The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > One gene, one protein, one function - not so > Comments

One gene, one protein, one function - not so : Comments

By Greg Revell, published 12/12/2008

With the abrupt and uninvited introduction of genetically modified (GM) food into our supermarkets and restaurants, many of us are looking more closely at the food we eat.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 21
  14. 22
  15. 23
  16. All
Thanks for your statement to Bronwyn regarding corporate control.

Arthur Anderson Consulting revealed at an earlier biotechnology conference that they assisted Monsanto in developing a tactic to control 100% of the seeds grown. Monsanto managers have explained that GM is about consolidating the worlds food supply.

The TRIPS agreement allowed plant breeding to be patented which changed plant breeding as we know it. Instead of public researchers freely sharing their knowledge and techniques, patents were introduced to attract corporate investment.

Monsanto now owns most of the biotechnology patents and intellectual property that is used in both GM and non-GM biotechnology. Public researchers and institutes are cutting alliance deals with Monsanto to use these technologies free of charge in exchange for confidential deals. It is obvious that pushing a path to market for GM is one condition but is the other to add a Monsanto gene to every variety produced?

If so, GM allows a patent over the crop and farmers become contract growers for the patent owner. The restrictions on the contracts can be amended every year and without the right to replant seeds, once locked in, it is difficult to get out.

Plant breeders in countries that grow GM are not producing crop varieties with and without a GM gene, only with. If farmers want a new variety, it comes with a GM gene.

Currently farmers have the ability to trade with all upstream and downstream industries but if we are locked in by contracts to be contract growers for a single supply chain we lose our choice. If alternative industries are unable to source food as there is no choice for farmers, the competition will be removed.

Take it another step and the costs to farmers could increase out of proportion and loans could be extended until the corporates own the land too and farmers become employees.

So what choice will there be if all our food is patented and owned by a single supply chain? What price will farmers and consumers pay?

Some farmers and consumers want fair risk management to avoid this.
Posted by Non-GM farmer, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 12:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see why you'd give up commenting Bugsy - I'm not really enjoying it. Now, what's your name? I'm not lillian. I went to the link very quickly before picking the children up from school. Like you I saw a lot of 'mayors' - looks like a translation issue.

If you're really interested in discussing the content tell me your name and I'll read it (mclove@dodo.com.au).

Otherwise, stop all this bickering and have a jar of apricot jam - first batch was better than the second. I'm about to stew the cherries.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 4:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Agronomist ( may I call you Agro for short?), seems its your word against a lot of quality peoples here,as well as Julie Newman's, a lady with indisputable farming credentials, lots of integrity and no vested intrest.But I will confine my comments to what I know....my situation on my farm.
I've been on my small acreage for 25 years, slowly evolving a permaculture whilst raising 5 kids and working part time. In the last 5 years have become certified organic, and now my partner and I are full time farmers. We grow 70 or more different fruit and nut crops, berries,veges ,herbs and fungi. We produce pork, lamb,eggs and beef. We sell all this at a farmers market and find our work of supplying people with nutrient dense, chemical free food extremely satisfying.The demand for our produce is growing exponentially,our customers are intelligent and generous . Our farm is an ecosystem where chemicals have rarely been used, and none whatsoever since 1995.Chooks and pigs keep kike at bay and hundreds of birds,bats,frogs,lizards etc keep control of pests. Every year our system becomes more diverse and stable, with the only inputs being waste from local sources like sawdust, paper and grass clippings,some seaweed and organic grain.Kale, broccoli, cabbage and cauli are amongst the most nutritious and anti cancer foods we sell, and our chooks and pigs love these too.This could and should be the way of the future for farming ! to be continued
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Water Corporation have a bore into the Yarragadee 500 meters from our property and are setting up to pump water to 7 far distant towns. This threat to our environment is surpassed only by the spectre of GM canola being introduced to our district, possibly soon.I believe that GM canola will contaminate wild radish and mustard, and will infect the turnips, broccoli,cabbage, kale and many other crops we grow. As no one could realistically expect to rid their district of wild radish etc, we have to accept that there is no going back from GM once it is unleashed.We wont be able to save our brassica seeds any more, nor buy any naturally evolved brassica plant seeds (BTW Monsanto has brought out Yates and 50 other seed companies world wide).The consequences of eating GM kale (for example) is untested on humans and unknown, and the meat and eggs of animals who eat it could be even more dangerous.Tell me Agronomist, should anyone have the right to take away everyone’s choice to eat safe food (organic) by growing GM Canola which as we have already seen ,benefits no one but Monsanto and any claims to the contrary re yield, less chemical needed , etc are no doubt false.
Posted by Merri bee, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bugsy,
Yes I am a MADGE. I’m assuming that “mayor” is a typo. The review mentions mRNA but the reference is to tRNA http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/12/4169

Here is a link to a conference that Werner Muller spoke at http://www.planet-diversity.org/workshops/workshop1/health-impacts-of-gmos.html It is reasonable that you question why if what he says is true it is not splashed all over the news? It is also reasonable to ask why this is only on anti-GM websites? I cannot answer either question.

MADGE has tried to raise the issue of the lack of research showing the safety of even one GM food. We have released a report on the massive increase in food allergies in Australia and other countries http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/allergy-report.pdf . It coincides with the introduction of GM food. This does not mean it is caused by GM food but it does suggest that GM food should at least be looked at to see if it may be related to this increase.

MADGE has also commented on the inability of Monsanto to discover the protein(s) made by RR canola.

To me, both of these should have raised alarm bells and been at least mentioned in the media. Both received no response. No doubt many other people, concerned about a range of issues, find that their best attempts to provoke sensible discussion and attention are ignored.

Maybe someone who is involved in the media would like to respond on this issue?

The other issue is that criticising the GM industry threatens enormous amounts of patents and money. The companies that control these are extremely well connected and powerful. In contrast groups like MADGE are really just a bunch of concerned people with computers and a bottomless curiosity.

It is easy to try and dismiss us but unless proper, credible evidence is produced we will just keep going. I eat every day and I feed my family and friends and I refuse to give them food that I believe has a strong chance of harming them.

If you want to contact me directly email <info@madge.org.au>
Posted by lillian, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merri bee: "seems its your word against a lot of quality peoples here"

You make the mistake of thinking all of us reading take a post here at face value. OLO provides a soapbox for anybody can stand on, and as such it attracts a lot of other fringe idealists who don't have a lot of other places to stand.

So you look at the words, then try to verify them. In the case of Agronomist - he makes that easy posting links to .gov and .edu sites which make statements I can put some reliance on. In the case of the rest - well there isn't much beyond the words themselves.

And then you get something like this:

lillian: "research showing the safety of even one GM food"

Two errors of fact in 9 words. Firstly, a lot of research has been done, none showing it is unsafe. It's pretty solid too, as it has been eaten by hundreds of millions (billions?) over many years with no statistically discernible ill effects. Secondly it is impossible to "prove" safety in absolute terms.

With efforts like that, it is not hard for one Agronomist post to appear more reliable than all of the posts from the "quality people" combined.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 6:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 21
  14. 22
  15. 23
  16. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy