Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 1 van 177
Unleashed presents diverse and robust opinion about politics, society, belief and behaviour.
A bright GM farming future 30 June 2008, 10:30
I am one of about 120 farmers from NSW and Victoria excited to be involved in the small-scale roll-out of Australia's first genetically modified (GM) canola varieties.
Two GM canolas were approved for commercial use by Australia's federal gene technology regulator in 2003 following a rigorous, science-based assessment, but Maree McKay state government bans across the country, based on market issues, have prevented farmers from accessing these new plant varieties until now.
This year, the NSW and Victorian governments lifted their GM canola bans, so a small number of us will finally have the opportunity to grow GM canola and judge its performance for ourselves.
In March, we attended an accreditation course to gather the practical information needed in relation to the agronomic and commercial aspects of the crop, including crop management information, associated costs, monitoring and harvest plans.
Our competitors overseas have had access to GM canola for more than a decade. Canadian farmers have been growing GM canola since 1996 and these varieties now represent around 85 per cent of the country's canola crop. According to a grower survey conducted by the Canola Council of Canada, farmers chose to grow GM canola for easier and better weed control, better yields and reduced costs.
Canada's GM canola is also finding ready markets. Japan is Australia's biggest export market and Japan imports GM canola. More than 85% of canola imported into Japan comes from Canada and is considered to be totally GM. Australian and Canadian canola receives the same price in Japan. There are no significant price premiums for Australian non-GM canola.
According to a long-term trial undertaken by Professor Jim Pratley at Charles Sturt University, which compared the yield and economic performance of a GM herbicide tolerant canola variety with conventional canola varieties over a typical five-year crop rotation system, the GM canola consistently delivered superior weed control, higher yields and oil quality when compared to current common canola varieties grown under conventional weed management systems.
Two reports from the University of Melbourne have also predicted positive results from the uptake of GM canola in Australia. They state that the uptake of GM canola would result in an "increase in canola and wheat production worth $135 million to the Australian grains industry," and that the "increased production could be achieved while making the canola industry more sustainable through better integrated weed management and soil conservation practices."
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) has reported that the potential benefits of GM canola adoption in Australia include yield increases; cheaper and more flexible herbicide use options; reduced costs relating to herbicides, labour, machinery use, and time; environmental and occupational health and safety benefits for on-farm workers; and, potential increases in off-farm incomes.
For farmers like myself, who rely on new technologies to stay competitive, it has been frustrating
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 2 van 177
waiting to access these new varieties which has been used safely around the world since 1996, especially, as all the indications predict positive outcomes.
Whilst this year's GM canola will only represent one to two per cent of the total canola crop, we see this development as a huge step in the right direction. Farmers are business operators who should decide for themselves which varieties suit their enterprises. That said, we understand that some customers may not want to buy GM canola and the grains industry is committed to providing this option.
New agricultural technologies need a predictable research and development process and path to market in order to encourage innovation and investment in Australian agriculture.
With the effects of climate change dramatically impacting the Australian landscape, farmers like us need Australian researchers to develop new crop varieties, including GM varieties, which are specifically suited to regional conditions. We need access to all the new and emerging tools and technologies available to support our business endeavours.
We hope it has been worth the wait, of course, now it all depends on whether it rains - so we will see what happens.
Send to a friend | del.icio.us | Digg | Furl | Kwoff | ma.gnolia | Reddit | StumbleUpon
Comments (665)
Add your comment
l Nigel Kirwan :
23 Jul 2008 3:16:35pm
.... Therefore they may switch the new gene on or off in an unpredictable manner, leading again to side-effects that could turn up at any time in the future. This aspect of the technology also means that natural barriers that stop DNA hopping from one species to another no longer apply. The highly virulent components (from viruses and bacteria) of the inserted genes could transfer to other plant species, to animals, and to our own DNA, leading to new diseases in plants, animals and humans, or mutations of a completely unpredictable nature.
There are a number of other technicalities that should be mentioned for completeness, and which are described in the articles referred to below.
HOWEVER IT MUST BE EMPHASISED THAT THOSE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN GENE TECHNOLOGY HAVE NO GUARANTEES AGAINST THESE EFFECTS OCCURRING.
Misadventures so far
Already, in the brief history of genetic engineering, there have been more than enough "mistakes" to show that we should call a halt to the introduction of new modified products. Some examples:
Toxicity: a food supplement, which had been manufactured by a process using a genetically engineered enzyme, killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more. Allergies: soybean containing a brazil nut gene was found to create allergic reactions similar to those caused by brazil nuts themselves (these reactions can of course be fatal). Fortunately, the problem was found at the research phase and the soybean was not marketed. (Soybean is a component of 60% of processed foods.)
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 3 van 177
Damaging effects through ingesting modified products: bees consuming pollen from genetically modified plants suffered from impaired sense of smell and had shortened lifespan. DNA is difficult to destroy; it survives boiling, and ingested DNA can survive the digestive process. From there it can pass into the bloodstream and into other cells. Possibilities include genetic disturbances, including cancer.
Changed hormone levels and altered milk content: cows eating genetically engineered soybeans showed increased fat content in their milk. This was probably related to increased plant oestrogen, which can also affect humans, especially children (The USA company, Genetic ID, can detect the presence of as little as 1 in 10,000 modified soybeans.)
In another case, the use of genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (BST) created sickness in cattle and unhealthy milk. Uncontrolled gene transfer to other species: modified oil-seed rape is closely related to wild plant species. The modified genes have been shown to be transferred to the wild species through pollen. This can lead to: The development of superweeds: that are resistant to herbicides.
Evidence of this has already been observed, and the creation of new super-viruses. Build up of antibiotic resistance: this is already a rapidly-growing problem in medicine, leading to the emergence
Reply Alert moderator
l Nigel Kirwan :
19 Jul 2008 11:18:38am
...... are associated to specific sections of the DNA.) Although this may seem highly technical, these concepts are crucial in understanding why genetic engineering is so hazardous.
A final point on the structure and functioning of DNA. It is often represented as a chain of units, into or out of which sections can be inserted at will, rather like computer chips or spare parts in a car. In reality, it is a beautiful, elegant, and highly complex quantum- mechanical structure, whose configuration and properties are only understood to a meagre degree. This is a very important, but rarely noted, point, since any infinitesimal change to the DNA at any point will change its properties throughout its length, in ways that no scientist could possibly predict.
The elements of genetic engineering
Genetic engineering involves taking bits of DNA from one species, and putting it into the DNA of another, in order to mimic certain desired characteristics.
Contrary to the promotional literature, genetic engineering is not the natural extension of natural breeding or natural selection. Where in nature do we find DNA from a fish, a scorpion, a spider, a virus or bacterium, an animal, or even human DNA, introducing itself into the DNA of a vegetable? Yet these are all examples of the types of genetic transplants that have already been done.
Of equal or even greater concern is the fact that highly active genetic parasites are used to implant the new genes (transgenes) in the DNA of the target species. These are derived from viruses that can cause cancer and other diseases, and are themselves engineered to be active in a wide range of host DNA environments (unlike most viruses, which can survive and multiply only in a limited range of species).
Another myth to be dispelled is that laboratory techniques are perfectly precise, enabling the new gene to be inserted in an exact location in the DNA. This is far from the case. The precision is akin to attaching a string of words on to a brick, throwing it through the library window, and expecting it to lodge in a precise position in a poem in a particular book. Literally thousands of experiments are usually performed before a gene implant performs properly. Even then, there may be one or many unpredictable and uncontrollable secondary effects.
There are two important reasons for this. First, the inserted gene must interrupt the natural sequence of
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 4 van 177
the DNA. Secondly, as pointed out earlier, even the smallest modification will inevitably result in completely unpredictable changes in the form and structure of the DNA on the quantum-mechanical level.
The use of bits and pieces of DNA from viruses and bacteria, crucial to the technology, is also of potentially dire consequence. The control sections for the new gene (promoters, repressors, etc) are much cruder in their operation than for "natural" genes. Therefore they
Reply Alert moderator
l Nigel Kirwan :
16 Jul 2008 8:21:29am
The following article was published in the December 1997 issue of the Newsletter of Academie Culinaire de France (Filiale de Grande Bretagne).
GENETIC ENGINEERING: TECHNOLOGY OR COOKERY?
A review of the actual and potential hazards of genetically engineered foods
by Dr Geoffrey Clements
What is genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering is the term given to the manipulation in the laboratory of the genetic code of a living organism plant or animal. The main applications put forward by its proponents are in the areas of food and medicine.
To understand the main features of genetic engineering and the enormous risks posed it is necessary to have at least a basic understanding of what the genetic code (also known as the DNA) is, and how it functions in a living organism.
What is the DNA, or the genetic code?
A comprehensive understanding of the DNA requires a background in quantum physics, chemistry, and molecular biology. It is possible, however, to describe in a few sentences some of the most important features and qualities of the DNA molecule. In this article, I would like to portray some of these qualities, in layman's language, highlighting some of the features that are often left out of the picture when genetic engineering is being defined.
Simply speaking, the DNA is the code of all life. It is a very long molecular structure, consisting of a string of units or genes that encode all the information regarding the structure and functioning of a living organism for its entire lifespan, as well as the biological information that is passed on from one generation to the next. Human DNA is arranged as complex double helix, coiled on itself, with of the order of 100,000 genes, as well as substantial lengths of the DNA about which very little is known so far. Human DNA is arranged in 23 pairs of chromosomes, and although the DNA of all living organisms consists of the same four fundamental molecular units, there is a huge variety in terms of the length and shape of DNA from one species to another. Only in the case of extremely rudimentary organisms, such as bacteria, has the sequence of genes in the DNA been completely deciphered, although even here its functioning is far from being completely understood.
The functioning of DNA
The DNA expresses itself through a complex set of processes. These allow the DNA to create the proteins that are at the basis of the multitude of structures and functions in the body. The DNA is "read" or "transcribed", a process which involves specific genes for each specific function. Also involved are other sections of the DNA which switch the gene on or off. (This includes genes known as "promoters" and "operators", as well as molecular complexes called "repressors" and "inducers",
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 5 van 177
which are ass
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
17 Jul 2008 11:33:28pm
I hate it when the tape ends before the movie does.
Reply Alert moderator
l theseustoo :
14 Jul 2008 8:17:49pm
As I promised, Madelaine, here's my two cents' worth:
I have a feeling that we will have GM foods shoved down our throats whether we like it or not; for the record I just wanted to say that I think ANY GM food should be clearly marked with an explanatory text explaining exactly HOW it was modified.
Personally, I'd really rather we didn't go down the GM road as I feel we could be opening a whole new 'Pandora's Box'... as if climate change wasn't enough.
And, while I can see that there may be a role for some forms of genetic manipulation (though I favour the more traditional methods) I nonetheless feel sorry for those third-world countries which will inevitably be used as guinea pigs for GM foods.
If farmers want to diversify, why not farm the wind for electricity?
;)
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
14 Jul 2008 7:09:12pm
Chris, I am not in any way a recipient of funds for the purpose of opposing GM. I am a consumer who has researched this topic with an open mind and what I have found really disturbs me on a number of levels. The science is one, albeit major area of concern. When large multinationals own the patent to seed that farmers have used for thousands of years the only outcome is control of our food supply.There's a lot to be concerned about. It is consumers not farmers that stopped GM in Europe. I have included the details of the 'superweed' referred to earlier.
Modified rape crosses with wild plant to create tough pesticide-resistant strain Paul Brown, environment correspondent The Guardian, Monday July 25, 2005 Article history Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal.
The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 6 van 177
The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects.
Unlike the results of the original trials, which were the subject of large-scale press briefings from scientists, the discovery of hybrid plants that could cause a serious problem to farmers has not been announced.
The scientists also collected seeds from other weeds in the oilseed rape field and grew them in the laboratory. They found that two - both wild turnips - were herbicide resistant.
The five scientists from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the government research station at Winfrith in Dorset, placed their findings on the department's website last week.
A reviewer of the paper has appended to its front page: "The frequency of such an event [the cross- fertilisation of charlock] in the field is likely to be very low, as highlighted by the fact it has never been detected in numerous previous assessments."
However, he adds: "This unusual occurrence merits further study in order to adequately assess any potential risk of gene transfer."
Brian Johnson, an ecological geneticist and member of the government's specialist scientific group which assessed the farm trials, has no doubt of the significance. "You only need one event in several million. As soon as it has taken place the new plant has a huge selective advantage. That plant will multiply rapidly."
Dr Johnson, who is head of the biotechnology advisory unit and head of the land management technologies group at English Nature, the government nature advisers, said: "Unlike
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
15 Jul 2008 4:25:28pm
Thanks for the info. Mutation in many animals is possible.Like fertile mules etc.Arthur Menchin had a hybrid bird partk in NSW, He use to say just keep trying. He had turkeys crossed with peacocks and all the native parrots crossed and with foreign.I saw a brown falcon crossed with a galah at Strathpine, it was found on the road at Coolum. It had'nt long left the nest and died from breastbone damage from hitting the floor. It was very lethargic. The scientists you've mentioned did'nt look hard enough.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
16 Jul 2008 8:30:09pm
Alert & Alarmed. You didn't answer the question I asked. Had you asked me whether I was in any way a recipient of funds for the purpose of supporting GM, I would have said no. The funds my research program get are to do research.
I find it both strange and a little insulting that people like yourself seem to think I don't have enough intelligence and experience to make up my own mind about the evidence on GM crops, but have to be told what to think by chemical companies.
As to the charlock cross, there was a single plant found in a field in the UK. The information was all on the DEFRA website, so hardly suppressed by a company. The researchers failed to find any more plants in or around the field at a later date. The hybrid had gone extinct. I wouldn't consider charlock a particularly common roadside weed in southern Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 7 van 177
Hybrids are certainly known between canola and Brassica rapa (also grown as canola in Canada), but this is not a common weed in canola growing regions, except in Tasmania.
Reply Alert moderator
l boy from the bush :
13 Jul 2008 3:23:24pm
So it requires no more proof! Maree did not answer my simple question about GM company financial support for her pro GM Canola crop! So she's engaged in a public relations campaign. She works for Monsanto not for farmers! She works for those who would manipulate the market in their own limited interest rather than the majority of grain growers. Why do big GM companies have to rely on spin and half truth? Why do they have to pay farmers to push their product? It really saddens me that people no longer think of the common good. I'm alright Jack or in this case Maree!
Reply Alert moderator
l Skeptic Tank :
13 Jul 2008 12:59:09am
GM products are yet another profitable substance for us to consume. Asbestos, tobacco, dodgy drugs beyond counting, lead based paint, DDT, the list goes on and on. All these things in their time had their advocates. Doctors these days are loathe to prescribe antibiotics, as they reckon this leads to immunity. A few people tried to point out that antibiotic residuals from livestock would pass to humans possibly causing bacteria to develop immunity. The American farm lobby quickly silenced this. Doctors though persist in blaming the patient for wanting antibiotics too often. Sort of a blame the victim thing. That is what us consumers are for, profits and blame.
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
12 Jul 2008 12:00:43pm
Chris, Your responses are interesting to read as they are uneqivocally supportive of the bio tech industry. No mention of the GM trials overseas that went wrong,for exapmle, resulting in recent contamination and withdrawal of US exports rice in over 30 countries around the world.Incidentally it was the farmers who paid the price. No mention of the superweed created by the escape of GM rapeseed which then bred with a common roadside weed. The only method of destroying this superweed was with the use of 'dirty' herbicides. The results were suppressed (fact not conspiracy) by the bio tech company involved. Independent scientists identified and recorded their findings.
Julie is right, the pro GM lobby use language that is non specific and lacks any detail. The pro GM lobby state that GM is closely related to traditional breeding methods used for thousands of years, what rot! 'GM is only one tool.'The difference here is that a tool is an inaminate object not a living organism. It's all about choice, ha, the choice of agribusiness to control the output of food. Anyone who denies that agribusiness is not about attempting to control the way farming is done is manipulating the truth. I don't need Monsanto to hire scientists to promote their spin. As an informed consumer I can work it out for myself. I thank all those who care enough about our health and environment to highlight the risks of this new science being controlled by big business.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 8 van 177
l Madeleine Love :
12 Jul 2008 11:41:17am
Compassion and empathy are two words one can read on other ABC Unleashed Discussion Boards.
I have read compassion and empathy on this site for the pro-GM farmer's position from Scott Kinnear, Alert and Alarmed, Julie Newman and probably others.
There has been no compassion returned. No empathy in victory. No concern for the contamination of other farmers. No statement of 'wrong' that consumers are being deceived into buying products they otherwise wouldn't.
The state and federal governments have given the keys of the car to the two year olds.
From what we know Maree is not a characteristic pro-GM farmer. Most are young unattached men - those without breadth of experience and not used to caring for others. Which has to beg the question about Maree.
Maree waves her accreditation courses around as proof of her concern, but is willfully disregarding the obvious - she knows wind, birds and canola seed - where it goes and what it does. And she will participate in product deception.
This is about as wrong as it gets. This absence of compassion, empathy and sense of right is to be fought to the end. The new world order has not yet sunk to Choice in my mind, but remains as Honour, Integrity and Obligation to others.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
13 Jul 2008 6:29:35pm
Alert & Alarmed, I am glad you find my responses interesting. However, I am sorry that you see them as unequivocally supporting the biotech industry. They are, as I mentioned, my own thoughts and observations based on many years of observations of GM trials, GM crops and talking to farmers. I didn't know I was supposed to mention my views on GM trials that went wrong, because nobody has asked for that. Instead I am being asked about how much funding I get from biotechnology companies for my research, my comments made on television and Jim harping on about his incorrect notion that glucosinolates occur at 0.5 to 1% in canola oil. Oh, and I see you are not willing to share details of your finances with us, despite demanding that I disclose mine.
GM is just a technology; it can be used well and it can be used badly. Two applications that I have publically written deploring were Roundup Ready bentgrass and Starlink corn. With Starlink corn, I thought it was silly, and asking for trouble, to go ahead with commercialisation without human food approval. Keeping Starlink corn out of the human food supply was always going to be difficult without a tight system of management. With Roundup Ready bentgrass, my concern was not about it getting out into the environment, as that is a fairly trivial issue unless glyphosate is going to be the management tool of choice. My concern was about the inevitable use of it for home lawns. Home owners would then revert to a more toxic herbicide to control it in their gardens. In my experience, most farmers know how to use herbicides, most home owners don't. But sometimes seed companies don't want to listen.
With respect to the GM rice trials and US rice exports, my problem with herbicide tolerant rice is that I don't feel it is the right approach to managing red rice. Rice and red rice cross at high frequencies, which means the red rice will become resistant to the herbicide in about 3 years of use. It seems to me that 15 years of research for a product that is only likely to be useful for 3 years is a wasteful investment.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 9 van 177
I don't know the example of GM crops breeding with a common roadside weed you mean, which is probably why I didn't mention it.
Reply Alert moderator
l Julie Newman :
11 Jul 2008 4:39:20pm
It appears the truth is being manipulated more than the genetics.
The reason the WA GM advisory council were given for the GM companies not wanting to participate in independent performance trials in WA was that the GM companies do not have anything better than what we already have.
When you look at the details, GM canola can not offer anything better but the hype remains.
Agronomically and economically GM canola does not offer Australian farmers a benefit better than what we have in non-GM canola.
If anybody thinks it does, please explain the details as I have explained the details why it can't and don't limit it to statements like "better yield" when there is no reason why it should give better yield, or "better weed control" when there is no reason why there is better weed control. Also keep in mind that Canada does not have ryegrass or radish so they have different weed control needs.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
12 Jul 2008 3:15:27pm
Canola is only one agricultural plant.
There are tomato which have been GE'd for longer shelf life, which I think involved insert of a gene sequence from fish.
Better that way that the other way around, I guess, with something like pre-tomato flavour added tuna...
Canola, as weth other genera like Soy, also has both biofuel as well as nutrition advantages via GE/GM depending which genes are enhanced or added to provide for either additional hydrocarbon production, or for increased production of cholesterol level lowering fatty acids, polysaccharides and proteins.
"Weed Proofing" can be acquired through GM herbicide protection (designer for herbicides of a specific type) so that the canola is virtually the only plant left standing after minimal use of the herbicide for which the canola is herbicide resistent.
For all the potential benefits, which were not exactly on the table in Shelley's novel of resurrection of compound corpses, "Frankenstein food" is an unfair allegation.
Would you rather we still relied upon pig insulin, or produced as much human insulin as we're ever likely to require, by using a genetically engineered species of yeast?
Essentially, all that the above means is that the yeast no longer produces merely ethanol.
Fungi are called "chemoheterotroph" for good reason, and we'd be foolish not to take advantage of this natural ability.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 10 van 177
Especially since they've already given us penicillin.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
13 Jul 2008 1:13:05pm
Anything that the public had a choice in and was tested by believable authourities, and not on the public, may be accepted.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
14 Jul 2008 11:39:15am
Testing in the public is okay.
Few laboratories have a margin of error in lab rats anywhere near 6.5 billion.
We could lose half and it still wouldn't hurt.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
16 Jul 2008 11:48:29am
The GM bit is only chemical resistance which is what our non-GM chemical resistant varieties offer. Agronmically, the difference is the chemical used and GM does not have the required residual weed control but does have the associated yield penalties.
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
11 Jul 2008 8:31:51am
So let me get this straight. So I have shown that the only allergy testing that is done is a questionnaire and yet you say this is sufficient. This is manipulated and is technical incompetence of the biotech scientists who are only in it for the money. This disgusts me. This is not science. And yet you claim it is. I will leave you as well and say the same as Jim. Pat yourselves on the back and count your money as Judas did and remember me as I say the same, I told you so, when your health and your childrens health start to deteriorate.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
11 Jul 2008 2:11:39pm
Hey, don't go just yet! You're pretty sure everyone's health will suffer from eating GM food. Where's your evidence? Don't you want to share this certain, ground-breaking knowledge with everyone or don't you care about their health? Please show me the millions of corpses and hospitalised persons that have resulted from consuming GM for at least a decade! I'm really worried!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 11 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
11 Jul 2008 4:59:45pm
It's not up to him/her Cricket. The information is already supposed to be on the table.
Reply Alert moderator
n cosmic ray :
11 Jul 2008 11:36:53pm
Hey Cricket I just invented this great secret recipe that will make everyone really rich. Wot doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I'm gonna sneak it into the food supply, because it's up to you to prove that it's not safe.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
11 Jul 2008 9:55:30pm
Cricket, you're talking in a really horrible way, and displaying the most reprehensible belligerance.
You have been told that there is no surveillance of the effects of eating GM food, and I am sure that you have sufficient intelligence to record this fact.
Yet you have not chosen to use it in respectful conversation with fellow human beings, instead chosing other courses.
I find your behaviour dispicable, and I think you have chosen wisely not to give your full name.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
14 Jul 2008 9:01:10am
Yes, I imagine it IS horrible for you when the anti-GM hysteria you're whipping up is held to account.
I find it contradictory that the anti-GM lobby here calls for safety testing of GM food while making definitive statements along the lines of "...when your health and your childrens health start to deteriorate..." which unequivocally suggest it is bad for human health.
The fact is that you can't have it both ways.
Reply Alert moderator
l Field Correspondent :
11 Jul 2008 7:39:58am
Thanks for an honest view without hysteria and panic about growing GM food. The people who oppose this technology seem to act as if we have never used genetic modification in our plants - which
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 12 van 177
of course is simply not true.
