“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.