Yes, and as a corollary to the authors first point about being accused of supporting genocide there is an entirely adolescent site titled Counterknowledge which once featured a post accusing Prince Charles of promoting genocide too, and for the same reasons, because he is opposed to GM "foods".

Counterknowledge promotes the view that the only valid knowledge is that arrived at by the use of left brained Western scientism---everything else is ipso facto false.

Strange that the site is also linked into right wing religionists--I think the author of the book is a right-wing catholic. Never mind that if one really used the rigorous method of open-ended free enquiry how could anyone possibly be a catholic or a Christian?

Bravo, Greg. Thanks for unpacking the emotive hogwash generated by industry shills, and sold as "science".

And shame on SBS for airing this nonsense.

Greg, what exactly do you mean by "clean and green"? As a proponent of organic farming methods, you must know that the non-use of agrichemicals and biotechnology leaves open the probablility for yield losses through pest and disease outbreaks.

The current expansion of organic farming is driven by a premium price differential that makes up for the yield loss of many farmers. But what would happen if everyone did it? Last years food crisis would like like a mere blip in comparison.

I have no beef with organic farming, I think it's quite a nice idea, but if pesticides and biotechnology were to be banned outright (which I believe to be part of your agenda?), then it is quite likely you would be complicit in causing the deaths of lots of poor people around the globe.

Greg - I would never have accused you of being malicious in opposing GM foods, just misguided.
In fact, hunger in Africa is usually due to conflict that disrupts the local economy. There is no local authority to take effective action (or which even cares about its citizens), aid workers dare not go in and so on.
But at the same time the bulk of the opposition to GM foods amounts is an anti-tech scare campaign which has yet to identify any actual problems caused by GM. I'm not even aware of laboratory tests that give rise to any real concern - although I'm sure if you search hard enough you'll find something. There are those who do not like GM foods because they are "not nautral" but is that a valid point considering that farming really isn't natural either, irrespective of whether you use pesticides or not.
No you can't switch over everything to organic farming. If you have serious concerns with present farming efforts then identify what they are and work to fix them within the framework of unnatural farming, rather than try to remake the world in the Green God's image.

Greg, what exactly is your point here? Your arguments are very long on emotion but very short on fact.

If you want to grow organic foods, fine, but don't expect a lot of unbridled enthusiasm from the veggie counter at Coles/Woolies when your bug eaten, brown spot covered stuff is displayed next to the non-organic, brightly colored, perfect looking produce. A study was done in Canada (Toronto I believe, a couple years ago) where these two types of veg were displayed next to each other in a green grocer's shop. Nobody bought the organic veg because it all looked rather sickly. He quit stocking it.

As far as GM is concerned you do not cite any proof of any problems other than your agri-business scare mongering. If you have ever shopped in the US during their fresh corn season you will find nothing but GM corn on display. The taste is wonderful and all the ears are perfect as opposed to the worm and fungus infected corn ears that seem to be the norm here in Aus. If you have tried the fresh corn on the cob from the US you will never go back to the stuff on offer here. And as a side benefit - the US fresh corn price is about half the fresh corn price here.

I come from a family of farmers in the US. They are all very much in favor of the GM crops. They are the first ones to agree that the spraying of insecticides can't be good for the land. And they also are very much in favor of the higher yield per acre of GM crops. These two reasons are terrific productivity enhancers that allow them a reduction in their time, fuel and chemical expenditures while growing the food to feed the population

Curmudgeon.

Those who oppose GM "foods" and therefore propose organic and natural methods of horticulture and agriculture are not trying to remake the world in the image of the "Green God". Indeed they are trying to cooperate with how the God given natural laws, or how the processes of nature work.

In fact it is the other way round.

The arrogant and hubristic techno-optimists are the ones that are trying to remake the entire world into and image of themselves.

Rather like the vision presented in this image

1. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

The GM advocates fit squarely within this paradigm. Plus the power-mad attitude described in the first paragraph of the main text of this reference.

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index2.html

I don't have a problem with GM as a technology. I can see it could be useful. But I think it's a bit much for those promoting the current GM crops to cite feeding the world's poor as a valid reason for their products. After many years promising that the 'next generation' of GM crops would have advantages for consumers, nothing has appeared. All we have is products developed mainly for growing animal fodder in wealthy countries. The leftover oils and corn syrups (in the case of corn) are then used to pad out cheap junk foods for overfed people.

Why can't the large corporations that sell these GM seeds be honest enough to say that sales of their products are good for their shareholders. They get the double benefit of selling high-priced seeds with no possibility for seed-saving and then selling the farmers their brand of herbicides - without which the GM seeds are useless.

The land currently used for growing GM crops for animal fodder could be put to better use.

It's the blatant dishonesty with programs such as this that is really upsetting.

By the way, I notice perfectly delightful looking organic produce in my local shops and the stuff I grow myself (all organic) looks and tastes terrific.

Dr Rosemary Stanton

Great article by Greg Revell. GM food is basically about money for corporations and shareholders. The more the public knows about GM science, and the ruthlessness of the biotechnology industry, the more cynical it is about GM's value for the poor or the rich. With the billions of dollars the biotech companies have, if they were really concerned about the starving they would freight food immediately to the poor. For the above reasons people have loudly said they don't want GM food. Move on.

Greg, what a load of piffle. The ‘GM will feed the world myth’ is a strawman created by the likes of you, so you can take pot shots at it. No one in agriculture believes that GM cropping is the solution to feeding the world. It is one of the tools that can be used to assist food production.

GM is more than Monsanto. There are lots of other companies, both small and large participating in producing new agricultural traits. Much of the research is actually done by public sector scientists and products from this stream, such as virus-resistant papaya that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, have already been marketed. New traits like nitrogen use efficiency (from Arcadia) and water use efficiency (from a host of companies) are being moved towards the market.

As for “a harmonic resonance with natural systems” that is just woo, indulged in by well-fed westerners. By telling third world farmers what they can and cannot do based on such nonsense, people like you will contribute to a lessening of the ability of third world farmers to feed themselves.

Farmers are not ignorant peasants. They are astute operators and know what works and what doesn’t work. The fact that 13.3 million farmers last year chose to grow a crop with a GM trait shows that these crops work for those farmers. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html The majority of these farmers were in developing countries. Farmers growing these crops made an extra $10.1 billion in income in 2007 http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2009globalimpactstudy.pdf with 58% of that income made by farmers in developing economies. What is there not to like?

GM technology is not the only solution, nor is the solution for every problem. It is, however, the best solution for a small number of intractable problems.

Thanks so much for the article Greg and a timely warning on this silent killer in view of the latest scientific research. Of course, we shall have the usual irresponsible humans claiming genetically modified food impacts, on human health and the environment, are benign. They really should get out and about more:

“I'm not even aware of laboratory tests that give rise to any real concern”

“As far as GM is concerned you do not cite any proof of any problems other than your agri-business scare mongering”

Now where’s “Agronomist?” He should be along shortly.

I would suggest to anyone concerned about GM crops to take their advice from those qualified researchers who have extensive knowledge on this issue:

2009 publications:

1. “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research:”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?sq=genetically%20modified&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1235152808-/fyg4CWoN20nMNI9G0DNGg

2. “Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. All R (Roundup) formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity:”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

3. “These risks are even less acceptable when one takes into account the fact that once released into the environment, genetic mistakes/pollution cannot be recalled, cleaned up or allowed to decay like agrochemicals or a BSE epidemic, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely:”

http://www.psrast.org/mianbree.htm

4. And yet again: "Glyphosate, the herbicide used on soybeans in Argentina, causes malformations in amphibian embryos, say scientists here who revealed the findings of a study that has not yet been published.

"The observed deformations are consistent and systematic," Professor Andrés Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires medical school and lead researcher on the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET)"

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46516

5. 2007 publication:

"On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank:"

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

To 'Agronomist': what about the high incidence of suicide among Indian farmers disillusioned by their GM crops' performance and financial returns? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

In the west it is well known that the vast majority of consumers do not want GM food. It is our right and not to be questioned by scientists or governments. We don't have to justify why we do not want it. That is our business. Yet it has entered our food supply by the stealth, dogged persistence and, I'd say, underhandedness of biotechnology companies and government.

What other food has been foisted on us against our repeatedly stated wishes to avoid it? If 'Agronomist' doesn't get it, ie, why we don't want it, that's not our concern. But our wishes should be respected, not circumvented by every possible means so that we are consuming GM without our knowledge.

Protagoras. I followed up your first three of the links which you presented as "proof" of the adverse effects of GM foods. The first one is about scientists complaining that they haven't been given the funding for full testing. Whether that is true or not I don't know, but a way to interpretate that is 'we want to be allowed to keep looking until we find something wrong'. In other words they haven't found anything yet. No proof there.
The second one related to herbicides not GM foods. The third one involves a scientist talking about matters of principle in the opposition to GM foods.
Should I bother with the rest? These links really illustrate the politicisation of the scientific debate in recent years as well as demonstrating the complete lack of evidence against GM foods.
As for the costs-benefits of GM that's really a matter for farmers.

Curmudgeon

I’ve concluded that you know little about GM crops because the herbicides listed in my second item are glyphosate and Roundup. These are chemicals used predominantly in the growing of GM crops.

All those involved in making decisions about growing Roundup Ready canola in Australia must attend an accreditation program provided by the seed companies, including Monsanto Australia and Nufarm (no competition there since they're affiliated!)

Growers are only able to buy Roundup Ready canola seed once they have been accredited.