We have been modifying plants for thousands of year - yet this safer and more specific technology is some how considered far, far worse than back crossing. I think some of the GM opponents need to go back and repeat year 8 science.
Great article - love to see more of them.
PS I am not paid by monsanto...before you conspiracy theorists/anti globalisationists start throwing accusations
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
11 Jul 2008 10:04:19pm
Field correspondent. DNA had never been manually "cut and pasted" until these limited "GM" crops of the last decade or so.
The treatment of important plant material in this manner is widely regarded as unwise, and the consumption of food arising from such treatment is regarded as premature.
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
12 Jul 2008 11:16:04am
Manually cutting and pasting only in the last decade? That wrong, its got a long history, going pack to embryo rescue methods to allow wide-crosses in plant breeding about 50 years back. These allowed who blacks of new genes to be introduced -- into wheat for instance -- to improve pest resistance long before the current molecular era.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
14 Jul 2008 9:15:23am
The methods of specific gene transfection by agrobacterium and by bombardment are very new. These transgenic (GM) crops were officially commercially planted in 1996 (mostly in the Americas), products coming silently onto the market soon after. There are two trait types - herbicide resistant (a company's specific weedkiller can be sprayed over the top), and insecticidal (plant produces it's own insecticide). Some plants have both traits.
We have no wish to eat these crops, nor additives derived from these crops or processes.
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
10 Jul 2008 8:34:00pm
Many of the foods you eat begin their lives as live clones in a tissue culture.
It is the most accurate way of maintaining the phenome desired of the particular plant, be it as a food production crop or an ornamental flowering variety.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 13 van 177
It also ensures freedom, for the seedlings the tissue culture upon agar in Petri dish become, from predation by anything microscopic or arthropod, and reduces losses which can otherwise occur through sowing seed direct to the natural environment.
No difference in some respects to IVF of the human kind, but certainly not an entirely "organic" methodology, and you cannot really condemn one without being equally suspicious of the other.
Strange that.
When if a dysfunctional genome were found in the genome of either haploid, sperm/pollen or ovum, and something could be done to correct the anomally before it presented as a problem, it would be a hard parent to refuse.
We're a living paradox of definitions.
Reply Alert moderator
l Jim :
10 Jul 2008 4:27:53pm
Leave you's to it to pat yourselves on the backs and count your dollars. remember me. I told you so.
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
10 Jul 2008 3:57:44pm
Allergenicity assessment seems to me that the only safety assessment that is done is a questionnaire not scientific evidence. Surely you should recognise that this could be a disaster waiting to happen.
According to the Goodman paper on allegen response "Animal testing was included despite recognition that validated models predicting risk of sensitization in humans do not (yet) exist. The Codex Alimentarius Commission guidelines abandoned the risk assessment based on a decision tree and adopted a weight-of-evidence approach. A decision tree was found to be too rigid in a situation where no single criterion is sufficiently predictive and evidence derived from several types of information, based on tests with different levels of validation, needs to be taken into account.
The number of sera needed is dependent on the degree of confidence considered necessary (largely a political and socioeconomic issue) and the prevalence of recognition of the hypothetical allergen. Moreover, it must be recognized that there are no absolute thresholds of serum IgE binding that provide absolute measurement of safety or risk.
On the basis of current knowledge, therefore, we recommend continuing research to evaluate potentially predictive animal models but caution against testing potential products at this time as there is no scientific validation demonstrating predictive values that are acceptable for risk evaluation. ) Source of the gene: common allergen or not? ) Bioinformatics: sequence searches for matches of >35% identity over 80 amino acids (or of >50% overall identity for more realistic risks). ) IgE-testing: does the introduced protein bind IgE-antibodies? ) Stability testing: is the expressed protein highly resistant to digestion by pepsin? ) Abundance: is the protein abundant in the food (and stable)?"
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 14 van 177
n Agronomist :
12 Jul 2008 11:31:12am
Niote that Goodman 2008 say this QUOTES Furthermore, to date there is no documented proof that any approved, commercially grown GM crop has caused allergic reactions owing to a transgenically introduced allergenic protein, or that generation of a GM crop has caused a biologically significant increase in endogenous allergenicity of a crop...
Conclusions The current safety assessment outlined in the Codex guidelines (2003)is based on the current state of knowledge regarding food allergens and risk, and is therefore well-suited to evaluate the potential for increased risk in allergenicity of GM crops compared with the risk of allergy from the conventionally bred crop varieties. The weight-of-evidence approach was adopted in part as it was recognized that there are exceptions to each component in the process. Thus, each product must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and experienced scientists must be able to interpret results in aggregate....
...There is no scientific justification for inclusion of the following tests in allergenicity assessment because their predictive values have not been validated: Bioinformatics: short-peptide matches resulting in random false positive hits... END OF QUOTES [These rejected methods are those Madeleine Love has been promoting].
Reply Alert moderator
l Jeffrey Bidstrup :
10 Jul 2008 1:32:05pm
Maree McKay is to be congratulated for telling it how it is, and having the courage to openly state the facts. In contrast, the cover of anonymity seems to have bought out many who have openly twisted, or disregarded the facts. Mrs McKay actually pays Monsanto to be allowed to grow GM canola and the massive conspiracy theorists belong with McCarthy in the sixties. Also, the Canadian farmers actually pay to be allowed to grow GM canola, and they do grow it on 90 percent because they have a choice. The Japanese actually pay the Canadians the same price as we get to buy the said GM canola and 90 percent of their canola imports are GM (and GM corn and GM soybean). It is curious that a major food processor who recently came out with a call for Australia to "stay" GM free actually imports most of its soy and most of that is GM. It just uses "branded non-GM soy" for its headline product which is a small percent of its sales. This "branded non-GM soy" comes from South America where 95 percent of the soy is GM. Go figure. One of our largest meat processors joined the call, but they use GM cottonseed as the basis for the rations in all their feedlots. We in Australia use GM cottonseed oil as the basis for our commercial oil, and nearly every fish and chip shop has used it for 13 years now. This whole debate has been characterised by hypocrisy and lies, and the open forum of anonymous comment just adds to the misinformation. Farmers here had a choice with canola and they bought every seed within days, and farmers in Canada have a choice. Australian cotton growers have had the choice for 13 years and they choose GM for 90 percent of their crop with a resulting 85 percent drop in pesticide use. Consumers in Japan have a choice, and, despite all the published rot, 90 percent buy GM canola. With massive imports of GM food to Australia, the debate about labelling is not relevant to the debate about growing- they are separate issues.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 15 van 177
Keep up the good work Maree.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:58:24pm
Wow ,that was stirring, i'm going to buy a box of canola marg.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
10 Jul 2008 4:07:17pm
Spot on JB!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
11 Jul 2008 10:25:31pm
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for all the information. I'm taking on a number of roles in this debate - as a concerned mother, as a researcher, an educator, a consumer, and a "food detective".
I take the easily supported position that the approval of GM foods is well ahead of appropriate safety testing, and I find the consumer deception in the absence of labelling disturbing. All of the other well-known contentious issues associated with GM food crops are impossible to ignore.
The information you have provided on soy lecithin will be useful. I've been talking with producers - when they tell me that they are using a product of the USA that has come with non- GM certification one has to be deeply sceptical. We will be following that up to ensure consumers are given fair information, with all GM ingredients fully labelled.
One of the saddest things about this business is that the major international fast food chain stores are fully aware of the GM issue and cook in non-GM oils, yet the humble fish and chip shops aren't aware and will be losing customers to these major chains.
Reply Alert moderator
n Skeptic Tank :
13 Jul 2008 12:38:10am
The McCarthy era was in the fifties, not the sixties.
Reply Alert moderator
l Ardbeg of Tas :
10 Jul 2008 10:18:52am
It is extremely regrettable and foolhardy that NSW and Vic now allow the production of GM crops
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 16 van 177
which will inevitably lead to contamination of other crops. The whole GM/GE industry is driven by the blind pursuit of profits at the cost of the rest of us who abhore the whole concept.
Reply Alert moderator
l Jim :
10 Jul 2008 12:14:18am
Chris, could you call in and check too how the erucic and glyco tests on rats and chooks etc ,with thyroid disorders are going please.And the ones on the rats on the alochol and the aged rats too please.The public finds them more stimulating than looking at weeds and tired of waiting.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
10 Jul 2008 9:32:29am
Jim, FSANZ have a very comprehensive technical report on erucic acid in food including reviews of the feeding studies on rats, pigs and monkeys. It is available on their website. Search for erucic acid in food and I am sure you will find it.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:20:48pm
Glycos Chris ,you know the GM motto, don't mention the glyco's.A lot of people are a bit stunned they have to figure it out and find it for themselves seeing they're are being so well taken care of. More rat and monkey tests with erucic? It's well covered and left a lot of holes and obvious available compromising pathways.How long before Monsanto has farmers at their feet tied up and scratching like lychee, avocado,emu profit scheme's?
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
10 Jul 2008 8:26:21pm
Jim, I think you mean glucosinolates, although I can’t for the life of me think why you are worried about the human health effects of these from canola. Firstly, they are not present in canola oil, so unless you are going to eat canola seed or canola meal, there is no risk at all. Secondly, these compounds are present in all brassicas. These are the chemicals that give you the heat in your mustard on your sandwiches and in the horseradish you have with your sushi, or the radishes you eat on salad. It is also the compound present in broccoli that is so good for warding off cancer. As normal, it is the dose that makes the poison. Just go easy on the mustard, Jim.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
11 Jul 2008 1:30:50am
I'm sure you can spell ,type and recall better than me. Glucosilonates have a strong relationship and balance to all else in the plant and what comes from it.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 17 van 177
Complications. I read that the method of extraction has been under question too.As the alcohols in canola.It is rumoured that the FDA took 50 million dollars to put canola on the safe foods list.Which could well add up to costs, not back handed deals as some suggest. I can't find any tests or results and know of no reports made public.And i doubt any will or have been done for complications with human lifestyles and idiosyncracies.I ask myself where is the GM movements stand on glucosilinates for people to browse and comment on? I don't think they can, want to, and in no depth of human systems without hanging themselves with their tongue.And i'm sure they know it.Where's the Australian studies for comment? The FDA is lackey to the drug market. Just one area-Around 190,000 die in the states from medical causes a year with a high figure of drug caused.119 of 364 most common prescribed drugs for elderly are too powerful and damaging and safer alternatives more safe and effective. 659,000 adults are hospitalized from drug side effects.Near 9 million suffer at home from same.61,000 people got Parkinsons directly from the range of 29 pills that are capable of giving it to you.65 cause dementia,86 cause depression, 105 cause hallucinations,22 -cause car accidents,etc etc.Members of the FDA have been caught taking bribes. Around ten years ago 10 companies were investigated over bribes to 5 FDA officials.You are all very and overly trusting considering with what is being played with here.The above is nothing to the whole.But i understand that more than most here have monetary interest.Canola oil has 0.5 to 1% glucosinolates. If you can believe the industries figures.Varies with weather.I guess you'd have an interest in the derivatives, for weed and disease control etc. 2pe. i'll leave you to your glories here, but i would personally never expect no comment from questioners when gloating of the implementation of these crops in Australia in a public forum.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
11 Jul 2008 1:54:05am
i choose when to eat mustard, brocolli and other brasicas not my govt and monsanto and the FDA.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
11 Jul 2008 8:28:22pm
Jim, I think you are getting glucosinolates confused with erucic acid in canola oil. The Australian Oilseeds Federation publishes every year a document called Quality of Australian Canola. This details the canola quality from receivals all around the country. In 2007/08 the glucosinolate content of Australian canola seed was 8 micromol per g. This translates to about 0.35% on a weight for weight basis. Glucosinolates are water soluble, so remain in the seed meal fraction on extraction of the oil. The glucosinolate content of canola oil is unmeasurable. As there is no glucosinolate in either GM or non-GM canola oil, there is nothing to say about it from a human health perspective.
