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