Today, I was dismayed and alarmed to discover that the Victorian and NSW Governments have passed legislation to allow the "restricted" use of GM canola cropping.

For those unaware, for months now various GM free groups such as organic growers have been sending petitions to State Government officials rejecting attempts to pass this legislation. One may have thought the campaign might be successful in an election year and it was. The cunning b..tards waited until AFTER the election to sneak this odious piece of legislation through quietly.

What do others think about this issue? My bet is that once GM become an established practice in this country, we'll begin to see "colony collapse disorder" as has occurred in the US as a most likely result of using this hideous technology.
Aime.

do you ever wish you had citizen initiative power?

too late to stop gm canola, but if you get busy now, maybe you can stop gm homo sap.

Demos... very insightful :) I welcome you to the same page as myself, in declaring the 'final solution' outcome of 'moral relativism'..... gm homsapiens.....

I'll await you at the sign up desk for "BD's crusaders" :)

Just out of curiosity, what's your foundation for morality? How do you determine right and wrong? Do you just rely on the voice/vote of the citizenry to always get it right?

Aime >>The cunning b..tards waited until AFTER the election to sneak this odious piece of legislation through quietly.<<

hmmm have I not heard you chirping and muttering against 'religion' at times? What you have found here, is that the secular government has 'humped and dumped' your cause in a very 'politically astute' but morally bankrupt manner.. quite Machievellian don't you think ?

I'm not sure of the justification of the cause against gm Canola, because farmers are always genetically modifiying seeds and livestock to improve them without Monsanto's help.. whats the difference?

It is good to see that reason occasionally triumphs over retoric.

PS. Gene therapy for human genetic disorders already exists, and is reducing the suffering of many patients.

David wrote.......
"I'm not sure of the justification of the cause against gm Canola, because farmers are always genetically modifiying seeds and livestock to improve them without Monsanto's help.. whats the difference?"

David, what the farmers are doing could be referred to as "genetic manipulation" or "selective breeding" is a better term. What Monsanto and their ilk are doing is genetic modification. They do this usually by inserting a foreign gene into the hosts (plants in this case) genes. The canola they're talking about now will contain the gene of a bacteria resistant to herbicides, in this case, Glyphosate. It means that they can spray glyphosate on the canola without worrying about killing it along with the weeds and perhaps use less herbicide in the process.

This sound ok in theory, but already they're talking about using GM to make plants resistant to insects. This is where the potential for ruin comes into play. If bees take home pollen to the hive to feed the Queen and the emerging workers, they die. Most other insects that eat parts of the plants also die. The creatures that eat the insects also die, simply because they no longer have a food source. Once the bees are gone, which is happening right now in the US, (colony collapse) natural pollination will stop to a large degree and many home grown products may well cease to exist.

The problem is that nobody fully realises the ramifications of this new technology and I would have thought our Governments would have been a little more cautious considering the damaging potential of GM. Looks like State Labor Governments have been bought by big agri-business.
Aime.

Unfortunately all governments in this day and age end up getting bought by big business. Its really a waste of time trying to get the NSW/Vic state govts to change their minds on this, as it seems obvious they've already decided.

Rudd's capable of stopping this in its tracks & giving us uniform GM laws covering the nation as a whole. Question is, will he do anything or just stay silent on the issue?

"..because farmers are always genetically modifiying seeds and livestock to improve them without Monsanto's help.. whats the difference".

The difference is that selectively breeding tomatoes with tomatoes to enhance existing traits is possible naturally.

There is no way however, that a tomato could cross-breed with a salmon and there is no place in nature for such a hybrid to exist.

GM technology is based entirely on greed. There are at least 65 health risks and thousands of allergic reactions associated with the consumption of GM foods already documented in research.

It's probably too late to stop the widespread introduction of GM products into the food chain (I know of a few everyday products that have GM ingredients already) but it's presence in any product should be clearly labelled so consumers can make a choice.

Aren't Monsanto the same crowd who sold us on the harmless benefits of DDT and manufactured Agent Orange for military use?

Aside from the issues with GM, which are basically fallible humans "playing god", there is the fact that such crops increase the hold of multinational corporations over our farmers. Should they really be allowed to have more control over our food supply?

To top that off, most of the positive claims for GM, especially canola, are pure spin:

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1064

Agreed.

Being an ex-commercial farmer myself, I can't see any reason to introduce GM ANYTHING in Australia. Or anywhere else for that matter. Farmers don't need higher yielding crops. They need climatic confidence in order to have income. We could plant the "best-est" wheat or barley (or whatever) strain in the world, but if if doesn't rain, its not bl**dy good sitting in the ground as ungerminated seed, is it?

As for Monsanto, don't get me started. Truly an evil organisation, which is planning to control the world's stomach and take away our right to choose what we eat (for those fortunate to have a choice). Selling cheap Terminator seed to poor farmers in Africa, (seed which is genetically modified to be unable to reproduce), will cause mass starvation and global misery. Pretty much genocide - and the way they are going, they are well on the track to getting away with it through sheer scientific ignorance and arrogance. Adolf Hitler, eat your heart out.

The one thing the scientists haven't yet worked out is that Mother Nature always wins. And she doesn't have shares in companies, or any interest in politics.

Caveat emptor, Homo Sapiens.

This is probably worse news for Canadian canola growers than anyone else. The adoption of GM canola by Australian farmers rather than using the old atrazine-resistant canola will certainly improve yields and oil content. At the moment the Japanese buy both Australian and Canadian canola and blend them together. They like the low chlorophyll content of Australian canola, but prefer the high oil content of Canadian canola.

Geoffc, interesting to see you quoting Julie Newman. She makes her appearance regularly in these pages and tells me often that Australian canola yields more than Canadian canola, that Canada is unable to sell its canola, and other fairy tales. Perhaps you might explain how the Canadian canola crop is at record levels of production with record yields if GM has reduced the yield of Canadian canola.