The FDA has more than 9000 employees. Are you suggesting that all of them have been bribed and no-one but you knows?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
12 Jul 2008 12:05:31pm
Canola oil is stated as having 0.5 to 1% glucosilinates in many sources on the net and by GM promoters.Which is lower than the 2% required by the UDSA. In many official articles it is interesting to note that besides all facts and figures being providing for other, it is only mentioned in levels of 'being Low".Australian levels will vary with weather, contamination and lapse practice. The FDA and American health system ,politics and corruption of, is no shining light to hold up for public scrutiny or endorsement of any endeavour.The record
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 18 van 177
mostly kept from the public on a large scale is known, and very poor, by more people than me. I would rather be emminent from sound practice than being market manipulated and being commercially public marketed by an industry.I'm sure i could hide for years in the chase for better weed control if i could control my superiority complex.Why were'nt cover crops of things like Asian Mustard looked at before going GM and for similar being used for herbicide sprays etc? Why is that being looked at now with promise after GM? In too many areas we suffer the dictating and overbearing power of entities for the get rich quick schemes and public paying for that in too many ways.Rape and canola is traditionally grown in places of cold and freezing winters for weed and pest control, you must be in great demand by way of some of the fool places people are pushed to grow it here.I would find the answers before.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
13 Jul 2008 5:49:11pm
Jim, I am absolutely convinced you are confusing erucic acid for glucosinolates. I have done an extensive search of the net and can find no mention of glucosinolates being measured as present in canola oil. The regulation you mention is from the FDA, not the USDA, and you can find it in Volume 50, Number 18 of the Federal Register from page 3745 onwards. It specifically mentions a 2% limit for erucic acid for LEAR (=canola) oil. Glucosinolates, as far as I can see, were not mentioned.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
15 Jul 2008 4:17:46pm
Start at Wiki then try your luck googling. Very few articles tell you how much gluco content is in Canola oil.It took me 4 pages of result browsing to find it included. As i sais, while going to extents to itemize exactly, Gluco in oil gets mentioned as the above figures in two articles and mentioned as low in two more and other articles did not mention it at all or offer explanation.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
16 Jul 2008 8:28:14pm
Jim, the author of the wikipedia article on health effects of canola oil could not quote their source correctly. Look at Reference 13 to see.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
18 Jul 2008 12:33:17am
Thats probably because the gm reports that bother to include it are hard to find and take a while to turn up.It took me an hour to find 6.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
11 Jul 2008 10:29:56pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 19 van 177
Very good points Jim.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
11 Jul 2008 10:58:40pm
Chris, It was good to have the opportunity to talk with you over dinner at the pro-GM forum at Dookie earlier this year.
On that evening you were very honest to the farmers about the 'masses' of GM volunteers they would need to deal with year after year, and also honest with respect to the enormous difficulty of seed containment.
However I found you played a different role on the SBS Insight show which was disturbing, since I had recommended you to the producer as an honest presenter. I felt you had been given a different sort of job to do by someone else.
Successful science requires impeccable honesty, and I wonder how you reconcile claims that GM and non-GM canola can remain segregated?
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
12 Jul 2008 9:10:21am
Madeline, indeed there will be GM canola volunteers in fields next year just as there will be non-GM canola volunteers, but I am not overly worried about them. Farmers have been managing crop volunteers for a long time and are generally pretty good at it. Our survey work, about to be published, shows farmers in southern Australia manage canola volunteers very well in cropping rotations.
Madeline, I was told by SBS that I was filling in for Professor Rick Roush who was originally supposed to be on the program and on Rick’s recommendation. I think if you re-wind the tape, I think you will find that most of my comments were about the scientific bases of health testing: Why you can’t do whole food feeding studies well on humans, Why comparative whole food tests on animals are fraught with difficulties of interpretation, Why you need to develop hypotheses and set up studies to test these, Why testing the introduced protein for toxicity is a better strategy than whole food testing, What structures suggest a protein is a possible allergen and worth testing. I did mention WUE GM trials – these are in the ground in Australia. All of this might not be on the program because about half an hour of taping would have been cut to fit. I am happy to go into more detail, but the other readers might get bored.
GM and non-GM canola can remain separated provided there is a willingness to do so. Our research shows that pollen movement between canola fields is highly unlikely to result in adventitious presence above 0.9% in commercial grain production. To maintain separate commodity streams, all that needs to be done is manage seed deliveries and adventitious presence in the sowing seed. Certified seed needs to be tested and have a maximum of 0.5% adventitious presence. The grain handlers are well experienced in handling segregations and have assured me they can mange this with test flow strips. Of course if a significant premium develops in the market for a non-GM canola segregation, there will be even greater incentive to get it right.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
14 Jul 2008 9:24:19am
As you have failed to answer honestly on the clearly asked question on contamination you are now, in my mind, relegated to the position of pro-GM
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 20 van 177
science advocate. This could be a precarious position for one who receives funding from farmers, given most farmers have deep concerns about GM crops.
To a mother with young children your 'fluffy bunny care statement' is unbelieveably offensive. You won't feed this food to fluffy little animals in case it hurts them, but you're quite happy to feed it untested, unlabelled to OUR INFANTS, OUR CHILDREN!!
No-one wants to see animals hurt in the name of science, and we certainly don't want to see our children hurt.
If you can't evaluate any feeding outcomes on the basis of feeding studies on animals, I suppose we can now dismiss, on your words above, the value of any of those chicken breast size studies.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
14 Jul 2008 11:15:53am
Sorry about this wrong answer in the wrong place Chris. I read it at 3am this morning, but the ABC reply system was down and I've blasted away before work this morning without fully re-reading your posts. (I suspect you will understand because you have replied under one of my posts to Alert and Alarmed!)
Assume that the statements relating to animal testing apply elsewhere - you'll know where.
Also assume that I've failed to recall the third paragraph where you have 'sort- of' answered the contamination question (apologies for my harsh blanket reply), but still to my mind without inevitable honesty and straightforwardness that one would expect. People who don't want to eat GM food, don't have any tolerance for contamination.
It's a completely unneccessary and potentially harmful adjunct to the food chain which, in the existing power structure of the agri-giants, is likely to be exacerbating world situations of poverty and hunger, and is likely to box farmers into the position of serfs, rather than liberated independent trading operators serving the world community. It's not a positive step - it appears to be a ploy to sell via a farmer-thrill venture.
Sorry again for where I got it wrong.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
16 Jul 2008 8:35:51pm
Madeline, I didn't say that testing on animals shouldn't be conducted where necessary, but that killing animals for unnecessary experiments was my concern. For the following discussion, let us imagine that you and I are setting out to conduct a whole food feeding test of a GM crop. I will take you through the process and you might see why I made that statement. This will be a long discussion, so I will do it across two posts.
The first thing we need to do in our imaginary experiment is develop some hypotheses to test. Let us assume at this stage that the toxicity of the introduced protein has been tested (in animal models) and shown not to be toxic. Let us further assume that compositional analysis has been conducted and that measurements of any compounds with known toxicity have been made and these have been found not to be different. The tests we want to conduct are about the toxicity of the whole food. We need to ask, what is it in the food that might have toxicity? The answer is: no-one knows. We also need to know what effect this unknown compound might have? Again we do not know. This presents us with a quite serious problem. We are attempting to set up an experiment with animals where we have no clear hypothesis and no expected end-points. We can get over the latter problem by using a standard set of toxicology end-points, but we are still left with the vexing issue of no clear
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 21 van 177
hypothesis. As we have no a priori hypothesis and are going to make multiple comparisons we also have to adjust the P-values to avoid Type 1 errors.
Let us now assume that we decide to go ahead with the experiment any way. We need to work out what to test, how much and how many samples. Dealing with the food side of the test first, one of the things we know from compositional studies of food is that they vary a lot. Climate, fertilizer, crop variety, soil type, pests and diseases can all influence the composition of food. We could minimise the differences by getting food from sister varieties grown in the same year on the same farm, but there will still be differences. This is a problem for us, because if we find a difference, we cannot be sure that it is the GM that has caused it not one of these other differences. One way around this problem is to compare our GM and non-GM food with other common varieties of the same food – six other varieties may be sufficient to cover the extent of variation. We have effectively trebled the number of animals we have to kill.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
16 Jul 2008 8:38:58pm
Secondly, we have to work out how much of the food to feed. As we didn't find anything in the compositional tests that was of concern, we need to assume that anything in the food has to be in very low concentration. This means to be sure of seeing an effect we need to feed a lot of material. However, we also know that if the animals have unbalanced nutrition, they will suffer health problems and that will confuse the results. Studies where the animals fed the control food and get ill from unbalanced nutrition are mostly worthless because you can't tell whether it is the diet or GM that is causing problems. As we are doing toxicity testing, we really should attempt to establish a dose response. Typically in whole feeding studies with GM, only a control and two concentrations are used. My toxicology training leads me to prefer 5 or 6 concentrations, but let us leave it at 2 in order to save money.
Next we have to calculate statistical power to work out how many animals we need. This depends on a number of factors including the expected difference between the means. If you are happy detecting a 50% difference, we can get away with about 7 animals per treatment. If you want to be able to detect a 20% difference, we need 40 animals per treatment and for a 10% difference we need about 160 animals per treatment. If small differences are likely to be important, doing an experiment with small numbers of animals is a waste of time. How much statistical power we will need depends on what the likely impact of the factor measured is. With death for example, we might want to be able to detect a quite small difference between treatments. With increased weight, we might be happier with only being able to detect a larger difference. As we don't know what we want to measure, we have to guess. Will you be happy that a difference of less than 20% is not important? If so, we will go for 40 animals per treatment.
Therefore in our hypothetical experiment, to obtain useful results we will need to have 40 (per treatment) x 2 (food concentrations) x 7 (varieties – 6 conventional and 1 GM) plus 40 control (no whole food) animals = 600 animals. I think we should be really certain we need to do this experiment, because otherwise we will have just killed 600 animals for no good reason. Now is probably the time to remind you we are conducting this experiment with no good hypothesis.
Reply Alert moderator
l Chris Preston :
09 Jul 2008 4:13:52pm
Julie Newman, I suspect some of your comment is directed at me. I would suggest you should read my comment before attempting to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say anything about a comparison of growth between GM canola and non-GM hybrids. The comparisons I was given were with TT canola.
I shouldn’t need to tell you that glyphosate is not that strong on some weeds, like mallows, medics
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 22 van 177
and clovers. Therefore, I was expecting to hear some comments to that effect, but I didn’t. I will be heading over to look at some crops later in the year and will see how the weed control is.
My colleagues at WAHRI tell me at length that Western Australia has the worst herbicide resistance in the world with almost all farmers having Group B resistance. Our resistance surveys of Victoria and NSW show herbicide resistance is not as bad there. So I don’t think your comment about farmers wanting GM because they haven’t managed resistance really stacks up.
Despite the large amount of negative comments around in the rural press, the mood among the growers who have the crop in the ground is positive. So far, they like what thy see.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 11:25:09pm
Do you know if any HEAR crops are grown still in Australia? Or planned to be?
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
10 Jul 2008 9:28:56am
Jim, it is my understanding that HEAR varieties are not grown on a commercial basis in Australia. There is considerable interest in developing lines for industrial purposes and for biodiesel. HEMOLA is one such that has been trialled.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:22:43pm
I'd guess they'd have to be compatible with Monsanto's pet crop, legally and genetically.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
11 Jul 2008 1:55:12am
And the seed won't be contaminated with each othereither? Not in this country?
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
11 Jul 2008 4:32:35pm
Yes Chris, my comments were directed at you and I suggest you rereading both your comment and mine as you did not mention TT as you claim. WA farmers don't use Clearfield canola because of Group B resistance but we do use TT and our yields have improved constantly since its introduction.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 23 van 177
n Chris Preston :
11 Jul 2008 8:33:29pm
Julie Newman, this is what I actually said:
“The crop was simply growing so fast compared with the TT crops they were used to that the growers needed to be really on the ball.―
You may read the post below if you don’t believe me and want to check. So I very much did mention TT canola. Perhaps an apology is in order?
