The overwhelming evidence over the past 15 years is that GM food is safe to eat, and surprisingly even the Greens have now given it the tick of approval. What do you think?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-17/aust-food-regulator-deliberating-over-new-gm-techniques/7033808

To quote Di Natale,

"Senator Di Natale told The Australian yesterday he did not have an ideological or philosophical objection to the use of the technology and did not believe eating foods produced from ­genetically modified crops posed a risk to human health.

The views of the moderate Greens leader, who is trying to broaden community support for his left-wing party, contradict longstanding Greens’ party policy that calls for a moratorium on growing any crops and organisms that have been genetically modified. It states that “genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have not been proven safe to human health”.

Senator Di Natale said as a doctor, he had seen the benefits delivered by using genetic-modification technology to produce life-giving medicines and compounds such as insulin in large quantities, and could not object to the use of the same technology to deliver benefits for agriculture."

Given Di Natale's comments on other science-based issues (vaccinations for example), this sort of comment is what I would expect from him. He is following the evidence, not the politics.

It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the Greens supporter base. Will it lead to the traditional supporters leaving the party?

Also you linked to the wrong article
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-leader-richard-di-natale-questions-partys-gm-food-ban/news-story/c91944dd48b0c3bd128049be46668120

The ABC article was interesting, but on another topic. I notice that the FOE spokesperson was Louise Sales. Who used to be with Greenpeace spouting exactly the same stuff http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4401 I find this ironic, given the complaints she makes about "revolving doors".

It is said that the difference between a left-winger and a right-winger is time. Given enough time the left comes to learn that the right were correct and then set about denying it.

So its only taken (some) Aussie Greens 20 yrs to catch-up. Pretty good by their standards.

In another 20 years we will be confidently told that in fact the greens ALWAYS supported GMO and its a right-wing conspiracy to say otherwise.

And 20 years after that leftish 'historians' will be telling us that the greens always supported GMO and GMO introduction was delayed by an unholy alliance between government and those evil corporations like Monsanto aimed at denying adequate food to the poor.

It was always thus. Its the circle of like folks. Hakuna matata

Ag,

As the Australian is subscriber view only I quoted directly from it, and included the link to the recommendations of the food regulator.

The reason I started this thread is precisely because the leader of the formerly raving looney party is beginning to follow the advice of scientists, this leaves the anti GMO nut jobs nowhere to hide.

It is a problem when serious and desperate concerns are dressed up as "health and safety" issues: those who made such claims on GM being unsafe were irresponsible and climbed the wrong tree.

As for me, GM food might literally spell my physical death sentence through starvation. As a vegetarian by religion, if animal genes are inserted into plant crops, or can be unintentionally propagated into other plants, then I cannot eat those plants. I presume my death-certificate would instead state "anorexia" as my cause of death.

Alternately I may be able to survive long enough on older canned food until I am able to escape to another country which would not allow GM - for now I have noted down to increase my stock.

Experts tell us that it's not really about
the science of the safety and imports of growing
GMO organisms, it is more a backlash against
perceived corporate control of agriculture and food
as well as an anti-authoritarian stab at the
endorsement of GMO and biotechnology by governments
and institutions.

When it comes to science? It must be based on what
GMOs represent and how they work not on a deliberate
attempt in spreading the anti "science" message.