Farmers do need to have higher-yielding crops - its been the only way to sustain income levels for at least the last 20 years. Add to that the fact that we are facing a world food shortage and we need to find a way to increase production from the available land that we have. Yes, rainfall is required obviously, but avoiding GM doesnt mean we'll get more rain!

Insect resistance GM crops have been grown in Aust for a number of years - think cotton, with their ingard and bollgard technologies. No downsides from that, and plenty of upsides, with a huge reduction in pesticide sprays required.

Mostly plant gene tampering is done with genes from other plants, not salmon genes into canola. generally it may have been possible to achieve the cross conventionally, but much more time would need to be put into it to identify plants of the same species that display the resistance sought, rather than using the resistant gene from another plant variety.

My main conern with canola is that it has a number of weed relatives, and if cross-pollination were to occur, we could potentially end up with a weed that is resistant to cheap chemicals, thereby creating a larger problem in the long run. Not such an issue with cotton (which is also round-up ready), as it doesnt easily grow wild enmasse.

VICTORIAN and NSW Governments:....SHAME!SHAME!SHAME!

Aime:
I support you to the fullest!

I wonder how many of the supporters of GM of Crops etc that enter our food chain have young children?

Don`t we have enough problems affecting the children of today`s society with the plethora of injections, vaccinations, drugs (illegal and prescribed) as well as excessive alcohol ingestion?

How blind are we if we cannot see what is happening to our society. Look at the rapidly increasing incidence of brute violence being utilized by mere children who are running the streets out of control?

Do we need another possible source of "brain-warp" resulting from the consumption of GM foods, and of course the use of this technology involves Patent Rights and profits organizations such as the despicable and morally questionable companies such as Monsanto. Once again we see the interests and principles of big business being applied, regardless of the long term costs upon the human race!

I wait for the invetiable response from the ratbags out there, who no doubt will advocate that this is "God`s will" or similar sort of crap, in their pathetic efforts to paper over a problem that mankind should have condemned when it first hit the streets!

The biggest scam in all this is how the anti-GM organisations have somehow linked GM crops to all sorts of ills without any factual basis.

Fact: GM crops are not responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder. CCD has the same epidemiology as an infectious pathogenic disease. It has also occurred in areas where GM crops are not grown and has been seen in many parts of Europe. Early on, GM crops were implicated as well as just about anything else that could affect bees, including global warming mobile phone use. Most of these has since been ruled out.

Fact:There are NOT "at least 65 health risks and thousands of allergic reactions associated with the consumption of GM foods already documented in research." If this claim is true, by all means please provide a couple of links to show this (Google scholar would be a great place to start for finding peer-reviewed literature). Greenpeace (or similar) websites do not count.

Even if any of the above public claims are shown to be false, then it is claimed that it is just driven by greed, and that Monsanto is an "evil" corporation.
FACT: Monsanto is not the only producer of GM crops, in fact it is only one of many, including European companies and companies that did not produce chemicals for warfare. Linking GM crops to agent orange and other chemicals is just an attempt to taint the producer of the technology, but noone ever seemed to complain that Mitsubishi or BMW made warplanes in WW2.

And BTW Cuphandle, YES I have young children. And I will try and teach them to think for themselves and to try and detect stupid arguments as much as possible.

Bugsy

How about Jeffrey Smith, the author of Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in Iowa, USA, suit you? Probably not, you are clearly not prepared to admit that there simply hasn't been time for sufficient long term testing of GE species and their impact on us and the environment.

However, Jeff IS qualified and HAS researched the issues with GE food stuffs AND the possible dangers.

For those who would like to know more, please read his article:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/eating-gm-foods-is-a-health-risk/2007/11/27/1196036889507.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The question we must ask ourselves is why do we need genetically altered crops at all. We have been breeding suitable crops for millenia, but nothing with the potential risk that gene splicing could create. We simply do not know the long term effects the combination of genes from species that cannot occur in nature, that may impact on us.

Think of Thalidomide, at least that drug could be recalled, canola which self seeds with abandon cannot be put back in the box.

We have already polluted our air, are running short of natural resources and experiencing climatic change, do we really need to add another unknown to the environmental scales? Are we not already at tipping point?

Bugsy,

Here’s an article with several cross-references.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=1418

With additions from yesterday’s Age –

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2007/11/27/1196036889507.html

Plus another reference to the agribusiness agenda

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2006/donohoe1206.html

To me, the real issue is the right of consumers to choose whether to use these products or not. I prefer not to have them forced onto me by stealth or by legislation resulting from the pressures of corporate greed.

There is a staggering amount of money involved in this concept and, based on previous experience of assurances from the tobacco, asbestos and mobile telephony industries– just to name a few - I think the consumer has earned the right to be sceptical.

Imagine if just one of the possible health threats eventuates in 20 years time. Who will be responsible?

Jonny Rotten, exactly what are Jeffrey Smith's qualifications again? My understanding is that he was a part time author for his own vanity publishing company and Director of his own Institute set up to make money from publicising fictional dangers of GM food. He also apparently is an occasional yogic flyer, see him in action here: http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/jeffrey-smith%20article He has no formal scientific qualifications that would suggest to me he could approriately assess the evidence.

Jonny, there has been nearly 20 years of testing of GM foods, since the first tests in the 1980s. GM foods have been subjected to more testing than any other food stuff on earth. There has never been a single incident of harm from a commercial GM food. Not even during the infamous Starlink exercise was anybody harmed. http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r010613a.htm

Smith's "dangers" are just fantacies to help him sell his books and newsletter. Wobbles, Smith is making an enourmous amount of money out of this, should we ban him as well?

Maybe you misunderstood me wobbles, but I was asking for scientific literature, not media releases.

I took a look at through seeds of deception link though, because there Jeffery Smith has a whole lot of links and cross references. Ignoring the links that are just media releases or letters and memos, because they don't actually have data or peer review, I took a look at some of the scientific papers that he cited.

