That was a such a beautiful comment Bronwyn. Recently Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said we should be looking at GM food through the eyes of science, not superstition, and as a lover of scientific pursuit I agree.

If only there was some science. Rather we're being asked to have a superstitious faith in completely untested products we feel very wrong about and don't want to buy.

We can't even recognise GM products through labelling and have no choice. I can't tell if the 'maize thickener' in jam is GM or not. It's not like GM food is a fat round kiwi fruit or something.

And Merri bee made excellent points about the chemicals previously used by farmers, now banned.

When overwhelmed in discussion we notice that the unknown people arguing in favour of GM will tag their argument onto farmers, saying that GM is ‘good for farmers’.

Your point Merri bee now comes back into play – the banned chemicals were also once ‘good for farmers’.

MADGE has a very strong position on supporting farming and this is not trivial - our children’s food depends on it. We know that few farmers exist in such a morally, emotionally and spiritually degraded condition that they would choose to grow unsafe crops.

Indeed it is only the lack of information about the food safety of the crops driving the potential of the GM industry. But the case on the danger of GM food has been settled.

We are very glad that as a result of this forum there are new MADGEs – the situation is clear to all who have the opportunity to see it, and thank you to the pro-GMers for providing the counterpoint.

They may twitch, Merri Bee and Bronwyn.

merri bee,

"And the latest word about GM cotton in QLD is that farmers are finding they are better off planting conventional cotton"

depends on the circumstances, especially neighbouring crop types or vegetation, the more arid areas have less insect pressure simply because of less opportunities for insects to breed.
If the farms are relatively weed free then no doubt roundup ready(RR) would be a waste of money too.
Of course an individual farmer might be better off financially growing conventional cotton, but is the environment? Bt cotton has reduced insecticide application by 85%, and RR cotton has reduced residual chemical use by approx 45%. The 2007-8 cotton crop was comprised by 96% of GM varieties so it must have some financial attributes because it sure isn't free.(CRDC annual report)

"Like the one where 40% of the Monarch butterflies fed GM pollen died unexpectedly" I think you'll find it's caterpillars that are susceptable, and I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that feeding Bt expressing pollen would be anything other than detrimental to caterpillars.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full

So how many would survive with an application of conventional insecticide? Not 60%(assuming your info was correct). What about if using a Bt spray that even organic farmers can use? What if they weren't fed more pollen than would normally be eaten in the field?
Monarchs generally don't eat the Bt crops so they are at less risk of death in Bt crop than in a conventional one, hence the overall environmental benefit of Bt expressing crops, particularly on non-target species.

Agronomist

"All you can offer in support of your position are vague fears."

And with respect, all you're offering are equally vague reassurances.

I don't buy your argument at all that because no post market monitoring has been done on the health effects of eating 'atrazine-resistant canola', or food that's been subjected to 'chemical mutagenesis' or 'irradiation', that by extension there's no need either for post market monitoring of GM food. Personally I wouldn't eat any of this food if I had the choice. This unmonitored 'scientific' interference with the food we eat is one of the reasons I'm now endeavouring to eat food that is grown organically.

I appreciate your calm and consistent reasoning. It hasn't persuaded me but it's been an interesting debate.

To Madeleine, Lillian, Merri bee and Non-GM farmer - enjoy growing your food, cooking it, preserving it and nourishing your families and thanks for all the informative posts.

Happy Christmas to you all!

rojo/what gmo is doing[to bees]
update now bumble-bees too?
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1330&category=Environment

this is my conclusion as well

the gm corn when fed to pigs resulted in the pigs stopping breeding,same deal with cattle,they either birth a empty birth bag or other defectives but mainly a huge drop in fertility is observed

bees need royal-jelly[can the gm pollen make royal/jelly?defective royal-jelly?][are humans con-suming it royally?]

having young is a clue that these young could be surviving but stuck in a stage of growth,or,that the hive is barly surviving the natural hive decline[higher mortality rate][due to a declining birth rate]

the evidence is in on the declining fertility rate on the pigs and cows,but science hasnt even begun on them

a few farmers are doing the research themselves,it is sad when big buisness has the power of life and death,owning even the genetic markers that are needed to prove any crime the tracers that will even allow them to make claim to the honeey harvested by the bees they helped to kill

we know the first signs in the end times are food shortages,we seem to ne on schedual for the religious nutters, followed by sickness,put your trust in pills and science ?[are you willing to bet your life on it?]or your childrens?[their first concern is your well being [right?}
who are you serving?