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
09 Jul 2008 3:35:09pm
"Why would GM canola grow any faster than a non-GM hybrid? It doesn't because there is no reason why it should."
There are local reasons dor why a genetically engineered plant species may be able to grow better (and consequently faster) than may naturally selected hybrid varieties.
A local higher sodium chloride content via crossing in genetic resistance to rising salt from other more tolerant species which would otherwise have no cross-breeding relationship.
Better tolerance to drier weather conditions, greater seasonal weather variability tolerance through hotter or more frosty temperatures, can also be engineered into species artificially in ways which are otherwise as alien to both species as mating cats with dogs.
Exactly how this might apply specifically to canola species and hybrid, Julie, I have no idea at all but it is possible to build stronger and healthier planets for survival in circumatances in which they otherwise might not, and this could mean quicker growth by reason of the hybrid competitor growing backward toward fruitlessness or death in the same circumstance of habitat.
It is possible, but not in the same manner as growth hormone accelerant of some sort, because many weed killers use substances which are or mimic plant growth hormones to kill the plants.
If a plant is forced to grow at a rate beyond either its ability to find or process the water and nutrients required, and the energy of sunlight required, it grows itself into dropping dead by exhaustion through not enough food, water or energy, and a Zero Sum for survival goes negative.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
11 Jul 2008 4:27:14pm
You've missed the point Doc. GM Roundup Ready canola is only GM because they take a gene from soil bacteria and put it in the DNA of a non-GM plant. That gene ONLY confers tolerance to glyphosate. Any yield advantage is from the non-GM plant they started with, not the GM bit that gives you herbicide tolerance. We already have non-GM canola that is resistant to chemicals and what I am pointing out is that the chemicals used on GM varieties are not as relevent for weed control than those used on non- GM. ie. Neither have residual control. Glufosinate ammonium does NOT control radish. Glyphosate can't be sprayed after 6 leaf stage.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 24 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
09 Jul 2008 2:15:46pm
Chris Preston, are you the agricultural scientist as claimed by Cricket? Did you participate in the SBS Insight program on GM food recently?
If so, in the SBS program you briefly acknowledged using research funds in the past and currently from the bio tech industry in relation to GM organisms. Could you please clarify the details of any funding you have received and for what purpose?
Do you have any qualms about any of the claims made by agribusiness as to the efficacy of GM crops? Does it concern you that Australian research into the effects of a genetically altered pea had to be stopped immediately as a result of the health impacts on mice?
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
09 Jul 2008 8:51:10pm
Alert & Alarmed, Cricket has been far too nice about me. But since you ask I have been involved in research programs to look at issues related to biotech with funds from industry with $75,000 from Aventis in 1999 to investigate why glufosinate will not control wild radish in Australia, $38,000 from Aventis and Monsanto in 2000 to look at gene flow among commercial canola crops and $150,000 from Monsanto in 2001 to investigates herbicide resistance risks associated with the growing of Roundup Ready cotton. Two of these grants supported postgraduate students. My research program has received more funds from Government sources for this sort of work than it ever has from Industry – over $1.3 million to date.
Now I am sure you will be equally forthcoming about who you get your money from, how much and for what purpose, because you of course have nothing to hide.
I am always sceptical about claims made for any technology until I see data. I have the advantage perhaps of having seen many GM field trials and even more GM crops in Australia, Canada, USA and Europe. I have also read the scientific papers and talked to researchers in many countries and formed my own conclusions. I have also talked to farmers growing GM crops in Australia, Canada, USA, Argentina, France, Germany, Philippines and South Africa. These farmers only grow the crops because they work for them. Where they don't work, they are dropped. Have you ever heard of Navigator canola?
I am not at all concerned about the CSIRO peas (except that so much money was spent on a product that did not succeed). I know TJ Higgins well and have the greatest respect for him as a careful researcher. The concern about allergenicity in mice arose during the required testing regime. The protein introduced belonged to a class of proteins known to contain allergens. Had these peas not been GM, there is every possibility they would have gone to market before anyone realised there was potential allergenicity. Why should I be concerned that the testing protocol picked up a potential problem before the crop went to market?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
10 Jul 2008 11:06:32am
Chris is being modest. He is recognised all over as a leading agricultural scientist and an expert on managing weeds and herbicide resistance in Australian cropping systems.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 25 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:25:25pm
Pity he was'nt an endocronologist or a doctor, we'll probably need a few more.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
11 Jul 2008 11:04:02am
Actually, to get the most out of GM technology we'll need more weed scientists: managing herbicide resistance is a huge GM issue.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
11 Jul 2008 9:45:35pm
GM industry, herbicide resistance - a natural partnership. Why do you want GM Cricket?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
14 Jul 2008 2:16:17pm
"GM industry, herbicide resistance - a natural partnership."
Actually it's more accurate to say: "Herbicide use, herbicide resistance - a natural partnership." That's because the issue of herbicide resistance isn't exclusive to GM and in fact precedes GM by many decades. Glyphosate resistance is entirely manageable and growers should be doing it anyway regardless of what they're growing.
It's not a question of wanting GM, Madeleine, because I already have it. I support the technology because I'm confident it's safe and because it has tremendous potential as a tool for developing new varieties of crops with beneficial agronomic and quality traits. I've already talked about some of this potential elsewhere so I won't repeat it here.
Australia cannot realise the potential of the technology by deliberately remaining ignorant of it.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
11 Jul 2008 12:10:55pm
Perhaps even an endocrinologist. What is an endocron? Surely not another example of your wrong-end-of-the- donkey science knowledge Jim?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 26 van 177
12 Jul 2008 12:22:36am
Chris Preston, "Why should I be concerned that the testing protocol picked up a potential problem before the crop went to market?"
It's surprising to have to explain this in detail to you, but the concern is that the novel protein in the peas, and the peas themselves, went through a level of assessment that no existing approved GM crops have gone through.
Evaluation of Human Health and Safety is not your field at all, but I would expect you to be aware that even the novel plant-derived proteins were not subject to testing in the approval process.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
12 Jul 2008 9:54:26am
Madeline, your statement about the assessment of the peas is not correct. The peas went through the same regulatory process as every other GM crop in Australia. The process is designed to identify proteins that may be potential allergens for further evaluation. The fact that the introduced protein in the pea belonged to a class of known allergens meant additional allergenicity tests had to be conducted. This wasn't the first crop where this has happened. It occurred most famously for soybeans with a protein introduced from Brazil nuts.
Madeline, these demands for more and more animal tests on GM crops are a real concern to me. Conducting studies resulting in the death of animals where there is no likelihood of meaningful results counts as animal abuse to me and is unethical. We are much cleverer than that now and have ways of assessing some risks where we don't have to kill animals.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
14 Jul 2008 9:51:29am
If it is not ethical to try the product on animals before it is fed inadequately tested to little human guinea pigs it should not be approved at all.
But expanding, why would animals die in a properly conducted animal feeding study with human health endpoints (which is not your area of expertise) if the food is safe? You'd sooner see our children continue to become allergy packages from untested GM food? - prefer human trials on our little guinea pigs? - now that is offensive.
The peas, in fact, went through a very rigorous assessment, and if our children are at risk of consuming GM products we would expect a similarly rigorous process to have taken place in respect of all GM crops/additives to be consumed. We would prefer, of course, that all GM food be immediately removed from the supermarket shelves while the cause of the 493% increase in serious allergic reaction in the 0-4 guinnea pig ages, and the 1200% increase in food allergy consultations since the mid 1990's is evaluated.
Reply Alert moderator
l Agronomist :
09 Jul 2008 1:14:52pm
The latest scientific opinion on the allergen similarities of 6-residues in size claimed by Madelaine as a cause for concern about GM crop proteins is that they are useless for assessing allergenity
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 27 van 177
See Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops--what makes sense? Goodman and others (2008) Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Jan;26(1):73-81.
Key quote Although there are not yet any publications reporting validation of the approach using 35% homology over an 80-amino-acid window (or more than 50% overall homology) to predict likely cross-reactivity, it is clear that it is an improvement over methods using sequence homology over 6 or 8 amino acids. These short peptide matches have not been validated as predictive tools and should be rejected on the basis of extremely high numbers of false-positive hits. The eight-amino-acid match was originally selected without evidence of predictability based on the idea that it would represent both a theoretical B-cell epitope as well as a minimum size for a conserved T-cell epitope5. Stadler and Stadler reported that a 6-mer match resulted in more than two-thirds of all proteins in Swiss-Prot being predicted to be allergens, and more than 40% of the human genome being predicted as such. Obviously, the use of short amino matching searches (6–8 mer) is not a useful approach for allergenicity assessment, but it has never been truly renounced. Consequently, a few regulatory authorities sometimes still require bioinformatics analyses based on 6- mer matches END OF QUOTE.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
11 Jul 2008 10:46:22pm
Agronomist... '6-residues? in size'?
I imagine you are talking about amino acid sequence lengths.
The World Health Organisation's Codex Allimentarius "Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA plant" CAC/GL 45-2003 contained an Annex on the Assessment of Possible Allergenicity.
In section 3.2 (paragraph 8 it was stated that "The size of the contiguous amino acid search should be based on a scientifically justified rationale...", and to this there was a Note 8 which said "It is recognized that the 2001 FAO/WHO consultation suggested moving from 8 to 6 identical amino acid segments in searches. [...]"
Sequences as short as 4 amino acids have been identified as being allergenic epitopes, but the aspect of sequence similarity to known allergenic epitopes, or even in overall homology, is only one aspect to the assessment of potential allergenicity.
The CODEX guidelines for allergencity assessment have been broadly criticised as inadequate on many dimensions, but I note with interest and gratitude your reference from Nat Biotech and will include it in Lit Review.
Reply Alert moderator
l Julie Newman :
09 Jul 2008 10:08:00am
Why would GM canola grow any faster than a non-GM hybrid? It doesn't because there is no reason why it should. It is however understandable why it would be difficult getting the glyphosate on in time as you need to spray before 6 leaf stage which is around 6 weeks and the plant is only small. Usually for the 6 weeks after canola seeding farmers are flat out seeding the rest of our crop as canola is planted first. Why should there be a weakness in the herbicide? Everybody knows what glyphosate does, it is a non- residual knockdown. Because it has no residual, that is why trifluralin is used pre-emergent to give
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 28 van 177
residual control on the ryegrass. A friend was talking to Wayne McKay and he said he also has Group B resistance so why did he plant Clearfield instead of a conventional hybrid? Maree, did you use trifluralin on the Clearfield as well? It is a concern that the farmers that are the most keen on this technology are those that have not managed weed resistance properly yet we are to believe that glyphosate resistance is going to be managed.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
09 Jul 2008 2:04:02am
After playing such a big role on this discussion board I feel I should formally wave goodbye. It's school holidays and we're heading off for a few days - might throw a snowball between reading more studies - so much to do, so little time. i.e. Don't wait for a reply.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 12:46:27pm
The GM crowd may pay for your holiday.Safe travels.
Reply Alert moderator
n The Arch Bishop of Consumerism :
09 Jul 2008 1:56:41pm
Godspeed.
Reply Alert moderator
l Chris Preston :
08 Jul 2008 8:12:34pm
I was at the Birchip Cropping Expo last week and took the opportunity to talk to growers and consultants there about how the technology was going on their farms. The overwhelming feeling was positive, despite the lack of rain. Two comments in particular stuck in my mind. One consultant told me the most difficult issue clients were facing was getting the glyphosate on the crop. The crop was simply growing so fast compared with the TT crops they were used to that the growers needed to be really on the ball. The second comment was about how good the weed control was. This surprised even me, who expected some weaknesses in the herbicide. The combination of good crop competition with good herbicide application was providing excelelnt weed control.