In all cases that I looked at (ie GM potatoes, the claims made by Jeffery Smith do not match the data or the claims made in the papers.

As just one example:
Smith claims:"In another study, chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn"
But when I searched for the report cited (Leeson, 1996), I actually found a report which describes that study, because the original report is not available on the web:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A375%20Final%20AR.pdf
and NOWHERE do they describe what Smith claims.

Very similar results can be found for Smiths claims about "In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy." and also liver analyses.

I found the original paper:

http://www.bsas.org.uk/Publications/Animal_Science/%3Fcfid%3D3886260&cftoken%3D65468145/Volume_82_Part_2/193/pdf

and there is nothing about all his claims there. And it's a similar deal with Gm potatoes.

That guy (Smith) is a fraud. He is the one who should be ashamed of himself.

And if you want to show me some real scientific papers: Google Scholar is there for everyone to use wobbles. Try reading some of his references and compare his claims to the original authors. You may be surprised, although I was not.

Bugsy and Agronomist,

Fair enough. I’m simply not qualified to argue the merits or otherwise, of scientific research papers.

I’m also not trying to defend people like Jeffrey Smith. I’m sure they have an agenda and there is money involved – but certainly not as much money as for the GM industry.

All I can offer as support for my own opinion (which is what these pages are for) is 15 years experience in the installation of mobile phone technology, where I saw how positive research outcomes are loudly trumpeted and negative findings snuck quietly into the public domain as “insurance”. I also noted how some scientists were eager to seek legal indemnification against future findings.

Yet despite all the research to the contrary I knew four people who developed brain tumours whose type and location were consistent with RF damage due to mobile use.

I also know of others who suffer allergic reactions and poor health outcomes from some of the “safe” food additives they have ingested. There are also several pharmaceuticals that have been withdrawn from the market because of side effects not apparent during research.

Likewise there are many soldiers now suffering post-war health complications in spite of scientific research to the contrary. Is this research somehow "tainted" to protect certain interests?

Now we are seeing “scientific” arguments for and against global warming where each side seems to be following their own script.
When both sides produce seemingly valid research, who can you believe?

I suppose it comes down to trust. The motives behind GM are not to cure world hunger or some other altruistic reason but an opportunity to make lots and lots of money.

The significance of this product is that it will enter our food chain at a low level and has the potential for widespread problems if something goes terribly wrong. This is one genie that can’t be put back into the bottle.

I sincerely hope your opinion is correct and that I’m just being paranoid but experience tells me to question more and proceed with a bit more caution.

Thanks for an honest opinion wobbles. I do share your concern with research that publiscised for self-interest, no matter what the topic.

My take on the GM plants that Australia tends to use (mainly cotton, and now canola) is to look at the effects that they are trying to create and question whether there would have been a possibility of achieving this overtime anyway, and are we simply speeding up the process. In the case of herbicide resistance, a similar effect could have bene achieved by planting canola in a paddock, spraying it out with round-up (at low application rates), then collecting seed from the surviving plants, and repeating the cycle. You could breed resistance into the plants naturally, it would just take longer. The same goes for RR-cotton. One of the things that farmers will have to be careful with is rotation of fields, so that the weeds that they are spraying out dont become roundup-resistant naturally in the same wasy as I have mentioned. Some areas of Aust are already showing resistance to glyphosate because chemicals havent been rotated effectively. (its the same science behind why we now have super-bugs that are resistant to normal anti-biotics). These areas will not be able to use RR-canola, so there will always be the requirement for a natural seed-bank anyway. On top of that there is enough global concern over organics and GM, that markets will demand some supply of "natural" product, which again will ensure that "natural" seed banks will remain. I saw this in the cotton industry, having to prove that there had been non-GM cotton grown in specific fields for at least 3 years, then having separate handling arrangements. While-ever there are people concerned enough to pay the extra cost, some farmers will grow it. This is another balancing effect (and takes away from the potential for global domination by Monsanto et al).

Wobbles, firstly it must be realised that despite claims to the contrary pharmaceuticals are very different to GM foods. Pharmaceuticals are designed to have biological effects at low concentration, GM foods are not. The fact that pharmaceuticals produce unwanted side effects is a consequence of their design for biological activity.

GM foods are tested to determine whether they contain anything that is likely to be a concern. If an unusual compound is present, that is then tested for health risks. There are two proofs of how effective this testing is at detecting health risks. Millions of people have been eating the products of GM foods for 12 years now without a single documented health problem. Secondly, at least two GM research programs were stopped on their way to commercialization due to potential health risks appearing during testing.

Even though it never caused any health problems, it proved possible to recall the Starlink gene. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/gm-crops-can-be-recalled-six-years-on.html

GM foods are more extensively tested than any other food product we eat. If kiwi fruit was a GM food, it would never get past the regulatory process. This testing is there to ensure that new allergens do not get into the food supply.

And in any controversial area, it does pay to look at what the qualifications of the individuals making the comments are and how well those comments reflect the research results. The climate change “debate” could do with a bit of this scrutiny too.

So we've been sneakily eating genetically modified foods for 12 years?

I see that childhood food allergies have also risen almost 12-fold since 1995.

Are our own kids like canaries in a coal mine or is this just another coincidence?

Bon appetite.

So where did you get those figures from rache? Got an author? or some kind of reference? Particular country?

And could you just please stop with the insinuations in place of data, it really is just getting tiresome.

And wobbles, everything has a risk. Driving a car, crossing the road or even eating seafood are all risky propositions. In fact, eating seafood is far far riskier than eating GM food. So, should we ban oysters?

The fact is, monitoring and testing of any observable health effects is being conducted. GM crop technologists have to provide a great deal of evidence that a product is safe enough to consume, far greater than any other food source. That is an ongoing process and no GM product that has been made available for general release has had any public health issue, unlike many other foods, eg. the e.coli scare of "washed" and bagged spinach killed 3 people with 205 confirmed illnesses in the US in 2006. Spinach! Plain old spinach.

