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.