EFTFNC: Nutritional assessments are made as part of the safety assessment of GM crops,( Where is the unbiased research?)

All good scientific research is unbiased. Scientific research seeks to find the answer and can only be well conducted (good) or poorly conducted (bad), not biased.

EFTFNC: There is at present no evidence that GM foods cause allergic reactions.(Is that so? How about those people and animals of poorer farming communities of India dying?)

None died from allergies. Recently there has been a focus on Indian farmers committing suicide, and attempting to blame this on GM crops. In fact, the causes relate to financial issues caused by too many families trying to live off one farm, dowry inflation and increased cost of labour. The animal deaths are vastly exaggerated and again are not related to GM crops. Gossypol present in cotton trash fed to monogastrics and immature ruminants can cause toxicity. Grazing animals on cotton trash needs to be conducted carefully at all times.

EFTFNC: The allergenic risks posed by GM plants are in principle no greater than those posed by conventionally derived crops or by plants introduced from other areas of the world.(Yeh right.Is that what you believe?)

Absolutely. There are well known allergens in many foods we consume, kiwifruit, peanuts, eggs, shellfish, Brazil nuts to name a few. If kiwifruit were regulated under the same rules as a GM food, it would never be approved because of the allergins present.

EFTFNC: But coming back to the original question: It doesn't say where you stand on this,would you feed it unknowingly to your family and take the risk of distroying your progeny and altering micro-organisms and unbalancing earth whilst you are at it?

I have been happily eating foods from GM organisms for more than a decade. I have looked at the risk assessments and I am happy that the products we consume are as safe, if not safer than non-GM food. In fact, I make a point of searching out corn products from the US because I know they contain much lower concentrations of mycotoxins, because they are GM.

Agronomist:

(All good scientific research is unbiased. Scientific research seeks to find the answer and can only be well conducted (good) or poorly conducted (bad), not biased.)
**Collins dic.(bias) ref.5.Statistics,a latent influence that disturbs an analysis.**

This smells so much like spin-doctoring.(Like the sites you try to point us to)
Agronomist I think you are a wolf in sheeps clothing.

kartiya jim:
The website is:
http://www.ofa.org.au
Other nice sites:
http://www.bfa.com.au/_files/27.10.05%20Org%20Farm%20Deplore%20Ministerial%20GM%20Decision.pdf
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
http://www.agbios.com/main.php?action=ShowNewsItem&id=8626

Eftfnc, Thanks .

It's interesting to hear that many farmers support GM crops.

Many farmers support open-ditch irrigation in dry lands, which causes salination.

Many farmers support excessive application of fertilisers, which cause algal blooms in rivers.

Manny farmers support overgrazing.

Many farmers supported bringing in cane toads.

Many farmers supported the AWB giving bribes to Saddam Hussein.

Many farmers, indeed, support things which they think will give them a nice bit of cash today, but will be bad for the country tomorrow. "She'll be right, mate."

"Many farmers support open-ditch irrigation in dry lands, which causes salination." Few support it, just cant get enough income from their produce to invest in piping.

"Many farmers support excessive application of fertilisers, which cause algal blooms in rivers." Seen the price of fertiliser lately? Most simply apply what their agronomists advise them to (who usually have a vested interest in selling the stuff)

"Manny farmers support overgrazing." No, most support using country to its productive capacity, within best known parameters. Eg sometimes rainfalls dont come when expected and overgrazing can pccur as a result.

"Many farmers supported bringing in cane toads" A few sugar farmers might have, based in info given to them by the CSIRO

"Many farmers supported the AWB giving bribes to Saddam Hussein." Most are pretty pissed off about it. Its caused great upheaval since becoming known.

"Many farmers, indeed, support things which they think will give them a nice bit of cash today, but will be bad for the country tomorrow." Farmers are mostly in the industry for the long term. Returns are very volatile and usually poor. I would be more worried about corporate farm investors, as they ARE there simply to get a return for their shareholders.