicki, I am not a scientist and I am not educated in GM production, however I am smart enough to know the big research centres all have a vested interest in reaching a specific finding. My gut feeling and my common sense (all beit female) tells me it can't be good for me. Like medications, GM has to have a - or many - side effects. As I have stated... leave me out of GM produce.

Hello Mally

Rest assured the female species does not require a science degree to accurately assess the ignominious history of the manufacturers of GM products.

Agronomist states of poor farmers he believes are benefitting from growing GM crops: "They also save time by not having to spray insecticides more than a dozen times a year.

"In both China and India, OH&S for pesticide use by small farmers is non-existent. They frequently poison themselves. Back in the early 1990s more than 400 Chinese farmers a year died through accidental pesticide poisoning."

Agro's assessment is indeed modest. Hundreds of thousands have died directly or insidiously from pesticide poisoning. And are the manufacturers worried? Only over a reduction in profits.

1. So Mally who manufactured these heinous pesticides in the 50's and who continues to flog these lethal pesticides off to developing nations despite the fact that the Stockholm Convention's edict is to minimise and eliminate chlorinated pesticides and insecticides?

2. Who is promoting, manufacturing and pushing the GM technology on to all nations on the planet?

Answer to 1 and 2. Monsanto et al.

You are indeed a wise female and why should we do deals with these tyrants - the "empire builders" who are driven by an unrestrained greed and have the moral and ethical development of a gnat!

Cheers

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Coverup-Dioxin-USEPA15nov90.htm

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=212

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm

quote[continued at link
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans.

1.1 GM Potatoes Damages Rats (see full content)

1.2 Rats Fed GMO Tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died

1.3 Rats Fed Bt Corn had multiple health problems

1.4 Mice Fed GM Bt Potatoes had intestinal damage

1.5 Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed allergies

1.6 Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields

1.7 Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans

1.8 Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn

1.9 Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn

1.10 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems

1.11 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas

1.12 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells

1.13 Roundup Ready Soy Changed Cell Metabolism in Rabbit Organs

1.14 Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks (see full content)

1.15 Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced

1.16 Rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers

1.17 Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn

1.18 GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice

1.19 Eyewitness reports: Animals avoid GMOs

1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 people

Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems...
#
continued at link
its enough said
im over it

I am a person who buys nothing but organic foods because when the gene pool in changed in a food plant it cannot serve the purpose to feed people .Chemical sprays to weed and stop bugs are just as bad as GM food products.Since i have changed my diet to organic foods i have a new lease on life .Research GM products that are roundup tolerant as roundup is a chemical spray .

examinator, I understand it is sinful to make a profit. Companies only make profits if they produce something customers want to buy. The fact that Monsanto makes profits from its seed products reflects the fact that farmers want to grow them. It is not like Monsanto have the only crop on the market.

I am aware there is a perception that the life science companies are omnipotent, but reality does not bear this out. Monsanto does not even make the Fortune 500 list of the 500 largest corporations in the world and comes in at number 448 on Forbes’ list. The largest life science company is in fact BASF at 72 and 80.

The changes in the agrochemical industry are a response to return on investment, not profit per se. The companies moved into seed because there was too much competition in the agricultural chemical market from generic manufacturers based in China.

Again, it is totally missed that there is a lot of R&D in plant science in the public sector. Many of the breakthroughs for the development of GM crops have come out of public research. They have been licensed to companies and royalties flow back to public research.

The funny thing about the supposed public rejection of GM crops is that the area sown to these crops continues to grow and they continue to be used in the food chain. Now I am not suggesting GM food should be forced on people who don’t want to eat it – there is after all organic food and I notice posters on this thread who state that is all they eat, yet they want to deprive me of my right to eat GM food – I am suggesting that the ‘public rejection’ of GM food is not quite what it is touted.

one under god, I don’t usually do this, but the simplest response I can give to your post is that Jeffrey Smith believes he is able to yogic fly. I am not at all surprised that someone that deluded can make up the list you posted. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/kim-chances-yogic-flying-farce-in-wa.html

obviosly agrominist has intrests like his name,
so clearly has his own blind spots[if not financial intrest's]

he wishes his right to eat gmo
i wish he did as well[exclusivly]

trouble is this wise agrominist hasnt heard of wind-drift
and how his right to eat poisen
can contaminate my right not to

of course we cannot take his claim to want to eat the stuff seriously
[if only by his use of his name he clearly reveals his intrest]

i note he takes the usual ridicule point's
[yet not rebuttal]
and gives another site[which no doudt thoughilly researched out the site poster to ridicule the sumation posted[because they caNT REBUT HIM]

yes all agrominists should be forced to eat
the experiments they expect us to eat

[if smokers cant smoke in public how do these pest-acide/poisen merchants get the right to spread their poisen and mutated pollen?}

you just gotta love the clever joinder he created in his quote

<<The changes in the agrochemical industry are a response to return on investment,not profit per se.>>

ie a LACK of return
or diminishing return
because earlier seed modifications
were threatening to send them broke

they saw the trend line and decided that owning seed would set them up to controle the people who need to eat

[just like in the old days you got the seed to plant from the lord of the manor]in return for his share[and to control his serfs]

[dont think the land/water grab is going un noticed either]

anything to control the wage slaves

<<The companies moved into seed because there was too much competition in the agricultural chemical market from generic manufacturers based in China.>>

gotta love the joinder of china with its ongoing product contamination[trouble is my dear agro-[gmo supplyer]
gmo preceeds the china opening

[but your rebutal point allows and further verifies my warning about greed having no bounds to what it will do to make their gross proffits

dont you sweat about it dear agro[we ALL are eating more gmo than we know]so your side is winning at least read the link bro

mally, you let it slip didn't you "by interferring with nature , the world population will continue to grow. We can't afford the luxury of over populating the world"

I think you are more certain of this than gm having a negative effect on population.