Four of every five acres of GM crops worldwide are Monsanto's Roundup Ready varieties, designed specifically for use with glyphosate, the weed-killing chemical that Monsanto sells under the name of Roundup. Weed-killers, or herbicides, are the largest class of pesticides.

U.S. government data reveal a huge 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, corn and cotton in the U.S. from 1994 to 2005, driven by adoption of Roundup Ready versions of these crops.

However, weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate hence the increased use of these chemicals and of course the increased residual ingestion of this chemical by the consumer is of no consequence to the chemical corporations.

In addition, increasing weed resistance to glyphosate has led to rising use of other toxic chemicals. In the U.S., the amount of 2,4-D applied to soybeans more than doubled from 2002 to 2006. In Argentina, it is projected that 25 million litres of herbicides other than glyphosate will now be needed to tackle glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass.

Item 2 of my previous post is entirely to do with glyphosate and Roundup formulations – yet another horror story about a hazardous agricultural poison, foisted on the public by the grim reapers. These chemicals kill human embryonic cells within 24 hours.

Frankly, the public do not need you to tell them that glyphosate and Round-up are *NOT* used with GM crops. They happen to be a little more au fait than you.

Do some homework Curmudgeon. If you want to flog a product for the grim reapers, you need to know what you're flogging first.

GM crops produce more food for less input costs, which is why farmers like them.

The scare mongering by the Greens has not come to pass and has lost credibility, and even the premium on non GM foods is shrinking.

Round up ready crops are not the only GM foods, but the best known.

GM is not the only arrow in the quiver for improved food yields but is one of the best.

Shadow Minister...
What a laugh...
In their dreams "GM is not the only arrow in the quiver for improved food yields but is one of the best."
GM crops don't produce higher yields - they produce higher pesticide sales. So what are you thinking? - what have the biotechs inserted into your ear next to your brain? Can you get some advice from someone who isn't a beneficiary of a biotech?

Anyway, bit of a story today - I was researching PBDE's (flame retardants - PolyBrominated Diphenyl Ethers) in breastmilk in the pubmed abstract database. Breastfed infants have the highest levels of these neurotoxic chemicals, toddlers have three times the levels of their mothers.

And so when I read the line about Monsanto and the chemicals it made me think of the PBDE's (because there are still PCBs and OrganoChlorines in breastmilk).

In European populations women have in the range 1-4 ng/g of PBDE's in their breastmilk lipids. Australian women have 11.1 ng/g. Women in the USA have a median level of ~34 ng/g. It made me think that the rest of the world (including the Africans) should consider invading the USA and Australia for humanitarian reasons.

These numbers reflect the care that the society is taking for it's children. In Europe all but animal products have GM labels, in Australia a few GM products are labelled. In the USA, none. In many European countries many GM crops are banned. In Australia has told some biotechs not to bother applying for approval in respect of some GM products. But in the USA it's open slather.

And we're being asked to perform a miracle in suspended belief that the 'benevolent giant' Monsanto is going to exercise duty of care in Africa? Uh ha.

Who was/is making the PBDEs? In the USA one of the two manufacturers was the Albemarle Corporation. And then I googled Albemarle and Monsanto together because great chemical minds think alike.

Protagoras,

I have heard someone tell me that all Australian farmers spray their fields with that nasty Roundup stuff. And that the railways use it, the local government uses it on roadsides and people can even buy it in hardware stores. Must be truly nasty stuff to be that widely available? In fact, it is so widely available because of its low toxicological and environmental profile.

Those canola growers in Australia who can't access GM canola are having to make do with atrazine-resistant canola. Now there is a herbicide with a problematic environmental profile.

As for the 2009 publications, one was a scare article where no data exists, one was a complaint that companies were making people sign agreements to test their products. I am not sure what you thought the 2007 one was about. To get your seed put in that vault, you have to sign the rights away CGIAR. I don’t think we will see too much GM seed going into it.

The paper from Benachour and Seralini is silly in the extreme. They soaked placental cells, umbilical cells and kidney cells in solutions of Roundup for 24 h. I bet if you soaked your rear-end in Roundup all day there are likely to be some issues arising, but it bears no relationship to the reality of using the herbicide. Also it is the detergent in the formulation that did the damage. Soaking you nether regions in dishwashing detergent for 24 h is unlikely to improve them much either.

I might also add that you shouldn’t apply 2,4-D to soybeans, because the herbicide will kill them.

Kesha, the evidence does not support the contention that BT cotton is driving Indian cotton farmers to suicide.
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf
http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/Govt/faculty/Herring%20docs/Whose%20Numbers%20Count%20Warangal%20RH%20IJMRA.pdf
http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v12n1/v12n1a02-herring.htm

Protagoras - as you have so handily confirmed, albeit not in a constructive manner, the few pieces of evidence against GM foods in fact relate to chemicals used in its production - not GM Foods themselves. So change the chemicals and the objection vanishes - yes? Or to put it another way, Roundup is widely used in Australia - as has been noted by Agronomist - so your problem is with Roundup, not with GM foods. Now look again at the evidence you present. As you would realise for your vast experience with GM foods, both are lab studies and the field can be a vastly different place. Remember that the residue (at least for the first piece of "proof") has to survive processing and achieve some sort of above-threshold concentrations in the human or animal body, for the lab results to have any relevence. So what levels are present in humans already exposed to this stuff?
As for the second piece of "proof" the Argentinian authorities have expressed some concern - quite rightly, they have to check these things - so they should undertake field checks and tests. But bear in mind that this is related to roundup not GM foods, and there does not seem to be any direct evidence against the chemical, although one would think there would be by now. Worth checking again, though, you can never be too sure

Madelaine Love,

So all the farmers that want to buy these expensive GM crops are morons?

There are plenty of independent studies showing that the yields are higher and the chemical use is as low as 25% of normal crops. On top of that the chemicals used are less persistent than those for non GM crops.

The fact that GM crops are more environmentally friendly must stick in the craw of the Greens who have painted themselves into a corner on this issue, especially since after more than a decade of use, none of their dooms day predictions have come to pass.

There has been an important element missing from this debate: the right of the individual to know what his or her is eating. As an individual I want to be able to freely decide if I consume or not GM foods. So I want to be properly informed if a certain food has GM components or not and then I can make an informed decision.

However the biotech industry, specific farming interests and some levels of the Australian Government keep denying people that right with their resistance to implement clear and informative labeling laws. Why do they do that? After all we live in a free-market society, where the customer is "king" and informed choice is an important principle. Do they have something to hide from people who want to exercise rational choice?

Shadow Minister,
"There are plenty of independent studies showing that the yields are higher and the chemical use is as low as 25% of normal crops."

For a claim like this you're really going to need to name your sources. I'm not sure how much you know about genetically manipulated crops. The GM 'BT' crops are registered pesticides. They produce pesticide which in every part of the plant. Every piece of BT soy, corn, cotton is a new pesticide into the environment. GM trash left to rot after harvest introduces new pesticides into soil and water. In respect of the GM 'RoundupReady' crops, studies could possibly manipulate data by not including the stronger chemicals that have to be sprayed to get rid of volunteers before the next rotation crop. They may track an 'official' spraying program rather than that actually applied by the farmer. Pesticide sales belie any reduction. Anyway, name the studies and we'll have a look.

"On top of that the chemicals used are less persistent than those for non GM crops."
If crops depend on residual bioaccumulating chemicals I don't think we should be growing the crops, or at least, not in the manner that they are being grown. We should be seeking non-chemical alternative crops. In the case of Roundup, it may have a persistence over many months depending on the weather and soil status. If you want the studies I'll advise them. I have ready any for the Bayer herbicides.

"The fact that GM crops are more environmentally friendly..."
That's a big call! I won't bother asking you about it. You're obviously out to sell an opinion, rather than be a part of an educative discussion.

As for this line...
"So all the farmers that want to buy these expensive GM crops are morons?"
I would deeply prefer that you refrain from attributing this sort of summary to me. I've met with many farmers, and such a statement is offensive. It surprises me that you are able to frame farmers in such a light.

You are quite right Greg, the "GM will feed the world" myth is a deviously clever piece of PR. The GM banana was declared a flop before the program went to air. But, even if it hadn't failed, the project 'hoped' to produce a Black Sigatoka-resistant banana within ten years, but the disease will wipe out the Ugandan food supply within three years because they can't afford the fungicides to treat it. However, the Honduran Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA) has already bred four hybrid bananas that are resistant to Black Sigatoka, including two plantain varieties (FHIA-03 and FHIA-21) that form the mainstay of the Ugandan diet. Traditional breeding methods are already ahead of GM. As for the GM tomato that contains anthocyanins, nature has already provided us with the open-pollinated 'Black Russian' tomato, and anyone can save the seeds from those without being sued by Monsanto.

After many years of promised benefits from GM food crops, all we really have is herbicide resistance and plants that produce their own pesticide – both of which encourage poor farming practice. Of course less pesticides are being sprayed on GM crops, the pesticide is already in the food. Every bite you take contains not only genetically modified bacteria that kills caterpillars, but antibiotic-resistant, or virus-promoter genes so that biotech companies can claim ownership and 'technology use' fees. If GM crops have not been a financial success for government-subsidised Canadian farmers, they most certainly won't be the answer to feeding poor nations.

Biotech companies are trying to reinvent the wheel, and want the world to pay dearly for the gullibility of governments in handing ownership of our food supply to private companies. What GM really stands for is Greedy Monopoly.