A blanket ban is not justified. The time has come to lift the ban and for products that have been tested to be used. New GM products should and will undergo the same rigorous testing. But once they have passed, just let them be used.

I think people should worry about dangers that will likely have much more of an effect on them like crossing the road or eating too much fat and sugar.

Never mind rache, I found the article (or at least it looks like it):

http://www.ap-foodtechnology.com/news/ng.asp?id=77467-allergy-peanuts-eggs

The main culprits being peanuts, eggs, cows milk and cashews. What a surprise.

Funny thing though, when you go to Dr. Raymond Mullins' (the guy who wrote the report) home page,
http://www.allergycapital.com.au/Pages/author.html

you find a link to his report at the bottom.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01273.x

and if you can actually open and read that document, he never mentions a 12-fold increase at all!

In fact, there was a 4-fold increase in the number of children being treated for allergies, which was suspected to be due to greater awareness, however there was an increase of 10-fold for food allergy and 5-fold for anaphalaxis, which means a higher proportion of children were being treated for allergy than the increase in total numbers could necessarily account for.

This study was conducted at one clinic in ACT.

At no time was GM food mentioned, or considered a factor. In fact the link is as tenuous as saying something like, we have had plasma screen TVs for 5 years now, in those5 years, we have seen a huge increase housing values. Coincidence or are our house values being driven by a secret agenda by Sony?

Children being canaries in a coal mine? More likely children being used as emotional leverage to win an argument based on anti-corporate attitudes.

Bugsy,

As well as the article you found -
http://www.allergenbureau.net/news/general-news/food-allergies-rise-12-fold-in-australian-children/

The Mullins comment about 12-fold was repeated by the AMA which must be very sloppy on their part.
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-74568C

If it's so undeniably safe then why even bother to continue testing?
What if they find a problem at some time in the future? Who's going to be held responsible?

Yes, well done rache, I think there's a media watch article in this don't you? About how claims can be repeated over and over again without reference to the original source? That's the modus operandi of many a sloppy journalist and also Greenpeace as well as Jeffery Smith. Repetition does not mean that that the information is correct, it merely means that the journalists are not really earning their money. But are these websites run by journalists? Probably not real ones.

Look for the source. That's what determines the truth. Find it yourself. If it contradicts what I have said previously, SHOW ME. I will believe it if it's REAL.

We continue to test all sorts of foods for allergies or pathogens that are already in the food chain. The reason we continue to test GM foods is because many haven't been approved for use yet. "Keep testing" is the mantra, yet you say, "why do they keep testing?". Circular argument.

Get over it, monitoring of GM crops on public health will continue, just monitoring of shellfish and mycotoxins in grains will continue. While GM generally doesn't pose a threat, the perception of threat is enough to continue testing. Testing and checking for any public threats I am very much in favour of, from any source, but this campaign of deception against a benign technology must stop.

Precautions have been taken, the proposed threat has not been realised (and this argument has been going on for more than 10 years). Relax. Take a deep breath. It's being looked after. Your children are not in danger from this (they are however in danger from many other things).

Oops,
Forget to add this bit -
http://www.biotech-info.net/hypersensitivity.html

It's a bit dated now and seemed to suggest no link at the time but it's interesting to see a possible correlation between increased GE food consumption and infant hypersensitivy since that time and how a link was being considered four years ago.
Like I said - a coincidence.

Do you read the links you post rache?

To quote from the link you posted:
>>CONCLUSIONS
In general, it seems that the present discussion on GM food safety, especially in the field of hypersensitivity reactions does not so much point towards a significantly increased safety problem of GM foods compared with conventional foods, but it reflects increased regulatory demands as well as perceived needs for a higher safety level. Conventional foods often have not been subject of hypersensitivity assessment. Public awareness as well as genuine scientific considerations in the field of GM foods has resulted in general guidelines being elaborated for allergenicity assessment of such foods. These internationally agreed guidelines are specifically important for foods which are traded globally.

*Standards established for the assessment of GM foods may then turn out to be a paragon for the testing of conventional foods. *(emphasis added)

Lets play the correlation game shall we?
What has also been increasing in the last few years?
Organic food production for one:

Up to 17-20% annual growth, compared to 2-3% annual growth for conventional produce.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6638417/

Is it a coincidence that allergy rates and asthma rates have increased over the same time? Possibly, but I am beginning to see a dark pattern here.

The corporate side of this argument seems to have floated off on page 1.

The science, for either side, is not proven, nor can it be. There simply isn't enough evidence. Give it another 10 years (and totally independent research by non-affiliated scientists) and we might see some evidence. Of course this won't happen - Monsanto will see to that.

Remember smoking was once considered good for you, especially if you were pregnant, because it helped you to lose weight post-pregnancy. Importation of cane toads into this country was also considered a great idea at the time because the scientists hadn't done their homework.

What it comes down to is this: Does anyone REALLY want to be told what they can and can't eat? What they can and can't plant in their fields - by a corporate Hitler like Monsanto? They want to rule the world's stomach. Are you happy with a publicly listed company deciding what we put in our mouths every day, or on our backs? Where does CHOICE come into this argument?

Are we really all that stupid?

New Scientist has just carried an article regarding the transfer of genes from the carpet snake to a gerbil that was discovered recently.

The vector for this was a virus that was capable of infecting both species, and transfered the material. They are now finding many other examples of this.

The fact that this happenned long before GM existed, suggests that this is probably one of the natural processes spurring evolution over the millenia.

The claim by wobbles that transference of genetic material between species is not natural is without foundation. GM is to natural selection as farming is to hunter gathering.

Bugsy:
They also said that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction,....in fact they will say anything at all to justify the opportunity to make that extra almighty dollar!

Maybe I could be excused for thinking that some of supporters of GM cropping, who contribute to this thread, could be shareholders in companies such as Monsanto and the like,.....if one can judge by the rabid responses!

