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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > GM's charm offensive > Comments

GM's charm offensive : Comments

By Greg Revell, published 17/7/2009

Is it morally bankrupt to advocate clean, green food production rather than corporate controlled biotech seeds and pesticides?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
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?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 8:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 9:12:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:10:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:32:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Kesha, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 3:24:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

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