It’s of grave concern that the morality of this nation is compromised by citizens who, not only condone the criminal actions of corporations who perform illegal operations in many nations, but actively encourage the infiltration of these criminal entities into their own countries.

"Monsanto (USA) was fined US$ 1.5 million for bribing government officials in Indonesia to avoid a decree that demanded an environmental risk assessment for the Bt cotton Bollgard.

“The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Monsanto with illicit payments in violation with the Foreign Corruption Act (FCAP), with bribery including US$ 50,000 in cash to repeal an decree requiring an environmental risk assessment, falsifying books and invoices, and “questionable payments” such as for the purchase of land and the design and construction of a house in the name of the wife of a senior Ministry of Agriculture official.

"Such payments of approximately US$ 700,000 were made to at least 140 current and former Indonesian government officials and their family members from 1997 to 2002 (SEC 2005).”

“I bet if you soaked your rear-end in Roundup all day there are likely to be some issues arising, but it bears no relationship to the reality …”

Agronomist, this is your second attempt at obfuscating the findings of this research. Allow me to reiterate the information:

“This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed…….Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.”

People, fortunately, have the intellectual capacity to read this paper in its proper context Agronomist despite your condescension.

And last year, Monsanto lost a bid to have France’s highest court overturn a ban on genetically modified corn in light of a report from the country’s High Authority on Genetically Modified Crops that said the corn may harm the environment and wildlife.

The USEPA recognises Glyphosate as a chemical, toxic to the liver, kidneys and blood but permits its ongoing, massive use in the US.

Daniel Sachero has highlighted the most important, and to date invisible element from 'Shadow Minister' and the other pro-GMers arguments: the consumer.

It would appear that the only stakeholders are farmers, biotech industry and government.

But there would be no GM food industry without the people who are buying & eating the stuff.

Realising the threat that the consumer poses, the pro-GM lobby will not grant full labelling - including meat & dairy products from animals fed GM stockfeed and all foods containing or processed by GM, along with notices at food outlets denoting if GM products are used in the food served.

Farmers only have a market for their GM crops on the back of the ignorance of the consumer. Instigate full labelling, as has been requested by the public for over 10 years, and farmers' income from GM crops will evaporate.

From observation, the politicians and GM scientists don't lose sleep about public opposition as it can be managed without denting biotech profits too much.

But farmers surely have a conscience about making money out of products which people wouldn't eat if they could identify them.

Posted by Diane K. D. - Sydney

As Protagoras isn't denying the only real problem with GM foods is aspects of the propuction - with some test results against roundup. That could apply to all foods. The bit about consumers is worth commenting on. Granted there will be consumers who have heard people rant against GM food and be concerned about it. I know there has been considerable discussion about the labelling aspect of it. Although I'm not sure where the labelling debate got to I'd be extraordinarily suprised if food companies were not required to put some sort of GM warning on the label. If readers have expamples to contrary lets hear them. In general terms, before I personally became concerned about the matter I would want someone to explain to me why GM technology is so different in results from plant or animal breeding that has gone on for centuries. If consumers are so worried about eating a, say, bread made from a new type of wheat the they should stop eating altogether. Messing with genetics is nothing new, it just use to be done the old-fashioned way.

Madelaine Love,

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black? I don’t see you providing any independent reference either.
What I have included in my post was said only a year ago by the head of the CSIRO in an interview on ABC radio in conjuction with the minister for agriculture just after the approval of GM modified cannola.

The reply by the minister went along these lines: He did not want to approve it, but in the face of the strong demand from the farmers and the results of the studies by the CSIRO showing no detrimental effects to people or the environment he had no choice.

Some references you might be interested In to help you vary your diet from political mouthpieces.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/vic/content/2009/07/s2621172.htm
http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2007/12/new_study_discounts_gm_crops_g.html
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/genetically_modified_crops_with_built_in_insecticide_also_protects_neighboring_crops_study
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17980/Studies_Show_GM_Crops_Safe.html
With regards the use of chemicals. (note most are Aus gov documents)
http://www.plantbiotechblog.com/2008/06/farmers-praise-gm-crops-in-eu-study.html
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/9548.html
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology/pamphlets/economic_impacts_of_gm_crops_in_asutralia

As for the labelling of food, that is a ploy by the greens to make it more expensive to include GM crops by requiring an audit trail. If there is such a demand for non GM products, then there is a great incentive to be able to print on the package “GM free” similar to the “organic” label.

The WTO found that in the absence of any evidence that GM food was harmful to humans, the requirement for specific labelling was a trade restrictive act and could invite punitive sanctions. So the requirement for labelling of GM foods in Aus would have the following results:
• It would increase the price of all food products,
• It would invite punitive sanctions,
• It would have no health benefits for the general population.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I would love to see your independent sources.

Protagorus, It actually doesn’t really matter that much what concentrations produced an effect, because the test was entirely artificial compared with likely exposure in the field. Under what circumstances are placental, umbilical or kidney cells going to be soaked in solutions of Roundup of any concentration for 24 h?

It was the surfactant that was causing cell death, which is no surprise as surfactants are known to damage cell membranes. Dishwashing liquid will do it if you soak cells in it long enough. Unless you are going to drink Roundup, you won’t be consuming any of the surfactant in your food. Even with Roundup Ready crops, the herbicide is sprayed on the plants when they are young and vegetative. All the surfactant remains on or in the leaves. The amount that would get into canola seed and then into oil that you might cook with is 0.

To be really picky, this study didn’t include the only Roundup formulation that is allowed to be applied to canola in Australia. So despite being a rubbish study and poorly conceived it is also not informative.

Madeleine, I can think of several examples where GM crops are more environmentally friendly than the equivalent non-GM crop. Firstly, the Canola Council of Canada commissioned a study a few years ago that showed the adoption of GM canola in Canada reduced tillage and soil erosion, reduced residual herbicide applications and total herbicide use and reduced diesel use by 31 million litres http://www.canolacouncil.org/gmo_toc.aspx

A second example is BT cotton in Australia where insecticide use has been reduced by over 80% on cotton crops, with some reduction on other crops in the area because of the reduced number of bollworms in the environment. http://www.cnpa.embrapa.br/produtos/algodao/publicacoes/trabalhos_cba5/303.pdf

Reduced insecticide use in BT corn in the US, reduced insecticide use in BT cotton in India, reduced tillage in Roundup ready soybeans in US, Canada and Argentina. http://www.agbioforum.org/v9n3/v9n3a02-brookes.htm
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118695059/abstract
http://agbioforum.org/v6n3/v6n3a01-trigo.htm

Shadow Minister
Have you a name?

"independent reference"
I said the references were available if you wanted them. I thought it unlikely since people in politics don't read science – this is a serious problem – they are easily bluffed by promise and money.

"the head of the CSIRO"
The "I" in CSIRO stands for "Industrial", not Independent. It had a confidential alliance with Monsanto – someone told me they now have an alliance with Bayer. No unbiased advice.

"the minister for agriculture"
We await a meeting with Tony and his advisor so we can explain that there has been no scientific assessment of the safety of GM crops, and that (in particular) GM RR canola is contaminated and its GM proteins not found for assessment or not verified.

"strong demand from the farmers"
Do you mean strong demand from bodies such as the VFF? – These bodies no longer represent farmers. The VFF has desperate membership problems.

The 1% grain levy spent on something that will actually produce a positive result. Or rather, the public should be providing funding for food they'd like to eat.

"no detrimental effects to people"
No studies have been conducted anywhere in the world on the impact of GM crops and food on people, so either you misheard, or the speakers have been misleading.

"Some references"
These are 'chat' websites – not science databases – I'll see if there are any real references there. Contact me: mclove@dodo.com.au . I will reply to you in detail about any real science. I have reviewed most published studies on GM RR canola.

If you post again without contacting me I will assume that you are not interested in genuine information. No pro-GM poster on this forum has contacted me.

"…political mouthpieces."
I wouldn't listen to any politician on this issue – they haven't read any GM 'science'. Senator Rachel Siewert is quite well informed – no time to read the science. I can send you what Monsanto sent FSANZ – then you would know.

No labelling costs - all food GM free just as it was.

Agronomist:
You stated "Even with Roundup Ready crops, the herbicide is sprayed on the plants when they are young and vegetative. All the surfactant remains on or in the leaves. The amount that would get into canola seed and then into oil that you might cook with is 0." Do you have documentation to back up that statement?

Research published by the USDA last year stated that "glyphosate remained unmetabolised in every part of of the herbicide-resistant GM plants". That means it is ingested with the food, and canola is not the only GM food crop that is sprayed with glyphosate.

Where are the long term studies showing that regular ingestion of glyphosate is safe? If animals are fed on GM crop residues, does glyphosate accumulate in animal tissues? Where are the long term studies that show it does not accumulate, and is not in meat from animals regularly fed GM grains or residues? Swedish research (some years ago) found that exposure to glyphosate increased the risk of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma two and a half times. The incidence of this cancer is not only increasing, it is one that affects young people. The onus is on our health authorities to prove that regularly ingesting glyphosate does not pose the same risk.