I maintain that where there is just the tiniest smidgin of a doubt, it is better to be safe now, than very, very sorry at a later date!

Have a look for example at the quality in taste and longevity in the "force grown" fruit and vegetables! The Tomato is a classic example,.....in the Bundaberg area the crops are planted and harvested in a mere two or three weeks. The resulting product, (at least the ones available to the consumer in the same area!) are a tasteless, weak coloured and characterless fruit, which if not used within a couple of days simply dissolve into a slimy, stinking mess!..(a lot of cattle producers feed their stock on the rejected produce, simply because they get the stuff cheap and even free!)....what effect will this have on these cattle in the near future?

Do we really need this sort of Genetic bastardization simply to make an extra dollar?

Cuphandle,

Before criticising Bugsy, it would at least be polite to read what he wrote otherwise what you say is disconnected and incoherent.

Most of us "supporters of GM" are not share holders of Monsanto, rather shareholders in humanity who are tired of the superstitious like circular arguments of the opponents of GM.

The tiniest smidgin of doubt is in the minds of those opponents and is not shared by the CSIRO or other credible organisations.

Your example of force grown tomatos has nothing to do with GM. Please argue with reason and logic than emotional blackmail.

Thanks Democritus, but emotion is everything in this argument. If one argues for GM foods, then obviously they don't have children or care about people. Even if the opposite is true, that will not be believed.

It comes back to "they" and "them" doesn't it Cuphandle? Well, when "they" looked for WMDs and found none, you accepted that, am I right? (I didn't think they would find any either).
Well, "they" (different they probably in this case) have been looking for health hazards associated with GM for quite a while now (much longer than the WMD search) and found nothing. At some point you will have to accept there is nothing to find. Your obvious bias is showing, in fact it is so obviously based on something other than reality, that I would have to suspect that you own shares in an organic food company. I can have reason to suspect this, because many anti-GM websites are actually run by such organic producers. It's a great marketing tool and a great way of getting people to pay more for substandard produce than anyone needs to pay.

I have never considered owning shares in Monsanto, it's too risky for me. They nearly went broke researching GM technology, not at least in part by anti-corporate activists that enabled blanket bans on their products in many parts of the world.

However, the simple sad fact is, at the moment oil is driving agriculture. This is not just about turning a buck, this is about making our farming systems more efficient, reducing the amount of pesticides and chemicals in our food chain, reducing the amount of fuel and resources needed to grow them, and reducing the economic risks of farmers.

It's a sad reality, but organic farming is not going to feed the world.

Feeding the world is more a matter of supply than of distribution and I doubt that increasing supply is the true motive behind GM. It's profit.

I think equating the risk of introducing mutant organisms into the environment as the same as crossing the road or eating an oyster is a little off the mark. It's potentially more devastating than cane toads and would be more difficult to remove.

Many scientists suspect that changing a single gene does not necessarily change a single characteristic as some past experiences with modified bacteria have shown.

As for Rache's last link, look at the author of that report - hardly what you would call a disinterested party.

By all means keep quoting statistics and leave judgement out of it.

Democritus, please give me an example of inter-species genetic transference. I've yet to see fish mating successfully with tomatoes.

Wobbles, in human health terms, GM is far LESS dangerous than crossing the road or eating oysters.

Interesting that you mention cane toads here, what exactly are the impacts of cane toads on native populations? I am having trouble finding any studies that show how large an impact they actually have on biodiversity etc. If can find one (an actual study, not another article), can you please send me the link?

Of course the parallels are there, but not in the way you think, cane toads had not been studied anywhere near as much as GM or were even shown to control the target insects they were released to control. That was just assumed.

The thing is a lot of assumptions continue to be made, you hear and read a lot about some supposed huge impact on wildlife, well if it's so huge why can't anyone see it? Too much rhetoric and assumptions, no supporting data.

Some of your other comments are confusing also, is supply more important than distribution? Many other anti-GM people argue the opposite.

And raches last link was supplied by her, do you think that it supports her (and your) argument or not? How is the author not a disinterested party? That comment was confusing.

The motivation of scientists working on GM crops is not profit, they really believe in what they are doing. No one is working for the destruction of the planet or the enslavement of farmers, that's just silly rhetoric.

Wobbles,

Please read
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526125.000-snake-dna-found-inside-a-gerbil.html

I doubt the snake mated with the gerbil.

Viruses mutate and cause mutations all the time. One example of many is the human papiloma virus, for which a vaccine has just been developed for girls, causes cancer in thousands of people in Aus every year by altering the DNA of the host.

Most DNA changes are not beneficial, but every now and again the change improves the host and this is passed on.

Hybridisation of crops is done by cross breeding species, and by using radiation on the seeds to nudge the process on. These non GM hybrids that the "organic" farmers grow are so far from "natural" it is like comparing a Maltese poodle to the wolf of its ancestors.

GM food is so closely monitored, that it is almost certainly safer than non GM food. The opposition to it is based on emotion not fact.

The minister for agriculture as interviewed on ABC clearly did not want to approve the GM cannola, but faced with the CSIRO report could not do anything else.

Bugsy and Democritus:
My example was EXACTLY the situation with the "force grown" Bundaberg (and no doubt Bowen) commercial Tomatoes.

These Tomatoes are grown from GM seed stocks to enable rapid growth (at the expense of taste and quality) and require the usual "growth promotant" booster supplied through the watering system.

If you try to propogate any of the seeds from the produced fruits (if that is what you can call the pathetic results), you will be grossly dissapointed in your ensuing failure!

For the interest of all concerned with this THREAD!:......I have just carried out an analysis of the subscribers to the thread ( created by AIME) and as at 5.45am on the 2nd DEC there have been approximately 35 posts!
The results as follows: IN support of AIME there have been 17 posts!
Against AIME, there have been 18 posts, however 8 of those have been generously supplied by BUGSY!
Strikes me that we have what appear to be a couple of frustrated would-be Board Director types in our midst!

