The GM stance of Greenpeace is very strange, everyone must remember Greenpeace is moving further and further into the fantasy world inhabited by groups like PETA, and anti-vaccines mobs.

Greenpeace is very good at running scare campaigns, not real good at coming up with solutions. Can the Author show us commercially successful farms run along its guidelines? Given that the Author has made these claims its important that they back them up with reality, however I think that will be a bridge to far for Greenpeace.

A few comments, in the interest of encouraging an informed debate.

Your article says, opinion polls show that the majority of consumers reject GE food and 90% want it labeled (I have seen it written elsewhere in the media as 90% of people reject GM food). Yes, most do want GM food labelled. But whether it is 90% reject GM food or even a majority, this figure, used without context, is misleading for two reasons: first is that there is plenty of public attitude research on GM foods that have very different results – See Biotechnology Australia research (http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/ ) and Swinburne University’s Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies and Society (http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lss/acets/ ). And second because workshops that I conduct on this topic reveal a more complicated and significantly contradictory picture to the one you paint. For information on that I refer readers to the GNTIS blog on this topic. Go to the Blogs from the GNTIS site www.gntis.edu.au and click on the “Would you eat GM rice containing human genes? post

A clarification. You say, Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), a form of gene research which identifies the cells in plants… You mean identifies the genes in the plant associated with the trait they are interested in.

A second clarification: You say, the best non-GE plants perform better than GE plants on both weed and pest tolerance. A crop can be herbicide tolerant, but none that I am aware of are weed tolerant. And you will find that Bt or Bollgard cotton is very effective at resisting pests, regardless of other issues people may have with the crop.

Finally, your reference to the peer-reviewed research about the safety issues of eating GM food. The research may well be scientifically robust, but you have cherry picked your data. There are loads of other independent, peer-reviewed research papers out there that show no statistical differences between the health of animals fed GM feed and those fed the equivalent conventional food. I have many of these papers on file, if anyone is interested in getting them.

Jason Major
Gene and NanoTechnology Information Service
www.gntis.edu.au

Whether you agree with the line or not articles like this one are an important addition to the debate.
If GM crops wish to compete in the market then they need to make a market-based pitch.
Of course, it is not as easy as saying - well, let the farmers choose what they want to grow and we'll see who wins in the end - though, is it? Governments are regulating the use of GM crops and campaigners are worried about cross-contamination of GM and non-GM farms.
Only time will tell but, in the meantime, the public is entitled to be informed and to make their own choice - and that means strengthening labelling laws.

Laura Kelly is continuing the same exaggerations given by Greenpeace over the last decade. Laura clearly has no respect for the acumen of farmers. She clearly thinks they are dunces. They must be, they don’t agree with her. Has Laura ever bothered to wonder why if GM crops offer no financial advantages to farmers, more and more farmers plant GM crops every year? Clearly the crops do offer financial advantages to farmers where they have been adopted.

Laura also repeats the fairy tale that Japan doesn’t want GM canola. In the past year, Japan has imported just under 2 million tons of canola from Canada – virtually all of it GM. http://www.canolacouncil.org/currseedexp.aspx This is more than Australia’s whole harvest. The demand for non-GM canola from the Japanese consumer group (who represent a mere 2% of Japan’s consumers) was a whole 3,500 tonnes http://www.getfarming.com.au/pages/farming/speeches_view.php?sId=9200020071207112712

Clearly GM crops are not a solution to every problem, but they can be used successfully by farmers to efficiently and effectively manage specific problems.

I could go on about the other errors, including GM canola producing a 16% increase in liver size, the 400 leading scientists finding no evidence GM crops increase yields, but there is insufficient space.

This is not an atricle, it's propaganda. It's B grade propaganda at that, if it's aimed an any other than twit yuppies.

Telling farmers they are too stupid to buy the seed that gives them the best return, is unlikely to win them to your piont of view.

Of course, that's not the point, is it? The objective is to have these things banned, so the farmer has no choice.

I get so sick of these twits.

Thanks Jason for saving me the trouble of correcting Laura Kellys' ill-researched statements. An article like this arises when one begins with the 'opinion' (that GM foods are bad) and then performs the research to support their claim. You would think that someone who's description is 'GE campaigner' they would have some kind of expertise in the area. Google scholar doesn't count.

As the author states 'the strongest arguments against GM foods isn't a moral argument'. Great, let the market sort it out and be gone with lobbyists either pro- and anti-GM.

Thanks Jason and agronomist for clearing up a few things there. To be honest I could not believe what I was reading until I read that Laura works for Greenpeace, then it all made sense.

Unfortunately there are still a lot of people in urban areas who fall for this stuff, and the underlying argument that farmers are stupid (and hence can't make an economic decision for themselves). I guess that is what is driving Greenpeace now - donations, profile etc, but I really don't know.

It can't be environmental issues when there are so many proven benefits and no damage. It can't be welfare of the farmer - it really is ridiculous that Greenpeace thinks it can be a farmer's friend after kicking them in the guts for so long. I really don't know what is driving them... time will tell though and Greenpeace's credibility will be destroyed...finally!

Hi all. Thanks for engaging and apologies for the late post.

Re a lack of proof of environmental damage: The findings of international biodiversity studies have shown GE crops have negative impacts on biodiversity. The results of UK Farm Scale Evaluations, published in 2003, found there were 24 % fewer butterflies in the margins of GE canola fields, because there were fewer flowers (and hence nectar) for them to feed on. GE sugar beet and canola also resulted in depleted food sources for many farmland species including invertebrates, small mammals and birds. The UK Govt report can be accessed at http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1645.