Lynbee, your evidence:

1) Australian herbicide label http://search.nufarm.com.au/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=931&function=GetProduct&ProductID=303777&Details=Y&CompanyID=509228
2) Surfactant primers http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/metabolomics/bioultra-reagents/detergents-surfactants.html http://www.sdahq.org/sdalatest/html/soapchemistry1.htm
3) Structure of polyethoxylated tallow amine http://www.jstor.org/pss/3988145
4) Molecular size limit for phloem mobility http://www.springerlink.com/content/w601733q2181860k/
Mass of the smallest polyethoxylated tallow amine is 901 Daltons, much larger than the largest molecule able to move in the phloem. So even if the surfactant could get into intact leaf cells, which it couldn’t, it wouldn’t be able to move to the developing grain.

lynbee said << Research published by the USDA last year stated that "glyphosate remained unmetabolised in every part of of the herbicide-resistant GM plants". That means it is ingested with the food, and canola is not the only GM food crop that is sprayed with glyphosate.>>

That is of course glyphosate, not the surfactant.

Glyphosate toxicity in long term animal studies http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Specs/docs/Pdf/new/glypho01.pdf http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v86pr08.htm

No glyphosate does not accumulate in animal tissues. It is too water soluble and is excreted. Swedish research didn’t find exposure to glyphosate increased non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The odds ratio might be 2.3, but the confidence interval ranges from 0.4. This means the association observed could be pure chance http://www.beyondpesticides.org/documents/acs-nhlymphoma-1999.pdf There is in fact was a more significant association with exposure to glass wool in this paper (OR 1.5, CI 1.0-2.3).

Well said Greg.

Don't worry anyone with a bit of sense will see through the obvious sham that equates the existence of poverty with the absence of GM food.

It is all about economics and GM won't change any of those inequities anytime soon.

And if GM is considered so simple and natural why have so many GM projects and trials been unsuccessful with worrying outcomes in respect to human health and dangerous immune responses.

Wouldn't that suggest it is not THAT simple!

Wow, is 'Agronomist' an employee of Monsanto or just a scientist (or politician) deriving income/advantages from GM?

The stakes must really be high when a GM opponent's proof of undesirable consequences must silenced immediately with the full force of pro-GM scientific data, which is, strangely, always just at hand.

This closed-mindedness to anything negative about gene technology is not in the realm of normality. All the anti-GMers want is to not eat it - a reasonable request which elicits an 'all fury of hell' response from GM proponents.

It's unnatural and, dare I say, unscientific. Aren't scientists open to, and revel in, finding new information - or was that BF (ie, Before Funding)?

As for labelling, it's only an interim step. As authorities and grain handlers cannot, or are unwilling to, ensure a GM-free food supply then removal of GM from our food supply is the goal.

'Agronomist' and 'Shadow Minister', you are limiting the public's concerns about GM to health & the environment. These are the main concerns. But others include the cultural, religious and ethical violations which gene technology poses.

You may not have appreciation of these values, but millions/billions of people do.

Whether you understand or not, many hold that there is a pre-ordained mode of expression in every plant and animal and that this expression cannot be fully and safely expressed in an organism genetically altered by humans. There will be flow-on effects throughout nature, including to humans - if not immediately, then in time.

(At this point don't bring up the line that genetic manipluation has been going on for thousands of years. Species barriers weren't crossed till now nor were there the scientific capabilities to do so.)

Take away the income and advantages that GM-proponents are enjoying and how evangelical would they be about GM food?

From Diane K. D.

*All the anti-GMers want is to not eat it - a reasonable request which elicits an 'all fury of hell' response from GM proponents.*

In that case Kesha, you should be willing to pay a premium for
food guaranteed to be GM free and no doubt it will be provided
by somebody.

The fact is that GM is now used to produce commodities at
commodity prices, which means cheap. Some Japanese pleaded
with WA farmers to not use GM technology, but to my knowledge,
they were not prepared to pay anything extra for that. Canola
from WA was worth not a cent more, then Canadian GM canola.

Anything is available at a price. Its up to you to choose.

Farmers will use the most cost effective way to produce el
cheapo commodities. If you want extra, so cough up. That
is fair enough.

Yabby
Why should anti-GM consumers pay more for something they once enjoyed at a non-premium cost.

There is obviously a huge market for non-GM food so why would it production costs increase more than in the past (ignoring usual crop price fluctuations).

There are already labelling requirements associated with food content, country of origin/manufacture so what is the big deal with GM labelling if given market demands and expectations.

*Why should anti-GM consumers pay more for something they once enjoyed at a non-premium cost.*

Quite simple Pelican, because agricultural technology has changed,
that is the reality. Hundreds of millions of consumers are eating
GM foods every day, we don't hear of them falling over and dying.
Farmers use whatever is legal to produce el cheapo commodities, if
you want extra, then the consumer is free to pay.

Its no different to so called organic foods. Some people have
a problem with Roundup, which is now used throughout agriculture
and saves billions of tonnes of topsoil blowing away, from previous
overcultivation to kill weeds.

Those who want organic foods, are free to pay the price. Years ago,
all food was so called organic, because modern pesticides had not
yet been invented. But then technology changed

Dear Yabby,

I already "pay a premium" for food as I buy organic. The costs I save further down the track in fewer doctor's bills and medicines mean my food costs are probably lower than for synthetic chemical-based & GM produce.

Of course you'll decry such a statement as every GM proponent won't countenance a word against GM or in favour of organics.

So I am "coughing up", as you so delicately put it, by paying a premium for organic food.

You to say "It's up to you to choose." Yes and no. If I want to eat home-cooked organic meals every day, then yes. But I don't. It is not always practical or desirable. So restaurants receive a bit of my patronage each week.

There my freedom to choose my preferred foods ends. Restaurants & cafes use dairy products, oils and so on, from, or processed by, GM technology.

From Diane K. D.

kesha,
"The stakes must really be high when a GM opponent's proof of undesirable consequences must silenced immediately with the full force of pro-GM scientific data, which is, strangely, always just at hand."

so the opponents "proof" isn't open to scrutiny? One should just believe their claims?

What I see is an attempt to character assasinate agronomist but no attept to refute said evidence. Wonder why that would be?

I'm writing to thank Agronomist for her invaluable assistance in understanding the mechanations of the GM world.

Sometimes I think of Agronomist as a trapped insider working against GM, an insider Erin Brokovich, feeding us the sort of information we need to answer the case.

But I don't usually talk to Agronomist. She doesn’t give herself a real name and I think this is wise because it means people can’t take legal action against her for misleading advice. And I wouldn’t want her to give away her cover.

However, in grateful thanks for services rendered, I write to offer assistance in return to the pro-GM case, which I'm sure you'll have no trouble in passing on...

I'm working on Aggie's references, beginning with the Canola Council. I like to understand organisations and I was reading through the FAQ's when I came across this gem:

"The modification has been made to only one canola gene and it is a protein."

Isn’t this marvelous? Well, well!! Acknowledging a modification to a canola gene!! There we go – and people could’ve been tempted to believe the spin that the new genetic material had been randomly transfected by an agrobacterium into junk DNA! Furthermore, a canola gene that is a protein! Magnificent.

Send them an email Aggie - this is highly damaging and could lead someone to think that the Canola Council knows absolutely nothing about the genetic engineering of their feature plant. It may lead someone to think that the Canola Council wouldn't be able to cast a critical eye over the material they are sent. It could lead someone to think they'd publish anything the biotechs fiddled with, without knowing truth or otherwise.

I've downloaded your Argentinean references, but thought I should read through the material of La Soya Mata – Soy Kills, and Movimiento Campesino de Santiago del Estero first – so I can better identify the pieces of analysis overlooked by the reviewers at AgBioForum. My husband can read Spanish and Portuguese – it's so helpful.

Cricket's over, time to go to bed.

Shadow Minister,

You did not answer my question. Do individuals have the right to know what is on their food? This is most important and you did not answer it.

You also say: "As for the labelling of food, that is a ploy by the greens to make it more expensive to include GM crops by requiring an audit trail."

Perhaps you can expand what you mean here, as a consumer I can see a lot of benefit for having an audit trail as it enhances food safety. For example contaminated foods, or foods that are found to be potentially dangerous can be recalled as it has been the case in many occasions with commercial food products or other products.

I wonder if this resistance to clearly label GM food is to protect the biotech industry and growers and limit their liabilities in the case that GM foods are found to be toxic or harmful to humans. As I can see there is no scientific evidence of the effects of GM foods on humans, so until there are thoroughly tested there is no proof and a potential risk to the companies commercializing the seeds and the growers producing them.

If the biotech companies were so sure that there was no potential harmful effects to humans then they should agree on clear labeling and an audit trail and put their brands next to a sign that says "Genetically Modified" and accept full liability on adverse effects.

Cost is a lesser issue as I am sure that these companies spend significant amounts of money in marketing their brands, defending their intellectual property rights and funding interest groups.

DS,

There are a few basic human rights:
The right to free association, free speech, etc.

It is in the consumer's interests to have information pertaining to their health such as fat, salt, etc, and as this is relatively for the manufacturer to do and to check, and adds very cost to the product.

GM products are very difficult to differentiate or test, and this would add significant costs to all food products as there would be a requirement to prove "non GM status"

Considering that there is no evidence (only speculation) that GM is harmful, and many years of consumption to show otherwise, The consumer watchdog can see no reason to inflict additional costs on the consumer.

So in short "does the consumer have the right to know the full pedigree of every component of their food?" the answer is NO!

ML,

Considering that you have yet to provide a single independent reference, your presumption that my failure to contact you is because I am "not interested in genuine information" is more than a little outlandish. If and when you show yourself to be able to present credible information as well as rhetoric, I might consider you a viable source of information.