It does not matter how many posters are for or against, Cuphandle. I am just out and out irritated by misinformation and LIES!

You had better get your facts straight, those tomatoes you describe are highly unlikely to be GM.

Here is a list of GM crops approved for use in Australia:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm

See tomatoes there? NO. Why? GM tomatoes have never been approved for use in Australia. More that likely the ones you are talking about are conventional hybrids in a hydroponic system or something similar. If you want to complain about that, by all means do, but don't pretend that it's GM you're talking about.

Cuphandle, I would be pretty sure the tomatoes you speak of are not GM – at least the way that Aime and others arguing against GM would define GM. There are no licenses for the growing of GM tomatoes in Australia. My guess, without seeing them, is that they are hybrid tomatoes produced by taking two inbred lines with different characteristics and crossing them. The seed of the fruit from these F1 hybrid tomatoes will not breed true, but will segregate all over the place. That is the nature of hybrid crops.

I also don’t have any shares in Monsanto, but I work with farmers who use their products. The bottom line is that the farmers have choice, they can use other’s products, but where they choose to use Monsanto’s they do so because the products are superior for their use.

Of course if you take the smidgin of doubt argument to its conclusion, things get very silly indeed. GM crops have never been responsible for any negative health effects so far. In contrast, organically-grown spinach was responsible for 3 deaths and 200 hospitalizations in the US last year. There is more than a smidgin of doubt about the safety of organic foods, so lets ban those too. We know motor cars are dangerous, ban them. Also computers, all electrical items, dogs, cows, horses, sheep. Eggs regularly hospitalize people, so ban them. Nuts, kiwi fruit, fruit juice, stone fruit, fish, shellfish, milk, wheat and so it goes on. Soon there will be nothing to eat and nothing to do. Far better to do a risk assessment.

Agronomist and Bugsy:
Boy,.... I must have touched a nerve there!

I can see no point in continuing a discussion with persons that are so convinced that their view is the right one, with NO real consideration for other people`s point of view!

I have a life to get on with as no doubt you have too,....if not then I feel sorry for you in your totally righteous world.

I just sincerely hope that your children or family don`t end up statistics in this ridiculous game of GM experimentation!

Hi Cuphandle, a closed mind is a terrible thing to have, isn't it? So far all the points you have put forward have been proven to be wrong. So where are my arguments wrong? Can you find anything with proper evidence?

Frankly, I don't think you care at all about my children and what will happen to them. You don't care that I have two disabled children with a condition where we have just found where the mutation is and perhaps in 10 or 15 years time, children may not have to suffer from this condition again. It will be GM type technology of course that will do this.

I do care about what happens in the future and frankly, science holds the key. Anti-science attitudes such as yours will only lead to more suffering by children in the future, not less.

Thanks to those who have posted so far. A recent study (2007) stated that 80% of people do not want GM crops.

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:VJEFmsW-XT4J:www.chiefscientificadviser.ie/documents/csa-pres-asa.pdf+gm+realities&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au

An earlier study suggests that soy bean crops didn't live up to their claim to produce more food stock.

http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html

Now, I'm obviously not a scientist and have a lot of research to catch up on before I can make an assessment of just how GM crops may or may not affect humans. My main beef is that I have yet to find an ordinary Australian who isn't cautious about GM cropping and would rather it didn't happen in Australia and on taking that into acount, I find it particularly odious that our elected State representatives would lift the moratorium on GM cropping without taking into account the fears (founded or otherwise) of the voting public. This is reminiscent of Howard's tactics and not what I'd expect from a Labor Government.

Shame to the Vic and NSW labor Governments.
Aime.

Well done Cuphandle, nice bow out.

When presented with facts, the argument melts away. Of course, then you accuse us of being shareholders of the companies involved, to motives based on greed because we dare to argue for what we believe in. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you have presented no evidence or links or anything that really supports your position, apart from regurgitating the same arguments as the misinforming anti-GM lobby.

When called out on total furphy, you call us totally righteous, with no real consideration of other peoples point of view!

Get this one thing straight Cuphandle, I am interested in the TRUTH. Nothing more, nothing less. If science is going to be smothered or held back or banned or whatever, I want it to be for reasons that are REAL, not because some organic farmer says so, not because anti-science, anti- corporate types think that it's a "bad" idea. It has to be shown to be bad. They have tested for 15 years. They have looked extensively, lots of the science is in. GM is fine and many varieties tested can be grown with no adverse health effects and good environmental outcomes. That's my position. If you have something better, then show it. Otherwise just bleating that all the scientists are "in on it" or have something to gain by somehow hurting your kids is not going to get you anywhere.

Aime, unfortunately I need to point out to you that in the presentation link that you offered, one slide showed 80% of people familiar with the technology (not against it) and on another slide, greater than 50% of respondents said if it was properly authorised, shown to be environmentally friendly or used less pesticides.

That link about the heat stress induced yield loss is a good one, and is something for farmers to consider, and for the companies that sell it to research. It's a start, but it's not a good enough reason for banning a technology. In this case, I just wouldn't buy that particular variety if I was in a hot area, if I were a farmer.

I have a simple but short bit of prose for those two recalcitrent, self-righteous "know-alls":

"Shearing Sheep in New South Wales,"
"Shearing Sheep as big as whales!"
"With wooly backs and fluffy tails...."

" Baa, Baa, Baa, Baa ...............Bah!"

Aime,
When the moratorium on GM ends next year it will have provided 5 years of study, in addition to the many years prior to 2003, to show any detrimental impact to consumers or farmers alike. In the absence of such evidence GM technology moves on to the next level, a regulatory board. The lifting of the Moratorium does not give immediate access to commercial GM cropping, any GMO must meet the requirements of the Office of Gene Technology.

