Hi All
I realised the letter link doesn't work, try this instead
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15105.cfm

The absence of precision in GM techniques has been shown to lead to profound disturbance in the host plant DNA – GM RR soy is one of the prime examples.

Allergies arising from slightly altered endogenous proteins through cross-priming are deeply concerning. For example, non-GM soy and peanuts are both legumes and have at least three homologous allergenic proteins. Could slightly altered proteins in the GM soy have an increased capacity to cross-prime for peanut allergy? This has not been examined.

In the ABC Unleashed forum a few months ago "Agronomist" suggested I access a Nature Biotechnology journal article "Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops—what makes sense?" Goodman et al.

I read through it carefully. Both Monsanto and Bayer were acknowledged for their support of the research (in provision of information and money).

Five allergists had reviewed some of the allergenicity tests in the GM testing schedule. With the support of Monsanto of Bayer they had determined that some of the testing models had not been validated.

Whether these findings were correct or not, one would have expected allergists to conclude that there is an urgent need for research to develop validated testing models.

Instead they recommended that 4 of the tests be cut from the schedule without replacement, citing concerns related to the cost to the GM Developers and potential disruption of trade.

Parents don’t expect the risks to the health and safety of their children to be weighed up against costs to billion dollar companies, nor do they expect their children’s and friend’s health to be subservient to trade interests. These allergists did not appear to be acting responsibly for the children and people they are bound to protect.

I read through the research history of the allergists and read a number of their papers – there are many things to remark upon, particularly soy, peanut and milk research, but not in 350 words.

An opportunity arose to meet with the allergists and discuss their unexpected conclusions.

To be continued…

The regulatory process for GM crops is nothing more than a public relations exercise.
This is the first year that farmers are growing GM Roundup Ready canola. So what tests have been done?
The OGTR leaves the responsibility to FSANZ. No testing is done by FSANZ as they only assess the data that the company submits. So what testing have they submitted to assess for problems.
No feeding trials were submitted on the oil which is the part consumers eat as it is argued that there is no DNA in oil.
Consumers become reluctant, unmonitored guinea pigs as the first "trials" done are done on unwilling consumers that buy canola oil without knowing it has GM content as GM oil escapes labelling. Consumers are not frightened of eating DNA, they are concerned about the effects on health after eating the product.
There has been feeding trials done on the remaining meal and it was found that animals had an increase in liver weight of 17% after only a few weeks feeding. To me this screams a problem but this is ignored because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed and meal is used for stock feed.
In fact if you look at the hundreds of feeding trials done on GM crops, they usually fall into the category of stock feed trials as they assess things like breast meat depth or deboned carcass weight. How convenient that most tests submitted escape regulation.
Consumers want proper testing that is relevent to their health.
Is this so unreasonable?
Is it unreasonable to ensure there is choice for consumers to avoid these products until they are confident with the product?
Is it unreasonable for farmers to ensure they have a choice to avoid growing or selling as GM?
No! But big business has ensured choice is denied.

under one god, I have no idea why you bothered to post that abstract. The bacteria mentioned are just normal bacteria, nothing to do with genetic engineering.

Non-GM farmer, the ignorance you pedal here is astounding. Downs syndrome is due to a trisomy for human chromosome 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome not a single bent chromosome. The rest of your post is similar rubbish. It must be deeply humiliating to you to read all the articles in the Australian press about how well RoundupReady canola has performed. After all, you have been telling me for 3 years it will be a total failure.

Madeleine, I have a degree with a major in medical biochemistry. I understand enough to be able to make sense of most medical reports. I still don’t know why you are so focussed on the failure to determine the N-terminal sequence of the protein. It doesn’t mean the protein is unknown. There are lots of ways to find out what the protein is without sequencing it. Indeed, the majority of protein sequences that are talked about – even in the medical literature – are inferred sequences from the genetic code. There has been more than 30 years of testing the hypothesis and it has not been found wanting yet. You can correctly infer the sequence of a protein by translating the genetic code.

Julie, as for the GM canola meal damaging liver myth here is what FSANZ has always said about it: “Based on the data submitted, the slight increase in liver weight was possibly attributable to a slightly higher level of glucosinolates in the GM canola meal. Glucosinolate is well known to cause liver enlargement (Hayes, Principles and Methods of Toxicology, 3rd Edition). Equally, and perhaps more likely, the slight increases in liver weight were due to chance. FSANZ scientists, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research, the South Australian Department of Human Services, regulators in Japan, the UK and Canada, and members of FSANZ’s panel of independent experts were satisfied with this evaluation.” http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Amended%20Judy%20Carmen%20FSANZ%20RESPONSE%20TO%20ARTICLE%20April%202003v1.pdf

Agronomist (Scott Day), you are trying your usual tactics to sideline and miss the point by namecalling.

You claim the liver weights were a "myth" but confirmed it was true. We both know it is true and caused by glucosinolates but as a consumer it is a problem and was not addressed. Also, Downes is caused by an extra full or partial copy of chromosome 21. The cause is traced to an error in cell division and a bent gene or chromosome (and other problems) have been blamed for causing a pair of the 21st chromosome in either the sperm or the egg to fail to separate prior to conception which is replicated in every cell in the body.

But back to the debate:

The GM part of RR canola ONLY gives resistance to glyphosate, it does nothing else and this trait is easy to do by non-GM means as it is an unwanted trait in our weeds.

The push comes from the research sector and supply chain participants (such as Agronomists that can get a good job as compulsory advisors). Our research sectors are cutting alliance deals with Monsanto in exchange for using Monsanto's patented technologies. Monsanto's stated aim is to own a patent over all seeds and to consolidate the food chain. Without choice due to the sellout from the research sector and government, farmers are to become contract growers for a single supply chain which will further remove choice for consumers.

I'm glad farmers are now realising that GM canola does not live up to the hype that surrounds it.

Farmers selected to support GM in its first year (those not desperate enough to rig trials http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2925 ) complained about the very short window of spraying opportunity (2-6 leaf stage), the high cost, spraying problems caused by mixed germination and the lack of radish control due to lack of residual.

Next year the prices will raise significantly with farm fees doubling in costs which will put them off even more. Do you know what costs are planned for 2009?

Agronomist,I have to point out that the trials of GM canola in Victoria and NSW have not done well. The standard practices for growing canola were not followed in the case of the non GM canola plots, even the initial knock down with herbicide before planting did not occur, then the weeds were left to grow and compete with the crop for way too long. "Bad weather" at optimal spraying time was blamed for the failure to control weeds , but an examination of weather records for that time do not indicate that was the case.The planting density of the GM and control plots of Non GM varied substantially with the non gm planted too densely at 176 plants per square meter, way too dense resulting in the individual plants looking spindly.The Roundup ready canola on the other hand was planted at the recommended plant spacings and look far more robust as a result.There were numerous other ploys used ,from the unorthodox spraying regime used on the non GM canola its a wonder any survived.... Check the details with Julie Newman from Newdegate .her comments on it were something like....its a sad day when trials have to be rigged. Its also strange why Monsanto refused to release any RR canola seed for independent trials in W.A., perhaps they arent so sure it will perform in any trial not controlled by them??