Your rubbishing of my links simply shows that you didn't even bother to look at them. Only one was a chat site, the others were Australian government websites and internet based scientific journals "blogs".

likewise your attempt to discredit the CSIRO because the word industrial is in their name is pathetic. One of the prime reasons they were created was to generate unbiased research free from political or other biases. That they do research for companies such as Monsanto etc, is not because these companies cannot do the work themselves, but because everyone knows that the results will be untainted and cannot be dismissed by others. These partnerships have often produced results contrary to the objectives of the partner.

And I was not referring to the VVF

Kesha,

If you really want to eat idealogically sound food, then you can pay the premium for "organic".

Kesha, the reason that the scientific evidence is at hand is that these questions have been asked and answered. The same ‘proofs’ of the dangers of GM come around again and again, despite their being proved wrong.

If there is a pre-ordained mode of expression in every plant and animal, where does it start and end? What about wide crosses between species, such as the ones that created wheat 10,000 years ago? Or strawberries that came from a cross between two species 400 years ago. Or grapefruit, or canola for that matter. What about the continuing wide crosses that are used to get rust resistance genes into wheat? What about chemical mutagenesis? Does stopping the expression of genes, such as the ones that make toxins in many of the ancestors of the crops we eat count? I fear we are in deep trouble; there will be nothing left for us to eat.

If people want to believe that genetic modification is religiously unsound, they can choose to eat food without it, in the same way that other religions have bans on certain foods.

Dear Madeleine, thank you for caring. I have not given out my name here because, unlike you and Julie Newman, I don’t have an organisation and ideology to push. There is just me. I must say, I was unaware that people could take legal action for misleading advice on the internet. It is probably a good thing too, I wouldn't want you to be subject to a lawsuit.

I don’t expect the Canola Council of Canada to be an expert on genetic engineering. I cite them because they have data on things they do have expertise in. Like growing canola, farming practices and canola markets. I have sent the Canola Council an e-mail with your best wishes.

On the pro GM stance by the VFF ,their position is clear .

Their young ,new, GM Canola growing President, Andrew Broad, for the sake of the Public media,and trying to sure up a rapidly declining membership has now said that there is a place for both technologies .

However,another senior Administrator recently pulled no bones with me on their position when he very emotionally said " If you are not pro GM, you are either a f..kwit or you don't know anything about it !!"

I had said more research was needed .

One good Willy Willy can spread seed, dust and GM pollen and seed for kilometres .

Who is going to compensation for accidently contaminated crops?

COMpensation is paid for spray drift damage - why not GM drift contamination damage.

Shadow Minister hasn't contacted me, and has offered no name, and I believe we have established now that she is 'just another' pro-GM'er. Shadow Minister, I will treat your contact confidentially if this is what you are worried about.

However, there is no point in arguing a case with someone who receives or anticipates receiving financial benefit from representing the pro-GM view. No admission of inadequacy or union of understanding can be expected in such a situation.

Pro-GM Agronomist has not only freely declared that GM can't feed the world, but she has now thanked me for caring.

This predilection to care is something I can’t put aside, like most mothers who are part of the rapidly growing MADGE network (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) www.madge.org.au

"MADGE is a network of individuals interested in how our food is grown and the effects it has on our health. We are concerned about the lack of adequate labelling and testing of GM foods.
We advocate on behalf of consumers for the right to know what is in our food. We promote information on natural foods and healthy farming practices." info@madge.org.au

If ‘safe and healthy food’ is an ideology then I suppose we’re pushing it.
If any specific references are supplied we will gratefully work through them.

I am fascinated by Agronomist's 17 July statement: "Farmers are not ignorant peasants. They are astute operators and know what works and what doesn’t work."

I suppose she accepts the situation that there are peasants who aren't ignorant? Such as the Argentinean 'peasants' (farmers) who grew a healthy diversity of crops and 'food that feeds their world' but who have apparently been kicked off their productive land in Argentina to allow large pooled-investor funded conglomerates to grow GM soy for biofuels and northern hemisphere cattle feed. Apparently these farmers are now part of the hungry world, because Argentina must import real food at too high a cost. Women and children are most affected. http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=578

Maybe we need to go there. My husband likes Sth America

“There are a few basic human rights:
The right to free association, free speech, etc.”

Shadow Minister – The better informed understand that the right to free speech has long been denied - no more evident than in the 500 pieces of legislation and at least 1,000 court suppression orders still in force that restrict media reporting in Australia.

Last year, researchers at UWA found that 302 academics across Australia reported experiencing or witnessing 142 cases of suppression.

Affected researchers had their research reports blocked, faced abnormal delays in publishing their research or were directly ordered to modify or sanitise their results by government agencies. Several were threatened with lack of funding.

All state and territory governments were guilty of covering up.

“GM products are very difficult to differentiate or test.” Really SM? Does this justify the attempts by Agonomist to obfuscate - one who has advised he is an 'expert' in agricultural matters, but can only provide us with a “long term” report from the FAO (who depend on Monsanto and Syngenta et al for its published information) which was nine years old? The Inchem link was published in 1986 and Beyond Pesticides, 1999?

Nevertheless, the paper published by BP advised in 1999:

“Other much used pesticides, e.g., glyphosate, also
might be of concern…

“Since the time period for diagnosis
in this study, the use of glyphosate has increased
dramatically, especially during the 1990s, and it is now
the most common herbicide used in Sweden. Gene
mutations and chromosomal aberrations have
been reported in mouse lymphoma cells exposed for
glyphosate.

“ Furthermore, the incidence of hepatocellular
carcinoma, leukemia, and lymphoma was somewhat
increased in one study on mice. In culture of
human lymphocytes, glyphosate increased the number
of sister chromatid exchanges. Recently, we published
an increased risk for hairy cell leukemia, a rare
type of NHL, for subjects exposed to glyphosate as well
as for subjects exposed to other pesticides.

"For these reasons, glyphosate deserves further epidemiologic
studies.”

More contradictions - more blunders from agricultural "expert" Agronomist?

ML,

Once again you have failed to provide any independant substantiation to your argument. I have contacted you as you requested in the vague hope that you can provide more than rhetoric, and invite anyone else to send their information, comments or even hate mail to:

Shadowminister0@gmail.com

I would prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons personal and other, so without sufficient reason am not prepared to divulge my full details, but some of my background

The nome de plume "shadow minister" was chosen pre 2007 precisely because the shadow ministers job is to dismantle the incumbant's position by exposing the flaws and separating facts from spin.

My background is as an engineer building and maintaining large industrial plants in a particular field that has absolutely nothing to do with either chemicals or agriculture or anyone that has anything to do with GM. I do however, have a mother who was a research scientist in the field of agriculture and food production, who retired decades ago before GM came on the scene.

So I pride myself on having more than a passing understanding of GM and its implications as well as absolutely no financial or other gain to be had by pushing the GM cause.

On the other hand, I have a very low tolerance for the BS that is peddled by various movements, whose "scientific" information is so flawed and consists mostly of unsubstantiated attacks on proven data.

Your comment of "However, there is no point in arguing a case with someone who receives or anticipates receiving financial benefit from representing the pro-GM view." is just such an instance of trying to play the man because you cannot play the ball.

Either provide some substantiation or admit that you cannot.

Yabby I understand what you are arguing in terms of new technology but in the case of GM food there is a huge market for non-GM products hence the passion we see here for more transparent food labelling. It is not only consumers but there are networks of famers worldwide against GM food. These farmers are not even paid compensation should their crops become contaminated.

No-one advocating GM has really put forward a valid argument for why it is okay to deny people the right for information about the food they eat.

The obvious conclusion that one jumps to is that the popularity of non-GM food is widely accepted and hence the only motivation is to deceive.

If you are strong in your faith for the markets (consumers) to decide - why not let the market decide and legislate for honesty in labelling?

The real truth is that consumers have very little power despite the rhetoric and big companies like Monsanto care very little about what the consumers want.

“It was the surfactant that was causing cell death, which is no surprise as surfactants are known to damage cell membranes.” Thank you Agronomist. Now please provide us with a very good reason why surfactants continue to be used in Glyphosate when they are proven to “damage cell membranes.”

Furthermore, please advise why you offer FAO information as a support to an increasingly vacuous argument when FAO’s disclaimer states: “FAO is not responsible for ensuring that any product claimed to comply with FAO specifications actually does so.”

Perhaps, even though you’re considered a lightweight, you might know why one of Australia's top farming experts, Dr Maarten Stapper, was dumped by the CSIRO, amid allegations he was bullied by executive management for criticising genetically modified crops?

Then we would like to know why an agricultural “expert” such as yourself, is so incredibly ignorant about a mother’s exposure to pollutants and the placental transfer of pesticides where most pollutants are not restricted from reaching an embryo or foetus. Placental toxicology is well documented – particularly on the potential for pesticide residues and their metabolites to invade the tissue of brain, liver and muscle.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9okIDjXdG-UC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=pesticide+transfer+to+placenta&source=bl&ots=TRjTzEpVoh&sig=VHti_n_5gEJcXvavTKOK3tOrAYE&hl=en&ei=CLFhSrHlG9KIkQXq8a37Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

The alarming evidence available on Monsanto’s organochlorinated pesticides is also overwhelming – not least that Monsanto knew about the human health impacts of dioxins in the 60s but continued flogging Agent Orange to the US military to “defoliate” Vietnam.

The Australian government has published a paper on the impacts of dioxins; the international Stockholm Convention was established to eliminate Monsanto et al’s deadly legacy of dioxins because of the human and environmental costs on the entire planet yet Monsanto et al continue to manufacture chlorinated pesticides and farmers and their sycophantic governments in the “first” world country of Australia continue to contaminate the nation with such hazardous compounds as endosulfan and atrazine even though their uses have been banned in many nations - even in developing countries.