science is in it for the money,is this much money deserving of going to those who are prepared to do anything for it?how much is your food worth#

farmers have noted this with pigs fed on ge corn
another farmer on hearing this replicated it with his cows
needless to say monsanto wouldnt allow research on its monopoly high proffiteering monopoly marketing product[they own the genes and now are suing anyone who's crop reveals cross contamination[even by wind drift]by presence in thier harvest of'thier'genes

so infertility will be unable to be confirmed[but ownership of the gene material is a done deal]govt being the way govt is it wont check on it either[in time we will see if ge has its harvest,as it becomes more clear

continued

ge cotton seed being fed to cattle,ge-canola,ge-corn,its only a matter of time before we see the fruit of this mono cropping experiment on monopolising our food seeds,

100,000 indian farmers comitted suicide because thier cotton costs quadrupled[they had to lend money from money lenders to by the fertiliser and roundup,then got reduced harvest and low cotton price
and now even the native cotton contains ge contamination[thus legally belongs to monsanto[plus to get the seed you have to sign wavers indemnifying monsanto[clever marketing]

it will have an end cost[but by then they will be so big'to fail'no one let alone any govt can touch them
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/102757

WHY BEES ARE DYING.GEN-MODIFIED CROPS
THE BIRDS/BEES 101:THE BEES REJECT POLLINATING GM CROPS
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=97448

Wild Bees Reject GM Crop[Potential Major_Impact on Pollination]

Bee abundance data were collected using pan traps and standardized sweep netting, and pollination deficit was assessed by comparing the number of seeds per fruit from open-pollinated and supplementally pollinated flowers.

There was no pollination deficit in organic fields,a moderate pollination deficit in conventional fields,and the greatest pollination deficit in GM fields.

Bee abundance was greatest in organic fields,followed by conventional fields, and lowest in GM fields.Overall,there was a strong,positive relationship between bee abundance at sampling locations and reduced pollination deficits.


Ecological Society of America,

From Ecological Society of America[Referring to[Sept.2004] a peer-reviewed article

Department of Biological Sciences,Simon Fraser,University,Canada

Abstract. The ecological impacts of agriculture are of concern, especially with genetically modified and other intensive, modern cropping systems, yet little is known about effects on wild bee populations and subsequent implications for pollination.

Pollination deficit(the difference between potential and actual pollination)and bee abundance were measured in organic,conventional, and herbicide-resistant,genetically modified(GM)canola fields (Brassica napus and B. rapa)in northern Alberta,Canada, in the summer of 2002.Complete article:
http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=1587

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-842180934463681887

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television(ARTE - French-German cultural tv channel)by French journalist and film ...

The World According to Monsanto[A documentary that Americans won't ever see.]The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years

Merri bee, I think you mean the study done by Arpad Puzstai and Stanley Ewen? I have read the paper, you can find it here if you like http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)05860-7/fulltext . The assessment made by many others in the field is that the research reported is fundamentally flawed. The paper really showed that mice get sick on a diet of potatoes, GM or not. GMOPundit has a nice commentary http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/rats-fed-bad-diets-have-lots-of-changes.html Monarch butterfly larvae are susceptible to Bt. If they are fed Bt they die. Normally, they encounter almost no Bt in GM corn fields, but if they are fed Bt anthers in the lab they die. After this story broke several million dollars was spent finding out that monarch caterpillars were not affected by Bt corn http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full .

Bronwyn, the reason I raised the lack of post market monitoring was not to say it shouldn’t be done, but to point out that you are seeking to hold GM foods to a higher standard than other food, based on nothing other than vague fears. There is no post market monitoring of food that we know to be dangerous to health (like kiwi fruit), yet I don’t hear calls for that. There is no a priori reason for GM food to be more dangerous than conventional food and the vast number of studies have found little of concern, yet you still want post-market monitoring.