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!