Protests are occurring around the world against chemical corporations and their parasites, who commit crimes against humanity and the planet’s biodiversity. Alas, the leper's bell you share, Agronomist, has corroded.

*If you are strong in your faith for the markets (consumers) to decide - why not let the market decide and legislate for honesty in labelling?*

Pelican, I do indeed think that the market will eventually decide,
but perhaps in the opposite way then you think. AFAIK, most of
the people who have an issue with GM, are commonly also veggies
and or organic fans. But its only a relatively small % of the
population.

Now I don't see on any label "wheat fertilised with Urea or DAP"
Why not? Because its the standard thing to do. As GM becomes
standard, the same will principle will apply.

When more people actually demand GM free food, enterprising
farmers and processors will provide it for them, for a premium.

One poster mentioned restaurants. Well we already have veggie
restaurants and organic restaurants. They will be willing customers
for certified GM free, for those who seem to be concerned about it.

Dear rojo,

You asked me: "so the (GM) opponents "proof" isn't open to scrutiny? One should just believe their claims?"

Yes, of course GM opponents' "proof" should be open to scrutiny like GM proponents'.

You said: "What I see is an attempt to character assasinate agronomist but no attept to refute said evidence. Wonder why that would be?"

Answer: Character assassination was not intended, just a by-product of expressing my awe that a member of the public would have that amount of pro-GM information at hand.

Real character assassination belongs to the biotech industry when a scientist breaks ranks to question GM, eg, Dr Arpad Pustai. A scientist in Australia, also, was demoted after questioning GM. I won't give the name, but I attended their talk in Sydney 2yrs ago.

As for me not attempting to refute Agronimist, it's becoming obvious there's no point. Every web link with my/anyone's 'irrefutable edivence of GM harm' is dismissed.

My alignment with the anti-GM school came not from 'proof of harm' studies though but from pro-GMers. GM forums where CSIRO scientists described the genetic modification process convinced me to be GM-free.

Dear Yabby,

I have had 'GM information' stalls at markets & fairs. The thousands who signed petitions asking for full GM labelling/banning were anything but "veggies or organic fans". Aversion to GM cut across all societal areas, ages and political persuasions and it was certainly not "a relatively small % of the population". Another observation was the depth of anger about GM.

There was a campaign around 1999/2000 for a 'GM-free Bondi'. 2 or 3 Bondi veggie restaurants were enthusiastic but far from "willing customers", as you say, to advertise they were GM-free as they couldn't guarantee every item was GM-free and didn't want the liability.

By the way, doesn't it worry even the pro-GMers that Monsanto has patents on about 11,000 seeds? (Reference: "Currently Monsanto has amassed over 11,000 seed patents. Four clusters of companies now control the seeds sold around the world." http://www.vegparadise.com/media7.html) OK, refute my weblink because it has the words 'vegparadise' in it.

From Diane K. D.

*I have had 'GM information' stalls at markets & fairs. The thousands who signed petitions asking for full GM labelling/banning were anything but "veggies or organic fans". *

Well firstly people are always nervous of change and things which
they don't understand. Its a human foible. Secondly, I would be
surprised if the information which you gave them, was objective :)
People will sign petitions for just about anything. On one of
the ABC science shows, they once got people to sign a petition
to ban water! It certainly proved a point to me.

OTOH, hundreds of millions of Americans and others are eating GM
foods and AFAIK, they are not falling off the perch because of it,
so thats a pretty big experiment. I'd personally be far more
nervous about using mobile phones too often.

Yes seed companies own plant patents, its part of PVR. Those
companies who pay for the breeding, get the royalties. Perhaps
I should buy some shares in Monsanto :)

* to advertise they were GM-free as they couldn't guarantee every item was GM-free and didn't want the liability.*

Probably what will happen there, is as with organic. Nobody can
guarantee organic, but a certified process and testing makes it
highly likely. Mind you, some stuff coming from China and
"certified organic", umm, I would rather eat the stuff I grow
with Roundup and fertiliser used lol.

Thats always a good test btw. If a farmer eats what he grows, you
can presume its most likely ok. if the veggie grower has a special
patch of veggies, just for his family, well you should shop elsewhere
perhaps.

Next time to you go to Coles or Woolies, note how fussy that people
are, when they pick out their veggies. Anything with the smallest
blemish is left behind. That is why farmers use alot of pesticides,
its the consumers choice. Heaps of stuff is thrown out, as it does
not look perfect

Protagoras, surfactants are added to glyphosate formulations to stop the drops bouncing off the target leaves. They enhance absorption into the leaf. The surfactant itself does not go in, it stays in contact with the cuticle. Lots of other herbicides have surfactants added. In fact, Certified Organics market an organic herbicide that contains a lot of surfactants and is used at a rate much higher than glyphosate http://www.certifiedorganics.info/prodbwcapplication.html#general http://www.certifiedorganics.info/images/BioWeed_Control_MSDS.pdf.

The FAO merely hold a document with data that I was interested in. It is a bit like criticising the library for not guaranteeing the veracity of every book in their collection. It might be better if you dealt with the data.

Maarten Stapper? No never heard of him. What are his important agricultural advances? How many papers has he published? You say he was one of Australia’s top farming experts. Is he held in as much esteem as John Angus, Tim Reeves, Les Copeland, Tony Fisher, John Kirkegaard, Steve Powles or John Passioura?

Protagoras, you still have to deal with the fact that the Benachour and Seralini study bathed placental cells in formulated Roundup. They needed a glyphosate concentration of over 1% to get any effect at all. That is 10 g/L. The average human adult contains 5L of blood. So to get to a concentration of 10 g/L a mother would need to ingest 50 g of glyphosate and have all of it in move into their blood. Rat studies show about a third of glyphosate is absorbed http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc159.htm#SectionNumber:6.1, but most of that is excreted quickly. Someone would have to consume 300 mL of Roundup concentrate or 15L of solution for spraying to get anywhere close to 10g/L in blood. It is just not going to happen unless someone tries to commit suicide with Roundup

Shadow Minister,

Thank you for your response. There you admit to a core element of the GM proponents position. One that they normally do not dare to mention because it shows their contempt for people. You conclude your response by admitting what the GM proponents believe: that the right of the person to know what they are eating has to be denied for them to consume GM product. You seem to discard this important "right", and don't seem to believe that is necessary. I disagree, I believe that from cultural and individual identity reasons it is important to know what we are eating. It is important because it helps protect ourselves against potential harm and enables us to exercise responsibility and choice. Try telling a Jew or a Muslim that you will deny their right to know what is in their food, try to tell parents of anaphylactic children that you will deny their right to know or people suffering from allergies

Shadow Minister,

This is a continuation of my earlier post.

In your response you start by saying that there is important for customers to have information such as fat, salt for example; but change your position in regards to the GM component arguing that they are difficult to test and that there is no evidence that GM is harmful.

First I propose that we need to differentiate GM from non-GM produce and label accordingly so no test is necessary for food manufacturers. Second, according to you "that there is no evidence (only speculation) that GM is harmful" does not suggest that there is not causality, only that the link has not been proved yet. Most importantly you cannot claim the opposite: "that GM foods are safe", as far as I know there are no scientific tests carried in humans that prove that hypothesis. Many years of consumption cannot be used as evidence to suggest that GM foods are safe for many reasons: first we are not screening for "GM food" in disease diagnostics, second damage can manifest itself many years after consumption (for example asbestosis, or lung cancer due to smoking) so the time that has past may be too short to assess and third there is significant complexity in assigning causality beyond reasonable doubt in non controlled populations with a large number of variables.

In other words GM foods may be affecting people in ways that they are currently not detected or not be possible to prove. For all those reasons we should exercise caution with GM foods. As a minimum provide clear labeling and an audit trail so individuals could assess their personal risks when consuming GM foods.

I write to confirm that the Shadow Minister contacted me - all praise - very courageous.

Shadow Minister's background had been detailed on the forum and I offered mine in response. As an introduction I offered the context in which I began to research GM food and crops in detail. The first part is presented below if anyone would like to challenge information in the references…

I was shocked to learn in Oct 07 that Australia was about to grow GM canola because I hadn't heard anything. I would've thought the issue demanded strong open debate given general public anti-GM opinion. At this point I smelled a rat - how come I didn't know?

When the politicians and 'esteemed authorities' said there wouldn't be any contamination between GM and non-GM canola I went straight to the pubmed database. I found studies detailing the contamination in Canada. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed - type Brassica Napus Canada. Studies will appear (some compiled at this link http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/GE/ge-canola-out-of-control-in.pdf . This was from Dec 07 – more studies now.)
The politicians/ authorities must have known about the contamination, and yet they were saying there would be none. Why? I smelled another rat.

I began to research through the contamination side. I went into the Network of Concerned Farmers and found Julie Newman's "The Drive Behind GM Crops"
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2854
This went into the global/corporate control issues. It was a huge eye opener on how this big trading world worked. I was surprised by the disregard given to consumers – people – in the decisions – this was big power, and it didn't read well.

I also learnt that Australia had grown GM cotton since 1996. I'd known nothing about it, though it would've formed a vital part of my consumer decisions. There was a big rat in hiding this from consumers.

I read an amazing Hansard conversation between the Gene Technology Regulator and Senators at the Senate Estimates hearings in November 2003.
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7055.pdf pp 148 - 166 - particularly pp 161-162 – I’ll detail it in the next post - curse this 350 word limit.