Beyond regulatory considerations it will then be up to the farmer as to whether or not to grow GM, based on whether or not the technology will be advantageous to them. The market will decide if there truly is a premium for non-GM produce as world trade(with GM) sets the price. Processors won't be able hide behind govt bans they'll have to pay the real cost of maintaining a non-GM supply, which may well be nothing extra. Australian farmers could otherwise be disadvantaged in a global context, forced to grow GM free produce rather than by choice.

The merits of GM aren't necessarily financial, in the case of Bt cotton in an average year the bottom line differs little. It is the reduction of spraying and consequent management simplifications that sell the product. There is no premium/discount for GM cotton or it's seed compared to conventional. Growers went through the seed segregation dilema some 10 years ago, making sure that the ability to keep GM seperate was possible in case no-one wanted GM seed. It turned out that consumers were not willing to pay more for GM free seed and had no objection to using GM seed at the same price. Result- no segregation.

Since we already segregate several categories within wheats, barleys etc, it is not a huge leap to enable seperate receival and storage of GM seed, if required. The consumer will decide.

Rojo, thanks for your level-headed reply post. As I said earlier, I still have a lot to learn about GM cropping and will also admit that my original post was a bit 'knee-jerk' in response to the Vic and NSW Governments.

I'm now beginning to find that we have more GM crops around than I knew about, but that certainly doesn't make me feel any better. I would need a lot of convincing that GM has any great potential benefits to mankind over monetary benefits for large agri-business, but I'm not about to shut my mind to such possibilities.

I suppose my main opposition to GM is in relation to the end of the fossil fuel era. Since so far, no alternative has been found to replace fossil fuels and considering what environmental harm fossil fuels are doing in terms of global warming and climate change, the future of humanity may well depend on local organic farming methods and it doesn't take much to see how both GM and suicide seed technology could harm future food supply.

Who knows! In some cases GM may well be for the better, but I don't believe that all the cards are presently on the table as far as long term testing goes and the effects GM may have on sensitive people and infants. It really doesn't matter to me at my age, but I have children and grand children. It's the future generations living in a World contrived and maintained by big business that concerns me most.
Aime.

Agro, sorry to hear about your children and if you don't mind me asking what is the name of their misfortunes and how were they diagnosed?

Aime, Not many of us like change, least of all farmers. I have to admit being dubious about mucking around with nature, but was one of the early adopters of Ingard cotton during the trial process.
I have small kids and since we live on the farm it is preferential to grow GM cotton rather than have chemicals being used regularly near our home. We also grow the GM cotton near our river lessen the risk of environmental contamination. Only specfic insects are targeted by the Bt in cotton, allowing beneficial insects to continue predation, and insects that do no harm either way can carry on their business unaffected.

Of course we don't directly eat the cotton (although the cottonseed is fed to animals and the oil used in various products) but similar environmental advantages can be expected from GM canola, and to my mind would outweigh even the unlikely outcomes. The chemicals often used currently for weed control are residual triazines which have their own environmental baggage. The way I see it is by adopting the technology we are reducing known existing risks using tools of low probable risk.

As a farmer I'm not particularly keen to send dollars to overseas corporations but realise if there wasn't a dollar in it the research and development would be unlikely to proceed. In the end there has to be value in it for me, and the developer.

You're quite correct Rojo in that few of us like change, especially at my age, although my grown children embrace it readily enough.

In the end, I suppose we all do the best we can for our children and their off-spring. Personally, I'm attempting to set up a small life raft in an area well away from the the large city in which they reside in the event that skyrocketing oil prices will totally alter they way in which we all live. The only way forward in a situation like that is to grow what you can from organic seed. I too hate chemicals and let nature do it's work of cleaning up insect pests. My little patch is chock full of frogs, birds, stinging ants, lizards and probably dozens of creatures I don't even see. None of that was here when I took over what was then a barren patch of land with no top soil and lots of clay and rocks, yet today I have no problem growing things, so you can perhaps see why I'm extremely cautious about GM cropping.

Thanks to everyone for their posts. I wish you and you family's well, both for now and the future.

eftfnc, my children have an X-linked recessive disorder that affects hair, teeth, skin and bones. It is potentially lethal in infancy, but with modern medicine children in Western nations now survive. As the children get older it becomes easier to manage the consequences of their condition. Diagnosis is physical and usually uncertain until children were about 2. Now that the underlying mutation has been discovered, it would be possible to test for the condition, although I don't think there is a test available yet. I often wonder whether if gene therapy were available at the time, would we have chosen to use it. The answer is probably yes.

There seems to be mixed opinions on this issue.

Some say that GM herbicide canola is a good thing. Others say that they are worried by this development.

Those that say it's a good thing say it's:
1) Safe to eat.
2) Better for the natural environment because glyphosate is less toxic than other herbicides and is not washed into waterways.
3) Helps to minimise tilling and soil degradation.
4) Enables farmers to have a choice on the weed control strategy they use.
5) Saves farmers some of the time and labour costs of spraying.
6) Improves profits because farmers get better crop yields, since the crop is not competing with weeds.
7)It's better for company shareholders, because company profits are increased. (Although Monsanto is the company that most people associate with GM food, there are in fact more than 20 other companies currently producing GM seeds, such as Bayer, Pioneer, Dow, Advanta, Novartis, and Syngenta).
8) It is better for the seed merchants, because they can sell higher quality seeds at a higher price.

There are of course many arguments against this development. Some of which Aimee has listed. One needs to examine the evidence to decide whether or not each of these for or against the use of GM seeds is valid.

It may be that opposing points of view are valid depending on the circumstances.

Although I suspect if there's greater profit to be made, and if it saves the farmers time and labour costs of spraying - the opposition doesn't stand much of a chance

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS – AN INEVITABLE

The Christian Democratic Party, has supported the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007 that was before NSW State Parliament. Rev Nile argued that genetically modified food was inevitable, would increase crop yields, reduce the need for pesticides, improve international trade and play an important role in maintaining an efficient food supply for the State of NSW.