"IF it's so safe, why is America giving away their GM produce to starving nations?? Because they can't sell it!! It's called 'Foreign Aid" and the farmers still get paid"

Because the US does not segregate GM, all produce can be assumed to be GM by those who worry. The US is giving away it's produce, not specifically GM produce.

"Someone still makes a profit by feeding the poor"
thank goodness for that or they'd starve. Starving is not a pleasant experience, so if you just want the poor dead find another method.

mattermotor, unfortunately the projected world population cannot be sustained by organic production, hopefully this population has decreased again by the time the fossil fuels run out that are needed to make fertiliser. Unless GM plants can make their own in the future, that is. Some will critisise GM till they're blue in the face even if it does save hundreds of thousands of lives through less chemical exposure, or through increased future food availability. On intuition? Because monsanto and other companies are profit driven?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that Monsanto charge me more for their technology than they do Indian farmers(who get more benefit too) but I still use some of their products, because of environmental and financial returns.

Agronomist,
I really thought you were beyond such supercilious attempts at ad hominem ridicule. But I guess I’m wrong... disappointing.

Did you look at the site I provided?

As an expert in soil management and field-crop production I expect your perspective to be on the efficiency of GM as a vector. But that is one perspective.
A gun is both a tool and a weapon depending on how it’s used.

My post agreed that GM as a product may be unfairly treated.

The fact that it’s growing industry is like saying tobacco sales are legal and growing therefore it’s a good product. That takes no account of the collateral damage or the tactics used to achieve this growth.

I merely acknowledged that there is a widespread resistance to GM and offered an opinion why based on international literature indicating that these corporations (plural) have (justifiably) perceived bad track records for heavy handed tactics.
Including enlisting the US govt to manipulate and heavy countries to accept product they don’t want. What does this say about level playing field and national sovereignty? Are you denying that?
Then there’s the infamous Bhopal and its aftermath. Specifically the corporate shuffle to drag out and/or avoid paying reasonable damages.

LSC’s position on the Fortune 500 is irrelevant. ABC learning wasn’t on that list yet its effect was/is significant in a dominated market.

Return on investment! Another red herring.

Likewise much of the public research is funded by these corporations in universities and biotech research companies which focus on the high profit products. I also made note that the real needed research is simply ignored.

If I were supercilious as your opening comment I would suggest you open a herring cannery. But that would be tit for tat and childish so I won’t.

Agronomist

In addition to Examinator's excellent assessment, I would question your total silence on the state of Australia's soils.

That you are promoting GM crops but failing to acknowledge that our soils are in desperate need of remediation, gives one cause for concern.

Particularly worrying is CSIRO's axing of soil expert Dr Maarten Stapper who has advised that GM crops will not solve our problems.

"This travesty of justice shows again that priorities for taxpayer-funded research are grossly distorted by CSIRO contracts with companies that direct public funds to private profits," the director of Gene Ethics, Bob Phelps, said.

"Stapper was sacked because GM giants like Bayer and Monsanto can't patent know-how on healthier soils."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-dumps-antigm-expert/2007/05/26/1179601737365.html

One wonders just how effective the GM salesmen have been in influencing CSIRO's research findings?

Should we inspect their trash can for brown paper bags?

one under god, I did introduce my comments as being the best way to deal with Jeffrey Smith. He has delusional thinking. All the issues in his book have been well and truly shown to be inaccurate. It is like rebutting fairy tales. One example (number 1.20): you should look here http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ltr3.html More than a decade ago the problem was identified; impurities passing the filtering process. It had been seen before and has been seen since and has nothing to do with genetic modification, despite Smith’s delusional writing. I could similarly deal with the others, but I don’t have time in one post.

With respect to the rest of your post, I can see why you like Smith’s work. By the way, have you read the book? Or did you just post the chapter titles? I have a copy, bought cheap, and have read the book.

dickie, Australia’s soils are old and fragile. Therefore, tillage is a dangerous practice, because it results in compaction and erosion. How might you manage this problem? Use no-till farming systems. In Canada, US, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and elsewhere, GM crops have been widely used to aid the movement to no-till farming. How come you think Bob Phelps is an expert in this area?

examinator, I agreed there was concern about these companies and their practices. I tend to disagree about how widespread that concern is and whether it is based on facts. One of the concerns seems to be that these companies make money from selling seed. I want to point out how silly that concern was. Secondly, these companies are nowhere near as powerful as is portrayed. I think it is interesting how the activities of one company get projected onto other companies and then onto products. Surely a better approach is to regulate based on the product and what it might do? These companies haven’t enlisted the US Government to act on their behalf. The US Government couldn’t care too hoots about how well they perform, but is concerned about the ability of US farmers to trade

Cars are risky, and people die in them all the time, but the benefit to those that use them far outweighs the risk.

With global warming and the food shortage we need to produce more food / energy. The time to panic about insignificant possible harm in the future compared to imminent starvation now has long past.

Those who know better have moved to GM. Staying with existing technology or even organic is the preserve of the rich.