DS,

Unfortunately, your examples were poorly chosen, as they prove my point.

Jews have the right to buy kosher food,
Muslims, - Halal,
For people with allergies you can buy gluten free or nut free, organic,
For patriots, - made in Australia.
All these people can buy food prepared and labelled for their particular needs or wants, and it would appear that in Aus there is such a labelling system being developed for GM free food. What more can you reasonably ask for? Or do you want all other food to be labelled non kosher, non halal etc?

This is the situation in the USA where one can buy GMO foods at a premium, but in spite of an initial vocal protest, the vast majority of consumers don’t care enough to dip into their pockets.

So in short, you have the right to know what you are eating, but you don’t have the right to inflict the costs of any food fetish on the other 90% of the public.

As far as food safety is concerned, the complete lack of any observable negative consequences from the hundreds of millions of users would indicate that either there is no causal link or it is so tenuous as to be ignored. The failure to prove complete safety is circular argument. I cannot prove that anything is completely safe. To follow your extension of the precautionary principle I should go outside with a steel umbrella to protect against meteorites.

Congrats to Madeleine Love and Shadow Minister for establishing communication.

Thanks Daniel Sacchero for lucid & intelligent points re labelling.

Yabby, thanks again for your input. When I said I had 'GM information' stalls, I should've said 'GM-free information' so, yes, it wasn't 'objective' but wasn't intended to be. The stall sign said: Label All GM Food.

You say "people will sign petitions for anything", but almost without exception they read every word before signing.

Re Americans eating GM and "not falling off their perch", I wouldn't exactly draw attention to Americans' health. Sadly they have about the worst of any industrialised nation. (Statistics easily available.) As Daniel S points out, of course a link to GM can't be proved without clinical trials & labelling.

Re Coles & Woolies selling blemish-free/'uniform size' produce because consumers want it, it's true. But as people become aware of the wastage that that entails they might broaden their definition of 'perfect'.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Re the right to know what's in our food, you might be interested that people recently sent submissions to the Federal Government's proposed Human Rights bill asking for inclusion of 'the right to unadulterated food'.

But if anyone wanted a reason to curtail growing GM crops then Monsanto must be it. 'The Future of Food' documentary (released 2004) had a public screening in Sydney last night.

Nothing libellous - Monsanto would act swiftly if there was. The viewer was left to draw their own conclusions. But this viewer was depressed by the misery - and fear - the corporation has caused to US & Canadian farmers by its lawsuits, & threats of lawsuits.

I wouldn't give them one dollar of my food budget even if they were purveying organic food.

Quote from Monsanto director (in film): "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, October 1998. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Angell

Mmmm.

From Diane K. D.

Profile on soil scientist Maarten Stapper:

http://biologicagfood.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=49

http://www.naturalsequencefarming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=275

http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/5458068/14364485

Madeline, I'm surprised you hadn't heard GM cotton has been grown here for more than 10 years, it's something the cotton industry has been extolling due to the reduction in insecticides. By about 80%. I can't imagine anyone considering GM cotton as anything other than a good news story.
Not only are we applying less insecticide we are, by this very virtue, maintaining naturally beneficial insect populations keeping bio-diversity and further reducing damage to cotton plants.

When we started with GM cotton we kept the seed segregated, until it became apparent that customers didn't require gm-free product. Now as close to 90% of Australian cotton is GM there isn't much choice anyway.

I guess the question is what decisions would GM cotton change for the informed consumer?

Thanks Protagoras for the information about Maarten Stapper. The online forum was not terribly helpful and I didn’t want to watch the video, but I found his personal profile on the biological farming website is interesting – although it gave me no idea why he would be considered one of Australia’s top agricultural scientists. It also clearly indicated he was not a soil scientist – irrigated wheat seems to be his speciality.

I decided to follow up myself. CABI comes up with 13 scientific papers (which is a more accurate assessment of value) in 23 years. He wasn’t exactly a prolific researcher was he? Do you think the fact that he had only published 4 papers in his last 16 years at CSIRO might have influenced their decision about his value to the organisation? As a comparison, I did a similar search for Mark Peoples also a CSIRO agricultural researcher: 99 papers with 43 in the past decade.

Perhaps on this basis we should consider Mark Peoples ‘one of Australia's top farming experts’? What does Mark say about GM crops?

Dear I'm getting tired of the pro-GMers setting up the non-GMers by asking for more information, eg, re Maarten Stapper, labelling, glyphosate, then demolishing every piece of information sent back.

The pro-GMers tenacity in this regard is formidable and indicates there must be an agenda.

Agronomist, rojo, Shadow Minister all know too much 'inner circle' GM information to be convincing as just members of the public enjoying some lively banter.

A plumber, hairdresser, language teacher, IT worker is hardly going to have the degree of scientific knowledge displayed by the pro-GMers contributing to this discussion - and certainly wouldn't bother taking up their precious time beyond 1 or 2 postings.

* I wouldn't exactly draw attention to Americans' health. Sadly they have about the worst of any industrialised nation*

Kesha, at this point you do have to apply some common sense to the
discussion and you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to do it.

Yes, America is the home of fast food, junk food, processed food,
trans fats, IMHO all far greater problems then GM food.

For that we have some evidence. A trip to America some years ago,
was quite enlightening for me. Go the US deep south and everything
edible is covered in grease and fat. Many people are battling to
walk, such is the problem. Head North, towards the Canadian border,
it changes dramatically, diet changes, restaurant menus change,
peoples shape changes. Go over the boarder into Canada, where I went
anyhow in Nova Scotia and they were much as in Europe.

Now Canadians grow and use large amounts of GM crops, is there
a problem in Canada that you know of?

I have concerns about GM, but for very different reasons then you do.
IMHO Roundup, or now the off patent glyphosate, is far too
valuable a herbicide to be misused or used too often, for as we do,
nature will naturally respond and mutations resistant to glyphosate
will appear in the natural population of weeds. It has already
happened with rye grass etc at something like 89 sites in Australia.

Now the reality is breeding of new varieties used to be financed
by Govt contribution, with farmers making up the balance. Govts
pulled their money out, so companies like Monsanto have moved in.

CSIRO today is doing less and less when it comes to agriculture,
so if you want to blame anyone for your predicament, its the
Govts that you helped to elect.

Kesha,

Your comments:

"The pro-GMers tenacity in this regard is formidable and indicates there must be an agenda.

Agronomist, rojo, Shadow Minister all know too much 'inner circle' GM information to be convincing as just members of the public enjoying some lively banter."

Is exactly the kind of fatuous smear attempt that gets the greens a bad name.

The opposite is true, I have a strong technical back ground (see previous posts) and with some investigation on the net, have yet to find a single technical reason why GM is a health risk.

GM products are more thoroughly scrutinised than any other product, and more than decade after their introduction have yet to show any negative health risks.

As a man of sound judgement I need more to go on than "it's bad mojo man."

In spite of repeated calls to provide any information on health risks, none of the opponents of GM have been able to.

If the proponents of GM are technical savvy and the opponents not, what does that say about the debate?

During the time I have been on OLO there have been many links posted highlighting the risks of GM food, lack of peer review and science being manipulated in the interests of biotechs.

It does not help the pro-GM argument if there are questions surrounding ethical practices of those companies and a reluctance for honesty in labelling.

Scientists who have come forward with doubts about GM are pilloried by the biotechs or lose tenure in some universities and science organisations like the CSIRO. Martin Staaper (soil health) was just one casualty when scientists own research goes against government policy.

Still the pro-GM lobby asks for more. If you are not willing to read the science there is not much more we can do in the face of blind faith in the GM industry and it's science.

It is interesting that biotech groups forced out of more science-savvy Europe are using the poverty fighting argument to intrude into the third world.

For those who are intersted Greepeace, through their truefood campaign, has a petition seeking more better food labelling in relation to GM content.

http://www.truefood.org.au/OurRightToKnow/

Actually pelican, lack of peer review seems to be a motif of the anti-GM campaigns. More often than not, results and conclusions are disseminated by press release rather than peer review. When the data and methods are reviewed and found to be highly flawed, the researchers and campaigners then cry foul. This is exceptionally bad science and more often than not the real reason why these researchers lose their jobs. That, and in the case of Dr. Stapper, working on projects that you are not employed for, nor have the grant money to do, and messing with public policy by commenting on subjects in an official capacity that are not in line with your (government) employers. If you think that is just bullying, perhaps you should think about what would happen if a Greenpeace anti-whaling campaigner (wearing a Greenpeace shirt) said on television that they thought that GM crops were good.

This side-stepping of the peer review process is probably my biggest gripe with the anti-GM campaigns. I have no problem with people exercising their freedom of choice. I do have a problem with people being convinced to make a choice by being fed complete BS by political campaigners like the Mothers Are Disseminating Garbage Everywhere. Their website is full of errors, scientifically shallow and badly referenced. It's organic fertilizer served up as a wholesome organic banquet. I guess it does it's job though, as it seems to convince a lot of members to join and in politics the numbers count, not the level of ignorance. The sad fact is though, they are not the only ones doing this, and since they all seem to cross-reference each other it just turns into a whirlwind of BS.

Bugsy there are no long term studies on GM and even using your argument why not promote honesty in labelling and let the people make their own decisions.

The burden of proof in the GM debate lies not only with the anti-GMers but with those who argue GM is safe. There may be some dud anti-GM groups like with any campaign, but it is not fair to exclude those with a vested interest like the biotechs, to stick to the science and ignoring issues like peer review and the lack of long term studies.

