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?