Australian farmers concerned about GM canola. They should be!

http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/grains-and-cropping/oilseed/header-contractors-in-bind-over-gm-canola/786546.aspx

If you are concerned as I am for our progeny and environment, take the time and look at the following and pass this on.(copy this page if short on time)

The first fact sheet (see url below) explains the flaws in the authorisation process for GMOs.
The second one looks beyond the facts and figures presented every year by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), an organisation funded by the genetic engineering industry.
The third fact sheet shows the environmental and health effects of GMOs and the last one takes a closer look at the social and economic effets of these organisms.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/fact-sheets-on-gmos.pdf

Even for those who consider themselves to be reasonably well informed
on the subject of Monsanto's designs on the global food supply, there
is material in this film that sheds light on secondary issues, such
as fertility, that demand our attention.My take on this is that infertility is passed on to our human species as the pig is very close as far as genes is concerned.(why else are they trying to implant pig organs into humans?) Prove me wrong!
http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=110

Documentary concerning the controversy surrounding the experimental science of genetic modification by biotechnology corporations and the food industry. Also check out: Monsanto’s Darkest Secrets.

http://underdogcinema.com/politics/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

Hi eftfnc,

I can't say I'm a full bottle on GM crops, however, I am fairly conversant with Monsanto's ignominious past.

Monsanto was aware of the health impacts on humans and animals by the spraying of Agent Orange yet continued to supply the US military with this chemical which has caused untold misery for its victims, culminating in hideous deformities and illnesses in the Vietnamese people. This chemical will continue to wreak havoc on future generations. That Monsanto has refused compensation to the victims is no less than despicable.

Monsanto and Dow's chlorinated agricultural chemicals have changed the face of the planet's biodiversity where these dreadful bioaccumulative chemicals have invaded every corner of the earth and have contaminated the entire food chain.

Scores of nations are signatory to the Stockholm Convention where these countries have agreed to "prevent, reduce or eliminate the formation of POPs." These are persistent organic pollutants - all contain chlorine, similar to Agent Orange.

Of course the chemical companies such as Monsanto, Dow et al are sucking their thumbs over this since the multi-national chlorine manufacturers can no longer provide chlorinated chemicals to the countries which have ratified the Convention, therefore, little wonder Monsanto is vigorously promoting their glyphosate.

I understand that Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsanto's glyphosate in Australia and am I also correct in believing that Nufarm have employed the Chinese to manufacture this chemical?

I note the scientific papers which alert the reader to the subtle and indirect forms of damage by the use of glyphosate. I also note the papers which claim this chemical is Monsanto's gift to the planet.

Hmm...that rings a bell?

So what to do?

Should we be doing deals with the devil?

Dickie, I wish Australians would wake up and take on the view of the WA Premier.(re:GMO's)
It is clearly not of interest to the majority of this blog to delve in to this so important subject, especially here in Victoria.
Have we been numbed by the fluoride so much as to be beyond repair?
Yet ONE professor accumulates some so called gmo-positive reports and has such influence on the (un-elected) Vic Premier for him to make the claim that it is OK to start this seeding program, how stupid!
Next will be our vitamins and other natural therapies which will go thru the medical system, as it is debated in the Canadian parliament(c51) it all ties in with globalisation (codex allimentarius) efforts of the elites.Those are the real devils. Maybe a worldwide uproar is due and all international groups (which do exist) need to be joining hands. It is masses of people who can make change, as history tells us. So..YES I am worried!

eftfnc,

I entirely agree with your appraisal of the status quo. The Australian people are barely interested in debating these issues for they care more about the economy and its impact on the wallets - not of the consequences. Over the decades many issues of concern have fallen on deaf ears. Those concerns are now evident in the state of our environment and yet our people move closer towards the edge of the precipice.

If Carpenter is thrown out - perhaps as soon as next October, you can rest assured that a Liberal government, with their "entrepreneurial, free market" philosophy will not only see the emergence of GM crops in WA but uranium mining also.

U tenements currently appear to engulf some 50% of the state, however, nothing must interfere with the free market including regulation which is seen as a hindrance, despite the overwhelming evidence that lack of regulation in the free market has been to the detriment of the people in many nations including Australia.

These right wing think tanks are forming institutions, where the true intent is masked by green titles.

"The Australian Environment Foundation represents an important development in anti-environmentalism in Australia, in line with international trends. It denotes increasing levels of sophistication by industry, the public relations industry and the political Right in seeking to combat the impact of environmentalism."

As I have previously stated, I am not terribly au fait with the complexities of GM crops, however, I am au fait with the precautionary principle and history has tragically proven that 10 years of an innovative farming or other industrial technolological "advances," which have been thrust upon the gullible masses, is often insufficient time to gain a proper scientific risk assessment.

In addition, dumping this technology in soil which is in desperate need of remediation is foolish indeed - the easy way out for short term gain and a marketing strategy to enhance the coffers of the manufacturers.

I'm afraid those who forget the past eftfnc, could be doomed to repeat it.

Cheers

http://www.foe.org.au/sustainable-food/media/news-items/front-page-news-feed-1/new-report-gm-crops-increase-pesticide-use?searchterm=GM+crops

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:q3Z3oXAcMScJ:www.foe.org.au/news/2007/burkes-backyard-the-new-face-of-greenwashing-in-australia+max+rheese+profile&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

"From 1994 to 2006, the amount of glyphosate applied per acre of soya rose by more than 150%"

Wonder has that anything to do with the fact that pre the introduction of RR soyabeans in 1995 applications of glyphosate would actually kill the crop.

Incidently glyphosate is one of the least toxic chemicals in the herbicide armory.

"dumping this technology in soil" is an interesting statement since the bacterium genes used were from the soil in the first place.

"Incidently glyphosate is one of the least toxic chemicals in the herbicide armory."

Rojo, are you referring to herbicides which continue to be used in Australia? If so, please list and also provide evidence on glyphosates' long-term lack of toxicity on human health and biodiversity. I have yet to find a scientific consensus on the claims you are making.

When Australia's National Oztoxic division states the following, in an impartial assessment, I would suggest that we continue to adhere to the precautionary principle. These assessments were made after extensive glyphosate research in WA. One must ask why the WA government has resisted giving the nod for GM crops?:

"No information on human cancer risk is available.
No information on human reproductive risk is available.
No information on human genetic risk.

"Further investigation of potential for cell and sub-cellular impacts is required.

"No information is available on the human toxicity of pesticide mixtures containing glyphosate. It is often mixed with other pesticides. [11]

"Limitations of the study : Replicating real world conditions in a laboratory is impossible and as a result, laboratory studies can only provide a guide to toxicity potential, not a definitive prediction. Professor Tyler of the University of Adelaide (Zoology) noted: [14]
This means that up to 200 times more glyphosate residue may be present in soy-based foods."

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:f7eAS_EasYYJ:www.oztoxics.org/ntn/glyphosate.htm+glyphosate+health+impacts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en

A more recent review revealed that the methodology of a separate glyphosate assessment overseas found a violation of the standards required to develop a consistent and science-based conclusion on this chemical:

http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?page=drugschembio-docs_cidad

Furthermore, Monsanto in the US were forced to remove its claim that glyphosate was "biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly“ so why the deception in the first place? Clearly this chemical was not biodegradable.

These revelations (of which there are many) continue to suggest they are part of a dirty tricks campaign intended to serve vested interests.