As for government employees, the role of scientists is to research. Should the findings go against government policy how does it serve the public interest to remain silent. Particularly now that governments are promoting the idea of 'evidence based policy'.

It is also entirely possible that a Greenpeace anti-whaler might disagree with Greenpeace on another issue. Governments are supposed to be for the people and of the people whereas it is voluntary to join Greenpeace and if you don't agree with them logic dictates you would not join up.

I often think about joining the Greens even though I don't agree with some of their policies (particularly the in the drug area) but think their place in keeping the others honest in the Senate is worth voting for. Party members will not always agree, the same goes for environmental or charity groups.

Yabby,

You may have missed my sentence acknowledging that a link between GM and Americans' (overall) poor health can't be proven (in the abscence of human clinical trials & traceability through labelling). Agree with you.

Re Canadians, they may have lower stress levels & a better diet than Americans and so exhibit fewer symptoms of ill health even if GM is impacting negatively on their health. Who knows.

Yes, I do blame our government for the 'predicament' of eating GM against my wishes. (But I didn't vote for them.) However, a government reflects the people it governs. When enough people expect better, they'll get better. (Witness the rise of Getup!)

Shadow Minister,

(Your previous mention of a strong technical background was noted, thank you.) I attended a talk by Jeffery Smith, author of 'Genetic Roulette, The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Food', who outlined substantial health risks with GM. (I await your dismissal of Mr Smith's credibility.)

However I'm about to sign off.

But one main point is that it is actually the 'correct information' about the GM technique, as disseminated by scientists and biotech representatives, that has turned people off - not the opponents' denigration of GM. The technique in itself is inherently distasteful/shocking to people. It's marketability has this big hurdle to overcome - and that is no doubt why GM has come into the food supply quietly.

Over & out.
Thank you

Pelican,

As far I can find Jeffrey M. Smith has no formal scientific qualifications whatsoever. He has however made a fortune peddling his anti GM books and talks. If you find otherwise I stand to be corrected.

As you have said, the opponents of GM have included many links that carry “concerns”, “doubts” and anecdotal information. However, none have included any repeated experiments based on internationally accepted protocols.

Here is the link to the Australian food standards authority which lays out its requirements in detail.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/frequentlyaskedquest3862.cfm

Excerpts include:
FSANZ has established a rigorous and transparent process for assessing the safety of GM foods. The safety assessment is undertaken in accordance with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the (OECD), (FAO) of the United Nations, (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
And:
To date, gene technology has not been shown to introduce any new or altered hazards into the food supply, therefore the potential for long term risks associated with GM foods is considered to be no different to that for conventional foods already in the food supply. As a consequence, FSANZ does not consider that long term studies are generally needed to ensure the safety of GM foods.
And:

Assessment of potential toxicity and allergenicity is done using a weight of evidence approach, which means a variety of evidence, drawn from a number of different studies, is used to reach an overall conclusion.

Considering the huge amount of scrutiny over these decisions, and the qualifications of these individuals, I would tend to believe them over the “bad mojo” brigade. I believe they have the best interests of the Australian public at heart, and to say other wise would imply a huge government conspiracy / cover up. My experience is that the government would love to simply ban GM as it is the easy thing to do, however, due to the complete lack of evidence of the “health risks” that the green movement warn about.

If you have more than concerns, I am also looking for information about shots fired from a grassy knoll.

Agronomist, Yabby... Can either of you tell me if the GM RR canola seed is intended to be sold as homozygous or heterozygous for the reported GM event? I was wondering if they sow heterozygous and then accept the roundup thinning it out. Do you know if they give any zygousity guarantees?

Now what has Shadow been spinning for FSANZ?

Let me read... for someone who was complaining earlier Shadow's gone rather aggressive and dogmatic.

"none [the links] have included any repeated experiments based on internationally accepted protocols."
This line works two ways Shadow. There aren't any such repeated experiments proving food safety on the pro-GM links either.

I gave Shadow that FSANZ link. How is it being mis-used?
Hmm.. I've given Shadow a lot of information now by private correspondence and I think this homework will be possible to complete:

"...internationally established scientific principles and guidelines..."
Homework, Shadow: Who was on the panels which set the framework for these established principles and guidelines? See Julie Newman's "The Drive Behind GM Crops".

"gene technology has not been shown to introduce any new or altered hazards into the food supply"
Homework: When you find the studies which support that declaration, detail their lines of investigation.

"..the huge amount of scrutiny over these decisions.."
Homework: Attempt to find evidence that there has been scrutiny, and define the nature of the scrutiny.

"..the qualifications of these individuals.."
Homework: Name the individuals and present their qualifications.

"...My experience is that the government would love to simply ban GM.."
Homework: Find five reasons why the government does not simply ban GM (apart from your unstudied views on food safety).

ML,

I spent some time reading through:

http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/7/6/8/CH0621/CMS1227861957612/biological_effects_of_transgenic_maize_nk603xmon810_fed_in_long_term_reproduction_studies_in_mice_-_band_3-08.pdf

from:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2009/updateimpactofaustri4157.cfm

And with a preliminary overview would have to agree with the FSANZ and EU food safety body assessment as follows:

"Having identified several major flaws in the Austrian study, FSANZ considers that the conclusions drawn in the report are not supported by the results. In fact, no differences of biological significance in reproduction or longevity were found in the mice irrespective of their dietary group.

The European Food Safety Authority has also examined the results of the Austrian study and is strongly critical of the methodology and authors’ evaluation of results. EFSA has reached a similar conclusion to FSANZ and has dismissed the findings of the study as being of minimal scientific value."

Which differed significantly from the head lines
"Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-Up" in Organic consumers organisation

and "New Study Shows GE Corn Causes Infertility and Abnormal Gene Expression" in www.foodfirst.org

Also

On the 13th March 2007 Greenpeace announced the publication of a new study on the safety of a genetically modified corn, MON 863 corn. The study, published in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, reported a new statistical analysis of a 90-day rat feeding study, performed with MON 863 corn. This feeding study was evaluated by FSANZ in 2005, at which time it was concluded that the study did not indicate any adverse effects from the consumption of MON 863 corn. The same conclusion was reached by other food regulatory agencies around the world.

In conclusion, Whilst I have not yet waded through all the "homework" ML has sent me my initial impressions are that the anti GM lobby is a bit more liberal in their interpretations than FSANZ, the EU and the FAO, and without significant indication of bias or influence in these bodies, the balance of credibility (in my opinion) still lies with them.

From another website > 1000 000 000 000 servings of GM food to humans

Independently documented detrimental cases = 0

Greg, scientists and farmers in developing countries are very much interested in a kind of GM that can provide crops with the 'natural' vitimin content previously lacking, and better resistance to disease, drought and pests that some microbes, plants and animals have pefected over millenia with their specialised genes.

They don't want pesticide resistant seed or seed that they cannot save for replanting for the next crop. You are right to oppose that form of GM marketing to the developing world.

Poor farmers want to have value added seed stock that shares the rich diverse survival strategies that many life forms have perfected.

Thanks to gene research we can now take up the opportunity to identify the desired genes and incorporate them in our target crop or animal profile.

Provided funding can be found for 'enlightened' GM crop and animal research, then poor farmers around the world would be tremendously grateful.

A major reason for the food crisis in many developing countries is that local agriculture is undermined whenever foreign food aid in the form of subsidised produce is dumped on local markets, destroying incentives to people to take up farming, producing rural migration to urban areas. We need a new deal for farmers, including 'natural' GM, to create the green revolution which can help to reach the millenium goals for reducing world poverty.

Shadow Minister,

My interest is to protect people from harm caused by corporations which disregard any potential damage they may inflict on people. There has been many instances that for the sake of profits, corporations have caused terrible harm to people and ecosystems without being held to account. Take for example DDT which was considered "safe" and promoted as safe, but which in fact inflicted serious harm in people and the environment or tobacco which in the fifties was considered "safe" and even when it was clear that it caused significant damage, the companies executives tried to hide the information and discredit anybody who dared to challenge their beliefs, or asbestos with the company responsible trying all sorts of things to prevent the payment of compensation to its victims.

I am interested in justice, in having the mechanisms and information required to bring to account companies and individuals who are prepared to lie and harm people for the sake of profits. I only want these corporations to be clear and upfront and accept their potential liabilities in regards to GM foods.

In the possible case that GM foods are found to be harmful for humans then we have a better chance of establishing liability if GM foods are clearly labeled and an audit system in place. Otherwise people will get hurt and the responsible executives will walk free.

Madeleine, you will need to ask the seed companies that question. It depends how they make their hybrids. Whether one or both parents are Roundup Ready. Most likely they are homozygous, but as I haven’t asked I cannot be sure. The open pollinated varieties will be homozygous. Certainly neither the farmer, the seed company or Monsanto would have any interest in using Roundup to thin out the Roundup Ready canola. If a farmer wanted a thinner crop, they can simply sow at a lower rate.

Really Madeleine? You think that proving something unsafe and proving something safe are scientifically equivalent?
Homework: please provide the criteria by which a food may be 'proved safe'.
If possible, please show how foods currently allowed to be sold, such as prawns, oysters and peanuts meet these criteria.

I am honestly interested in how something can be 'proved safe' as opposed to 'not unsafe'. Please explain it to me.

I am dead serious, if GM foods that make it to market can honestly be proved to be unsafe, I will join you.

pelican, I am not opposed to labelling at all, I won't be making any submissions or protests against labelling, but don't expect me to campaign for it.
I don't think that any lives or anyones health will be saved because of labelling