A third point of interest that came up was to do with hybrid canolas. In Victoria over the past 2 years a lot of canola crops have been cut for hay for the dairy industry. Some farmers are now looking to hybrids to give extra bulk to the crop. These farmers now see hybrid canola as a dual purpose crop. The Roundup Ready hybrids look superb at this stage I have been told and will be much more versitile for growers than the Clearfield hybrids.
Here's hoping your season goes well Maree.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 29 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 10:04:40am
Nice to hear from one of Australia's better agricultural scientists - assuming of course that this is Dr Chris Preston from the CRC for Australian Weed Management.
"The Roundup Ready hybrids look superb at this stage..."
...and Canadian experience indicates there are yield advantages with these varieties under moisture stress, too.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
10 Jul 2008 8:51:47am
And the Birchip Cropping Group is highly funded by the GM industry. How independent and unbiased would they be?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
10 Jul 2008 12:38:57pm
You're not reading the post right. The BCG's annual expo attracts growers and researchers from all over Australia. Chris didn't say he sat down to a sponsored presentation by BCG, he said he spoke to some growers and consultants about how the crops were going on their farms.
Growers who are members of the BCG are just as divided on the GM issue as farmers generally, although I know of at least one member (out of about 500 or so) who is growing a GM canola crop this year.
Reply Alert moderator
n Chris Preston :
10 Jul 2008 8:34:23pm
Cricket is quite right here. I also spoke to several farmers at the Birchip Expo who had no interest in growing GM canola.
I was at Birchip presenting our work on the extent of herbicide resistant weeds in Victoria and the efficacy of new pre-emergent herbicides. I took the opportunity in talking to farmers to ask about how their crops were progressing for my own interest.
Reply Alert moderator
l Jenny :
08 Jul 2008 7:02:09pm
Maree, you say you have been "waiting to access these new varieties which have been used safely around the world since 1996" What do you mean by 'used safely' ? There are no long term independent
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 30 van 177
studies to support your claims. Maree how would you feel if a neighbouring farmer planted a crop knowing that it would contaminate your crops and ruin your status as a conventional or organic farmer. Whose freedom of choice are we talking about?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 9:35:37am
Jenny, i don't think that matters to farmers. Your talking about people who have had a nasty habit for a century of rounding up every half empty tin of only god knows what from the house and sheds to add to and extend their range of chemical and crop additives to come out on top with the bank balance.
Reply Alert moderator
l Julie Newman :
08 Jul 2008 6:39:53pm
Maree, I was interested in your husbands ABC radio interview at http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2293573.htm and can't understand some of the comments, particularly of the benefit.
The GM part is only a soil bacteria to confer resistance to glyphosate added to a non-GM high yielding canola.
You have planted GM canola to manage Group A resistance in ryegrass but Group A is Verdict, Targa etc which is not used on canola. The non-GM varieties would assist in group A resistance, why did you choose GM?
You have no weeds because you had a hot burn that got rid of seeds and used Treflan which kills the grasses. If the only benefit of GM canola is the weed control offered by spraying glyphosate when you don't have weeds, why use GM?
You have had a mixed germination due to dry conditions resulting in some more mature plants mixed with some just emerging. Now if you had weeds, you would need to accept a yield penalty by either delaying your spraying or spraying when some plants are more than 6 leaf stage or you will need to pay additional costs to spray twice.
I am looking forward to your Clearfield comparison but will you truly give unbiased response to the comparison?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 4:31:13pm
"...but will you truly give unbiased response to the comparison?"
We are neck-deep in irony here considering Julie's bias as the chief spokesperson for an anti-GM lobby group.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 31 van 177
l Tony Ocean :
08 Jul 2008 6:24:45pm
Thanks for the article Maree. GM is a valuable tool for our society yet many who probably have done little to actually produce food and fibre for society or understand the challenges for agriculture, continue to make attacks on it, as shown in many of the negative comments. We should question their motives as they dont stack up to anyone who takes a good look at the facts or experiences. I produce food and fibre and for all those decades before GM crops I have been growing crop varieties developed through technologies that manipulated DNA including through chemicals and radiation. Nothing was said then, people simply ate foods they bought and low and behold they are still all alive today and with longer life spans. Many of those technologies manipulated plant DNA far and beyond the more understood science of genetic engineering. GM crops go through enormous scrutiny that we dont put other crops through. I have no problem with scrutiny but lets start testing all foods so we do things on a consistent and logical basis. Organic farmers grew these same manipulated crops as well such as wheat and horticultural crops. Many were sprayed with B.t., the current insect resistance mechanism in GM crops. In every way you want to measure it, GM technology is the most studied and scrutinied of the tools of modern breeders. One claim is clear - it is safe to eat a GM produced crop. Saying anything otherwise simply ignores the facts or is simply driven by ideology or has its basis in anti-business. Would someone please post the name and court details of every farmer sued by Monsanto. I know of only one but I suggest you should read the court transcript from Canada before making a judgement of what really went on in that case. I dont see all those who are negative to GM technology putting up a viable, cost effective and sustainable alternative to the challenges and obligations of mainstream agriculture especially food security and the price of food. In my use of GM crops I have seen environmental benefits, health benefits with less use of chemicals, life style benefits and yield benefits. We grow GM and non-GM crops on the same farm - no problems. Its hard to give much credibility to the many aggressive comments of many who responded to you in the negative. Agriculture needs all the tools it can getand GM is one of those. Why would any society want to ignore such a valuable tool? It is unfortunate that the debate on GM has not received the balanced analysis it deserves. Good on you Maree - you are showing leadership to the future and I wish you every success as a progressive farmer growing both GM and non-GM crops.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 12:01:16am
"Simply ignores the facts" where are they? Do you mean the facts of endocronolgy? glucosilinates, erucic acid, thyroids, etc etc etc? I can't see them getting anywhere near the public.I would like a dollar for every Australian killed by farmers cancerous greed.Can we get their names and hardships posted? It is also well known that the movement has copywriters of which i would say that you should give up farming.
Reply Alert moderator
l Agronomist :
08 Jul 2008 5:10:38pm
Concerning fears about allergies.
I'm a bit puzzeled by the claims by Madelaine of identity between the CP4 EPSAP protein in roundup ready plants,which is this protein sequence:
mshgassrpatarkssglsgtvripgdksishrsfmfggl asgetritgllegedvintgkamqamgarirkegdtwiid gvgnggllapeapldfgnaatgcrltmglvgvydfdstfi gdasltkrpmgrvlnplremgvqvksedgdrlpvtlrgpk
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 32 van 177
tptpityrv masaqvksavllaglntpgittviepimtr dhtekmlqgfganltvetdadgvrtirlegrgkltgqvid vpgdpsstafplvaallvpgsdvtilnvlmnptrtglilt lqemgadievinprlaggedvadlrvrsstlkgvtvpedr apsmideypilavaaafaegatvmngleelrvkesdrlsa vanglklngvdcdegetslvvrgrpdgkglgnasgaavat hldhriamsflvmglvsenpvtvddatmiatsfpefmdlm aglgakielsdtkaa
And Dustmite Der 7 allergen
Which is this: mmkllliaaaafvavsadpihydkiteeinkavdeavaai eksetfdpmkvpdhsdkfer higiidlkgeldmrniqvrglkqmkrvgdanvksedgvvk ahllvgvhddvvsmeydlay klgdlhpnthvisdiqdfvvelslevseegnmtltsfevr qfanvvnhigglsildpifa vlsdvltaifqdtvraemtkvlapafkkelernnq
When I search the database of allergens at
http://fermi.utmb.edu/SDAP/sdap_src.html
using the FASTA method I get no matches between the two.
So why is the MADGE member Madeleine 07 Jul 2008 10:28:26pm claiming there is a match when the database says no?
Please explain Madelaine
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 6:56:10pm
What length sequences were you searching for?
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
08 Jul 2008 7:31:36pm
I placed no restriction on the length of sequence , and the FASTS method displays all matches/. In any case Madelaine, since the sequences are there, all you need to do is point out the match you claim is there. Which one is it?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 9:47:04pm
If you represent yourself by your profession, Agronomist, allergies may not be your field of expertise.
They are not mine either, but it may be that you have typed the wrong protein into the FASTA database. You have typed here CP4 EPSAP, but the protein of interest is CP4 EPSPS.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 33 van 177
The sequence the two were reported to have in common was VKSEDG, which is clearly in the DerP7 Dustmite allergen profile you have listed here, but not in the other profile.
This suggests to me that what appears to be a typo on your part may in fact be a true error.
The peer reviewed open access journal study which reported this finding was
"Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE – binding linear epitopes of allergens" Gijs A Kleter* and Ad ACM Peijnenburg BMC Structural Biology 2002, 2:8 www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6807/2/8
Pages 8 and 9 reported the allergenic sequences of the two intended novel proteins in the RR GM canola just planted in Australia. One study I know of has reported an allergenic response to the CP4 EPSPS protein.
If you have further trouble you could contact some university allergy specialists. I know the Telethon Child Health research group in Perth are particularly good with Dustmites. A researcher there contributed with a number of others on the current methods of assessing allergenic GM proteins,
"Suggestions for the Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Organisms" Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2005;137:167–180
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
09 Jul 2008 5:31:50am
Thanks Madelaine.
No I didn't type the wrong protein and EPSAP =EPSPS. An the sequence I gave for ESPS is correct.
The short sequence you mentioned is there around the third or fourth line of the protein sequence.
However on reading the paper you cite, its not highlighted by them as a potentially relevant epitope, (but the gox stretch is). They do mention the question of false positives which you don't.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 8:42:13pm
What and who does'nt often or always warn of false positives.
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
10 Jul 2008 5:13:10pm
Who or what question from JIM
Madeline mentions a paper that shows there are small patches of identity between the proteins that add glyphosate herbicide resistance and known
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 34 van 177
allergens. The text in the paper she quotes mentions that such small patches of similarity might mean nothing, as by chance small similarities will often occur (called false positives). Madeline worries that these might be allergens.
However several recent scientific papers explain that such similarities occur very frequently. Half of all protein in our food, that is non-GM protein has such similarities to known allergens.
In other words Jim, Madeline is worried about nonsensical information.
They are not evidence of allergenic risk (see my other comments for more detail and mention of the paticular scientic articles)
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
11 Jul 2008 1:48:33am
As i said about the watching for false positives.Every brief look at anything contains that. It is nothing specific or indigenous to what Madeleine pointed out.I have seen no evidence that those are not allergens but plenty of innuendo that they are not.I know as you said such things are common amongst a range.I'm also aware that industries float such things on occasion usually with a couple of "musical director conductors" to get the crowds singing it and crush the prey with cries of idiots.I tread a lot more carefully.Our media is rotten with such.It's not beyond irony for that sequence to turn up involved in the future.It does not dispell the overall origin of allergy and asthma in Germany or other.The mark may have been missed but i would'nt brush it aside as nonsensical till i read other findings and complications of the matter.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
12 Jul 2008 12:11:36am
If as you say the FASTA method did not recognise any matches then clearly the sequence length question WAS important.
I've replied to you on the issue of sequence length somewhere above. It is only one method for predicting allergenicity.
The CP4 EPSPS protein has produced specific IgE.
That paper also talked about false negatives (by ignoring shorter sequences), which I didn't mention either. If there is any more information you would like please don't hesitate to contact me.
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
09 Jul 2008 8:10:47am
Madelaide, the two region of protein similarity you are mentioning, VKSEDG and LAEEAD, are also present in otner foods, unrelated to transgenic manipulation.
VKSEDG is present in the Fibrinogen alpha chain of [Bos taurus] Crossbred x Angus cow, and AAQ79779 intracellular protein of Gallus gallus (chicken)
LAEEAD Glyphosate oxidoreductase Achromobacter LBAA (gox) is present in gb|ABS89145.1| CFM2 [Zea mays] (corn).
