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