We’ve actually never had a similar biodiversity study in Australia, so can’t say what the environmental impact of growing GE crops will be. Rather than calling for an outright ban on GE crops for environmental reasons, Greenpeace is calling for an independent study so we can be sure of what the environmental impacts are.

Regarding the feeding studies I’ve selected: there are so few independent studies where whole GE plants are feed to live animals and results monitored over a significant period that it is difficult to cherry pick! If someone does know of a feeding study not funded by a biotech company where animals were fed whole GE plants (as humans would eat them) rather than just the separate novel protein, andhave not sufferred negative symptoms, a link to the study would be appreciated

Re our export markets: Agreed, Japan does buy GE canola from Canada. But it prefers to source non-GE canola from Australia, and pays a premium for it. Soaring grain prices were the main reason Japan started buying GE and food companies still confien use to non-labelled products. With a new government promising a full traceability system, there's a real threat to canola exports and we'd lose our non-GE niche and premium. In June Western Australia’s trade commissioner to Japan, Craig Peacock, wrote to the WA government stating his strong concerns about the potential export price impact of government ignoring the preferences of such a major customer base.
This risk has been recognized by bulk handlers CBH and Elders, who aren't against GE, but have rejected it purely for financial reasons.

Re the quality of scholars / references used. The two studies I’ve quoted on yields are from mainstream sources: the World Bank and the Victorian Government. For a list of the credentials of the 400 scientists involved in the World Bank International Assessment of Agricultural Knowldege, Science and Technology for Development, visit http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713. Annex B/ Authors and Review Editors.

Interesting to see the pro-GE advocates argue that opposition to GE is akin to calling farmers stupid. Nice try - stupid argument. If you want to know who thinks farmers are stupid, look at the biotech companies - a hard hard sell of GE for over 30 years and they continue to limp along with a minor portion of world markets. Farmers aren't stupid; the vast majority continue to oppose the lies, the massive advertising. Some have bought into (like many scientists) the myths of the industry - we'll feed the world's hungry, we'll solve climate change, blah blah nonsense. You speak of all the benefits - and yet try and find peer reviewed evidence of yield increases. You speak of reduced herbicide use - but the evidence is just the opposite. And you continue to avoid the question of contamination and the rights of the smart farmers to choose to be GE free - because there are more markets and premiums for staying that way.

I have no real problem with GE but I object strenuously the tactics and the big chem corps being the world food gate keepers.

Which ever way you cut it the 'life science corps' are only interested in profit. We have seen what happens when you allow big business free reign.....disaster

Laura, perhaps it would help if you went to the sources rather than just accepting the Greenpeace propaganda about them. Like talking to the companies that sell canola to Japan, or you could consult ABARE. http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/GM_Canola.pdf They would tell you that apart from a few small niche buyers, Japanese canola buyers do not prefer non-GM canola and pay no premium for it. In fact, the buy both Canadian and Australian canola and then mix the two together. Australian canola has lower chlorophyll, Canadian canola has higher oil.

Laura, it might also help if you had read the IAASTD report properly. The report http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf (warning very large file) says nothing about GM crops not increasing yields. Where it does talk about yields of GM crops, it is about how GM soybeans in Latin America are allowing growers to overcome constraints and increase yields.

There are large numbers of GM feeding studies, you can find a list here of more than 270 assessments http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html of which about 90 have been produced by organisations completely independent of seed companies.

Having dealt with Greenpeace for the past decade, I don’t believe your fiction that all Greenpeace wants is a study of the environmental impacts of GM crops.

next, no amount of spin will change the fact that 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries grew 125 million hectares of GM crops last year. These farmers at least give a lie to the claims that GM crops do not provide benefits to farmers. This has been the faster adopted technology in agriculture ever. Some "limping along".

Peer reviewed research on yield increases:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Impact-China-Prey-200105.pdf
http://documentoamarillo.com/209/67316.pdf
http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/orb/pdf/Pray.2002.pdf
http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n4/v5n4a04-huang.htm
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/04-133-005.pdf

Agronomist - from the first study you cite:
Some studies find increasedyields and returns to farmers (Gianessi and Carpenter 1999) and while others do not (Hyde et al 1999). As resistance increases, the yield drags will increase...Re the expansion of GE: 13 million farmers - that's around 2% of the farming population of China. Not exactly the dominant form of agriculture. Note that I raised this in the context of claims by you and others that opposing Ge was equivalent to calling farmers stupid...That's an idiotic argument.

I'm an ex software engineer, gravely concerned about GE from a technical (not moral or political) point of view. I don't believe that GE products can be tested, for the same reason that software cannot be tested without a thorough understanding of the process.

Gene sequences are of course compared to computer programs. The software analogy could prove most instructive in respect of the huge challenge of proving program correctness.

Even moderately complex software cannot be completely tested: there are simply too many branches and input combinations for every test case to be tried. Software verification therefore remains an art, blending empirical product testing with code inspection, quality assurance of the development process, and formal methods (most of which are barely out of the lab).

What is proven with mathematical certainty is that there are fundamental limitations on what can ever be known about software behaviour. Best known is the "Stopping Problem": it is not possible to tell by formal method if any given program is ever going to stop. If it's impossible to even tell if a program is going to stop, what hope is there of proving if it fully works as expected?

Software engineers know that their validation tools remain terribly crude; for this reason and this reason alone, I'd like to know how genetic engineers can tell that their products are working as they intend?

Natural genomes have evolved over vast periods of time. As such, they have been verified to degrees of confidence that software engineers today can only dream of. It is received wisdom in software engineering that most bugs arise from changes made to older code. So genetic engineers should not be messing with nature’s “legacy” designs without the very greatest caution.

Stephen Wilson
Lockstep Consulting
www.lockstep.com.au