This underlines the very non specific nature of such a short segment for discussion, and is the reason the paper you cite cautions against false positive results on a computer search.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 35 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 12:48:51pm
Corn is listed a a no- no food in many articles for people with disorders.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 12:09:16am
And should i mention cows and chooks have been feeding on rape meal? Not that it means anything that those regions have or play the same role or have the same potential in stock as it does in a plant.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
08 Jul 2008 11:10:37pm
What is a MADGE member?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
09 Jul 2008 1:47:28am
MAdGE was an organisation of New Zealand mothers against GM crops and food at a time when GM was called Genetic Engineering. The acronym stood for Mothers Against (d) Genetic Engineering.
Last year a group of women 'borrowed' the name from the New Zealand group to establish a similar group in Australia.
The acronym is about to change though because the members of MADGE are not against clever and thoughtful uses of Genetic Engineering.
The MADGE acronym now stands for "Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering" (crops and foods).
We're demystifying GM crops and foods - no more "Trust Me, I'm A Biotechnologist". We use clear simple methods to explain GM technology and issues at information forums, to give consumers a chance for choice.
The website is www.madge.org.au
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 9:23:10am
I think it is derogatory referring to Madge off the margarine commercial. Perhaps mr scientist will give Madeleine the clarifying info ASAP-or something similar.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 36 van 177
l Agronomist :
08 Jul 2008 4:29:44pm
It's claimed that independent tests of GM feeds do not exist:
Here are some, with the governmental affliations:
1: Arch Anim Nutr. 2007 Aug;61(4):308-16. Nutritional assessment of genetically modified rapeseed synthesizing high amounts of mid-chain fatty acids including production responses of growing-finishing pigs. Böhme H, Rudloff E, Schöne F, Schumann W, Hüther L, Flachowsky G. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany.
2: Arch Anim Nutr. 2005 Dec;59(6):449-51. Long term feeding of Bt-corn--a ten-generation study with quails. Flachowsky G, Halle I, Aulrich K. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Braunschweig, Germany.
3: Arch Anim Nutr. 2005 Feb;59(1):1-40. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany.
4: Arch Tierernahr. 2003 Aug;57(4):235-52. Safety assessment of Bt 176 maize in broiler nutrition: degradation of maize-DNA and its metabolic fate. Tony MA, Butschke A, Broll H, Grohmann L, Zagon J, Halle I, Dänicke S, Schauzu M, Hafez HM, Flachowsky G. Federal Institutefor Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
5: Arch Tierernahr. 2002 Feb;56(1):23-31. Investigations on genetically modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: chemical composition and nutritional evaluation. Reuter T, Aulrich K, Berk A, Flachowsky G. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre Braunschweig (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany.
6: Arch Tierernahr. 2001;54(3):197-207. Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 2nd communication: glufosinate tolerant sugar beets (roots and silage) and maize grains for ruminants and pigs. Böhme H, Aulrich K, Daenicke R, Flachowsky G. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany.
7: Arch Tierernahr. 2001;54(3):183-95. Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in poultry, pig and ruminant nutrition. Aulrich K, Böhme H, Daenicke R, Halle I, Flachowsky G. Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre Braunschweig
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 37 van 177
(FAL), Germany.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 10:32:30pm
Hi Agronomist, I'm not sure who claimed that independent tests of GM "feeds" do not exist. I've been writing concerned about human health issues and the absence of relevant safety tests of GM food. For example, the studies you listed...
1. This study looked to see if pigs put on weight eating a GM rapeseed, but not the RR GM canola which is being grown here. It had a 'nutritional' gene added - it's not an approved rapeseed in Australia as far as I know.
The abstract doesn't suggest that it looked at any human health endpoints but things looked quite bad for the pigs (fed from 32-105kg body weight).
The feed intake of the experimental pigs decreased and they didn't put on as much weight.
At slaughter they were found to have altered weight in the thyroid gland, and altered iodine concentration, after this short period of feeding 15% GM canola.
Both of these effects were blamed on the substantially higher glucosinolate content of the GM canola, but I'm not sure if this was evaluated.
The abstract didn't report looking at anything else.
2. The disgestive systems of little birds (quails) that eat stones to help their gullet grind food and subsequent digestion are not comparable to human digestive systems. This study is not relevant to outcomes for human children.
There have been many animal studies which look to see if the meat gets big enough, usually without checking any other health variables - looking aat kidneys or livers. I've read the abstracts of about 80 or so. From memory nine animal studies have looked at human health endpoints. Six have reported bad outcomes. Food Standards ANZ has not commissioned any independent research relevant to human consumption.
I won't go through the other five now. It's school holidays and we have 3 days off. But I will download all the studies you listed just in case we haven't already seen them.
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
09 Jul 2008 11:04:19am
The European Food Safety Authority (Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (2008) S2–S70) explain how rodent feeding tests are a good human safety test. e.g.: QUOTE "Laboratory animal feeding studies of 90-days duration appear to be sufficient to pick up adverse effects of diverse compounds that would also give adverse effects after chronic exposure. This conclusion is based on literature data from studies investigating whether toxicological effects are adequately identified in 3-month subchronic studies in rodents, by comparing findings at 3 and 24 months for a range of different chemicals."
EFSA 2008 also summarise at least 27 rodent safety testing studies on different GM foods. They report At least 109 feeding trials have been done with animals raised for food with no indication of decreased performance from compositionally equivalent GM feed.
I find this scientific report by a government agency difficult to reconcile with your claim Madelaide that only 9 tests for human safety have been done when according to EFSA at least 27 (and arguably 136) have been done.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 38 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 12:51:23pm
In many cases cronic exposure is easily dealt with by systems.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 11:17:20pm
The other problem not described with those tests is that when 1995 tests on rats showed up all the fatty degeneration of liver ,thyroid heart etc etc the GM movement changed tactic and rubbished the tests in question and those type of tests themselves. It depends on the wanted result, apparently, as to how good they are.Efficient to compare with the complexity of human life? I don't think so. The alcohols in canola oil are as damaging as fermented but take years to show.A slow death. With the high erucic rapeseed extremely efficient as a machine oil and actually sticking to wet steel,(hows that stomach lining going?) what future has any rapeseed got with current crop invasion laws and nature at work cross breeding? An oil that sticks to wet steel is highly desirable and especially for the future with alternates.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
12 Jul 2008 2:13:15am
Monsanto put forward feeding studies on three animal groups on seeking approval for this RR canola.
One was done on quails - an animal we've discussed - fed for five days and observed for three.
Another was done on trout - don't know what was done.
Then there were the rats. The liver weights of the GM canola (15%) fed rats were 12-16% heavier than the control group. Monsanto claimed this was due to higher glucosinolates in the RR GM canola. Food Standards didn't ask them to verify this claim.
We don't think this is enough.
In a Dr Chris Preston list ("Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods") of 41 studies (ceasing 2004), only one study related to RR canola, and it concerned chickens - "No major differences were observed in percentage of moisture, protein, and fat in breast or thigh meat (P > 0.05) across treatments". This is how most of the studies finish up - a study on drumsticks.
I can't comment on your EFSA list because I haven't been through it, but I would expect that the vast majority of rodent studies will involve the testing of a protein - probably not even from the GM plant - in an acute toxicity study - not studies which look at the long term health variables - the sort humans take an interest in.
I wrote 'from memory' of the 6 out of 9 - they will be from a Dr Judy Carman paper from a pile of many that I'm not going to search out right now - if you stay involved in the GM issue (with a real name) I'll sure we'll be in touch again and can discuss it.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 39 van 177
n Madeleine :
12 Jul 2008 2:27:45am
Found the 'six out of nine' reference... It was written by Dr Judy Carman of the IHER (Institute of Health and Environmental Research)
"Summary A list of 60 abstracts has appeared on a pro-GM website and is being used by supporters of GM crops as evidence that GM crops are safe to eat. A review of these abstracts found that most were animal production studies rather than studies applicable to human health. In fact, only nine abstracts could be considered to contain measures applicable to human health. The majority of these (6 abstracts; 67%) found adverse effects from eating GM crops. The list of abstracts therefore does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health."
From a different section:
"The list of abstracts originated on the AgBioWorld website. This website also contains a petition in support of GM crops, which it urges people to sign. Hence it could be regarded as a pro-GM website. The list of abstracts is called "General Safety and Safety Assessment of Specific Genetically Modified Crops from Scientific Journal Articles", and further into the website, "GM Animal Feed Safety Papers (abstracts)". It was compiled by Wayne Parrot in October 2005. The website makes no claims about what these abstracts are supposed to show except for the two titles. That is, it is clear that the abstracts are supposed to show that GM crops are safe to eat."
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
08 Jul 2008 11:48:52pm
I hav'nt been able to find where anyone said the tests are non existent as you project to discredit and nor would i include the range you have provided as any convincing proposal or death shot to any claim of potential damage.I would call public placement of knowledge non existent.I would hardly call a ten generation study of quails "Long term" and would consider that a total waste of time in practice and an absolute joke and deception to include here. Feeding stable, lot fed pigs greens or corn does'nt dispell anything. Especially anything of their state of mind or ability to live in a diverse world.People eat, drink and experience a range of factors and cocktail of glucosilinate etc etc potential partner damage precursors.The extent and range of those tests can easily be seen for what they are and have been done for.Virtual staged positive result tests. Canaries have been fed 50 percent of diet (many strains 90 percent)of rapeseed for generations spanning a few hundred years.They suffer diabetes and acidosis and extremes of temperament in both and all directions.How the Germans did'nt look at German rollers boggles the mind. Much is known of hormone and thyroid causes and effects on humans and the testosteronic action cause of diabetes.Much is written on brasicas and glucosilinates and effect and potential, much is written on iodine and thyroid disorders,much is known and written on diabetes for one potential, much is known and written of erucic acid and actions etc but none of it is put together in any type of format anywhere near a GM ,rapeseed, or canola article anywhere near official public viewing or education.If i looked at a clock, roll of masking tape ,roll of wiring ,ten sticks of dynamite,detonators and pair of pliers and a hate letter in a box i'm sure i could come to some conclusion.Why can't those above? Or have they and that is the point of the silence on the matter except for petty test quotes to baffle the dense? Try thinking about this minor point of the matter. What is a common additive to shelf and table food ,especially in the range often included with rapeseed or canola oil.What is vinegar?Acetic acid. What is acetic acid? -The precursor to most of our hormones.How many doors are open in todays modern world for hormone trouble? I'll just mention one of the millions-alcohol. Your tests are totally inadequate, invalid and deceptive to the whole. Here's a little more to think on.VitaminE is said to hold a sex hormone and that action.It's widely prescribed for health and skin.Taking up to 200-250 milligrams produces progesterone, taking over produces estrogen.Estrogen is not always good to people at the wrong times.Progesterone balances hormones ,mainly tesosterone and estrogen levels.It is a protector.Why is Vitamin E extremely hard to find in a dose of 250 milligrams or under? And common in 500.What happens
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 40 van 177
to the common takers of vitE, pre and menopausal women?Males can become disoriented and agres
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
09 Jul 2008 10:18:50am
These are tests that check if the economics of stock are affected by eating GM, they are not the tests that are required by consumers. Consumers don't care about breast meat depth, carcass weight etc, they want to know about allergies or toxins. As stock feed is not regulated by FSANZ, any findings would have been ignored in our regulatory process. Canola oil has not been tested at all. Allergy tests were done by CSIRO and yes, they found a problem. The tests submitted are up to the license applicant, not the regulator and of course companies are going to submit tests that avoid regulation, they are in the market to sell the product, not find something wrong with it.