The Christian Democratic Party supported the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2003, They also support the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007, which will amend the 2003 Act. This was after seeking expert organisations to give us advice on legislation when information was not otherwise available. Fred also had discussion with Jock Laurie, the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and asked for his advice or recommendation in relation to this bill. He urged Fred to vote in favour of it.

"Since the original Act was introduced in 2003, market conditions have changed. GM canola is now responsible for 70 per cent of the world's trade and increasingly is being accepted by the farming community. GM canola offers increased yields while simultaneously reducing the quantity and severity of pesticide use. International experience supports the proposition that the adoption of GM canola will not result in a loss of market share for Australian canola. Other States, including Victoria, intend to lift their moratoriums on growing GM canola while Queensland has never imposed one. Having national consistency is important in maintaining an efficient food supply chain and also gives our farmers maximum opportunity to compete on a world scale. All of the existing strict health and environmental assessments will be maintained at a national level through the Office of the Gene Technology RegulatorThe bill will establish an Expert Committee to assess whether an industry is prepared and is capable of segregating GM and non-GM food crops

The bill restates the objects of the Act and continues a blanket moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM food plants, except as permitted by the amended Act. It establishes a scheme for approving a GM food plant or class of GM food plant for commercial cultivation in New South Wales. It will ensure that the industry meets certain criteria addressing market requirements, including segregation of GM and non-GM food plants where relevant.

This bill was supported because in recent years the growing of GM crops has expanded dramatically throughout the world. The acceptance of GM crops is inevitable. In 2006 GM crops were grown globally on more than 102 million hectares by approximately 10 million farmers. It is the fastest-adopted crop technology in recent history. Major GM crops are soya bean, corn, cotton and canola. The crops have been modified to resist insect attack from major pests and to exhibit herbicide tolerance. The global market production of GM crops worldwide was $6.15 billion in 2006 and is projected to reach more than $6.8 billion in 2007. Globally the United States of America dominates GM crop production ahead of Argentina and Brazil while other countries are less involved. The global productivity ranking is 54 per cent in the United States in America, 18 per cent in Argentina, 12 per cent in Brazil, 6 per cent in Canada, 4 per cent in China, and 1 per cent in South Africa. Australia, along with 12 other countries, produces less than 0.2 per cent of the global GM crop. Some of those other countries are Romania, Mexico, Spain, Colombia, France, Iran and Germany. GM crops are being grown in Europe. Spain has been growing GM insect-resistant corn for the past six years, and the GM crop represents 7 per cent of that country's total corn crop. In reality, there is no total ban on GM crops in the European Union.

.

Canada, which has been both praised and criticised, dominates the world canola export trade with a market share of 71 per cent over the three-years to 2005-06, whereas Japan is the main importer of GM canola, taking 42 per cent of local imports in the three years to 2005-06. Further in the traditional import markets for canola, Japan, Mexico, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh, GM canola is generally accepted as readily as is conventional canola, and both products sell for a very similar price. Against that background, Rev Nile said "I reiterate the Christian Democratic Party's support for the bill",

Farmers operate for profit, business operates for profit. Show me where food is produced deliberately to lose money? The profit argument against GM foods is nonsence.

Considering harm to humans look first at chemicals used in conventional farming. It is the exposure to concentrated forms of chemicals or radiation that has more harm to humans than natural gene technology. The most harmful chemicals I have worked with were used for tomatoes in the 1960's. So harmful one must be completely suited with breathing aparutus and with total skin protection.

I worked under Dr Ghotel in the 1960's at HAC developing specialised forms of tomatoes. We used radio-active isotopes to knock out genes in an endeavour to find specimins to breed from to develop tomatoes for different uses - for salad, sauces etc; ripe and firm for market transport, all fruit to ripen similtaneously for mechanical harvesting etc.

These tomatoes were hybrid (gene selected from within the species).

There we have it,

The only valid argument against GM food is that people are fearful. The reason people are fearful is because the raving looney party AKA "the greens" have been cranking out a fear campaign based on "we don't know what might happen therefore it could be dangerous"

The analogy would be "don't step outside as you might be hit by a bus."

The answer is not to stay inside for the rest of your life but to make sure you stay out of the way of buses.

The moment I hear the "we can't risk our children" argument coming out, I know that there are no rational arguments left against GM and the anti GM crowd is all but running up the white flag.

If you want to live a technology free life, then feel free to return to the "cleaner" living of our ancestors where life expectancy was about 35.

News today. Kim Chance has found the non-GM canola market and secured it for Western Australia http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=49900

This market is for 3,500 tonnes of canola. To put this in perspective, Australia typically exports 1 million tonnes of canola per year. So this non-GM market turns out to be 0.35% of the total exports. Canada exports nearly 2 million tonnes of canola to Japan alone, making this non-GM market a drop in the bucket.

Kim Chance is depriving the half-million tonne Western Australian canola crop of a 20 to 30 % production increase to satisfy a measley 3,500 tonne market. Statesmanship of the highest order.

It would be great if everyone would read the story at below's url:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Good grief, a conspiracy theorist of the highest order. Where on Earth do you find these things eftfnc? CGIAR after all is a group of agricultural research centres positioned in third world countries to improve food production in these countries. It focuses on crops of importance in third world agriculture. To accuse CGIAR of eugenics is just plain nutty. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere other than in Engdahl’s imagination to support this. Add to this, his comments about hybrid seed production show no comprehension of the realities of crop breeding. Engdahl seems to believe you can flood the world with a single variety of a crop. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a myriad of microclimates across the world, where specific varieties perform better. That is why there are more than 2000 varieties of Roundup Ready soybeans marketed in the US.

Engdahl has some other odd ideas: including that oil is not a fossil fuel http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6880

Others have criticised the Svalbard facility, but on more sensible grounds. The world has hundreds of seed banks of crops across the globe. In this case dividing the world’s seeds is a better insurance risk than putting them all in one place.