Reply Alert moderator
l Rob Cosh :
08 Jul 2008 11:04:44am
Maree, I feel that I need to say a few words to you. Firstly, I understand that farming these days is more difficult - and that farmers are having a rough time of it. But GM crops are by no means the answer. Companies like Monsanto have crippled organic farmers today because of the ability fo GM crops to self seed in organic crops. Why is it that companies will not actually let you know if GM modified materiels are used in the foods we eat? GM is not good for anyone or anything, and we need to keep out of our country. Look at Canada - farmers have lost their farms through court action from Monsanto - and it will happen here too. GM is bad and thre is no way around it, and if we let it in permanently then our whole country will suffer the ill effects of an unknown and unstoppable organism.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 5:05:32pm
"...GM crops are by no means the answer."
Anyone with even just a little information about the subject knows GM crops are not the answer to making farming easier. Farmers merely want another tool in the box.
"Companies like Monsanto have crippled organic farmers today..."
Music to my ears. The organic farming industry must die.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 8:46:19pm
I'd like to look in my toolbox and find it has'nt caused health troubles to the neighbourhood and that my tools hav'nt all turned into shifting spanners.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 41 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
10 Jul 2008 11:12:40am
Once again AD NAUSEUM, there are a lot of shadowy and suggestive claims about adverse human health impacts in order to foster uninformed fear and opposition, but not a single one is supported by evidence.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:38:36pm
None from you or GM hey Cricket.You don't, and anyone else here won't and will not go near the subject.The public has to search to find it and search for the complications themselves. Not forthcoming from any govt ,GM movement ,scientist or mainstream health authority.You all stare into space at the mention and pretend the word is'nt even on the page here even though the problem, capabilities and more than obvious links jump up to bite,where's the tests? The public would like to know and compare to known data.Ad nauseum all right.Lets all just pretend it is'nt there and it will go away.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
11 Jul 2008 11:15:31am
You're wrong, Jim. I support independent GM food health and safety tests being made so we can settle the matter. I'm just pointing out that all the claims about adverse human health impacts are not supported by evidence, yet the anti-GM mob still has no qualms about making the claims.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
11 Jul 2008 4:56:23pm
The evidence of gluco's and erucic are well known as are the potentials and more than likely probables and all the Oh sh*t's!. But to get it from the mouth of authorities who are supposed to test or demand it's use by forcing it on the public is not forthcoming.Why bag people on here and try to chase people of the page with an acid tongue that are questioning and telling of extents of complications and capabilities if you are concerned? That could be seen as a bit slippery and political.Brown nose syndrome.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
14 Jul 2008 1:25:20pm
Yes, Jim, you and Madeleine have both complained about me holding your anti- GM hysteria to account. Where possible or practical, I have simply highlighted the unsubstantiated anti-GM claims and outright inaccuracies. For example, an earlier post of yours clearly implied GM food caused asthma when in fact no- one knows what causes asthma. Madeleine says GM food is the likely cause of a 493% rise in allergies in children aged 0-4, when she actually has no evidence that GM is involved at all. Julie Newman even tried it with a throw-away line about markets rejecting GM crops when she was fully aware that plenty of
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 42 van 177
markets readily accept GM crops.
This is what I mean: lots of suggestions, what-ifs and maybes working together to create the impression that GM food and crops are unsafe for human health. All I've done is stick to the facts - none of which indicate GM food is unsafe. Bring on some robust, exhaustive and detailed independent testing so the issue can be settled! Until we have the results from this, every single claim of GM food adversely impacting on human health is FALSE and every little creeping suggestion along these lines is nothing more than cynical, biased fear- mongering. Those engaging in such deserve a lot more than a lashing from my acid tongue.
Of course, one can't blame the anti-GM mob for playing on the fear factor and doing anything that will keep the wave of hysteria going. Playing to the emotions is always the most effective option whether or not you lack the facts to back your position. Just don't expect to get away with it here.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
17 Jul 2008 11:53:44pm
As i said Cricket, the public has to find out for themselves, all is hidden from the public and every look and uncovering just gets worse and worse.It is very easy for you to jump on the big boys bandwagon as you always do but you only provide rhetoric, distraction and political posturing here.Who's word do you base your stance on and where are the facts of matters supplied to the public?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
18 Jul 2008 1:38:08pm
I'm happy to acknowledge the lack of objective information about the safety of GM foods, Jim. I have stated several times the need to settle the issue.
Until we have the necessary information, however, every claim that GM food is unsafe is FALSE and every creeping suggestion along these lines is baseless fear-mongering. There has been plenty of it in this discussion.
Reply Alert moderator
l Arthur 1 :
08 Jul 2008 6:01:15am
Regardless of the effects,good or bad,of GM crops,I can't understand the rush to be tied up with ruthlees companies like Monsato,who seem to have taken patents out on food that we have been eating in one form or another,before it was combined in GM form.
I just love the way those strong and independant farmers{when times are good}are now worshipping at the Monsanto Altar.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 6:02:21pm
Monsanto is giving them what they want. Anti-GM groups are trying to stand in the way of what they want. Which side would you expect them to support, Arty?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 43 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
09 Jul 2008 7:13:01am
Cricket, Monsanto is not giving the farmers what they want,they are selling them what they think they want,and we will all pay dearly,the farmers revenue will not increase by much,but Monsanto's will.
Now I have no idea if GM is good or bad,but I do know that to have a multi national in absolute control of food production,is not a good thing,there are many examples of multi national money makers interfering with peoples well being,why our elected governments allow this is beyond me.
Why is it the GM food will not be labelled? Especially where it is used in a mixture of other foods to make a product,if it was so wonderful,wouldn't you think that Monsanto would be screaming to have it labelled on all the associated products it will be used in,and why are they sueing the farmer next door whose crop becomes contaminated,shouldn't they be pleased that,that farmer will most likely have to buy their seed for his next crop.It seems like something is not quite right about the whole deal.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 1:39:30pm
Arty, I suggest you have a look at some recent Rural Press surveys about grower attitudes to GM canola. Many of them are understandably cautious, but I'm pretty sure the latest survey found that slightly more than half would grow GM canola if they had access to it. I think it also found that an overwhelming majority at least wanted the choice made available to them.
I think concentration of food development technology in only a few hands is certainly a legitimate issue of concern for a lot of people. Not for me, though. I say let the market sort it out.
I also think appropriate labelling which facilitates informed consumer food choices is something which should be demanded with regard to GM. I would suggest that at least reason there is resistance to labelling is obvious. Because of the anti-GM hysteria being thrown about willy-nilly having a negative influence on consumers, manufacturers of food products with GM in them probably don't want their sales to be affected.
Can't blame them for that.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 4:33:06pm
Woops, I meant: "I would suggest that at least ONE reason..."
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
09 Jul 2008 6:32:48pm
Cricket, I don't possess the brainpower to read,and understand all the references for and against GM foods,that is one of the reasons I would rather be cautious,and have
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 44 van 177
large government funded studies,as after all that is why we have Governments,to attempt to protect us.
I understand that any business puts a favourable light on their products,that is why I fear the term,that the market will sort it out.Well it may,but will that be to the detriment of a lot of people,and the benefit of large companies,or for the good of people,and one presumes,great benefits to the companies.That is my question,and as things stand now,only time will tell.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 8:48:36pm
Anyone like to buy an asbestos lined toaster?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
11 Jul 2008 4:23:56pm
Arty, I work in the Australian grains industry quite a bit. I speak to many farmers, agronomists, researchers, marketers etc. In most cases they are as divided as the general public on the GM issue, but one thing is certain: grain producers overwhelmingly want to be able to make an informed economic decision to grow GM or not for themselves. Monsanto and other developers of GM crops ARE giving farmers what they want and Rural Press surveys on attitudes to GM among farmers bear that out. Farmers' major concern about GM was always market access, but two ABARE studies and the experience of GM food and crop exporters such as the USA and Canada show Australian market access won't suffer from adoption of GM.
Reply Alert moderator
l yen :
07 Jul 2008 10:47:45pm
Haven't we been here before?
In the 60s and 70s the sky would fall down, if we started to use computers.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julian London :
08 Jul 2008 11:33:08am
The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water flowing over Niagara Falls to cool the heat ,generated by the number of vacuum valves required. Prof of Elec Eng,New York University.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
08 Jul 2008 3:40:51pm
The number of deaths attributable to GM food is...
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 45 van 177
The number of serious illnesses attributable to GM food is...
All foods contain 'poisons'. All eating entails risk.
Reply Alert moderator
l Krypto :
07 Jul 2008 7:22:55pm
looking forward to seeing your neighbour's farm being put out of buisiness when they get sued by monsanto for GM canola from your farm growing on their land too are you Maree?
You've made an immense contribution to redressing the stereotype that people from the country look out for one another.
You've proven that people from the bush are every bit as capable of being self-interested,self serving and grabby as their metropolitan counterparts.
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
09 Jul 2008 7:18:30am
Krypto, Just watch the farming neighbours at a forced sale,buying their neighbours goods as cheap as possible,probably never buying the farmers goods and giving them back,never boycotting a sale,for without other farmers buying,the sales would probably through.
The other side of the coin is I suppose that by buying his goods he doesn't owe so much when he walks off his land,small consolation.
Reply Alert moderator
n Krypto :
09 Jul 2008 10:00:01pm
very true
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
07 Jul 2008 2:23:30pm
Maree, The reason all Canadian canola is 'considered to be GM' is that over 90% of non GM crops were found to be contaminated with GM transgenes .There is no longer an organic canola industry in that country. There is consumer outrage against GM crops in Australia. You only need to look at the range of consumer groups and companies against GM ranging from doctors to chefs. Starving nations dared to reject US GM food aid despite strong pressure. Other markets had closed their doors already. THe UN has identified the risks associated with GM and acknowledges that it is not what the spin doctors make it out to be. This forum has exposed the same tired arguments that have been used for GM and been found wanting for over the past decade. Governments and policy makers would be wise not to underestimate the level of feeling on this one, as already proven overseas.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 46 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
08 Jul 2008 12:22:47am
Perhaps it is the heights of a world dominated by the hypocracy of major trades. The potential damage of glucosilinates ranges.Brasicas can be beneficial but they can just as much go the other way depending on personal idiosyncrasies or diet lackings.There's money in drama.As far as making an economy goes ,canola has the potential to whip up quite a bit in quite a few directions.I've come across truths of other matters and it appears to be the same here, the potentials and obvious and recorded of glucosilinates is just ignored because of market medical market potential.How does it feel to have a countries medical services quiet on the matter? I don't think needle dependant diabetes is a joke.As an oil additive, canola has a range of uses to cash in on as well as alternate fuels use keeping the price up but other grains without health and other concerns can fill these needs and it appears to be, in greater oil production per hectare evidence. But powers that be and chemical and drug companies prefer the risk, damage and profit option. I have to wonder if this powerful push that leaves most scratching their heads,has been jumped and manipulated into being because of barriers broken here for opportunism for drug companies profits and to become dictative over populace by way of delving into patenting of natural things.I believe that wall has been breached here and it is something thats been wanted by a murderous entity that well knows it's way around people,public media, committeees,politicians,governments ,legal systems and courts,our system and medical standards for many years.Do we be silent because some scream populations are a problem and all take our chances? Why not just pass around a roullette pistol? Was the side health profit potential of canola what got it through to this stage through our system and human rights? From the heights of money power chiefs and infulence in a range of shadowy varied grounds from drug companies to the dealer selling specific harvestors. A bit of cake for everyone who matters? Would another crop have got this far under the same circumstances without potential for opportunism of side benefits for a range of major players?
Reply Alert moderator
l IA :
07 Jul 2008 12:25:09pm
Some good news...
GM crops sprayed with weed-killer
Monday, 07/07/2008
Australia's first GM canola crops are out of the ground, and they're being sprayed with glyphosate.
Roundup Ready canola has been genetically modified to tolerate the weed-killer.
It's four months since the New South Wales and Victorian governments chose not to renew their moratoria on growing GM canola.
Horsham grain grower Geoff Rethus was one of the first farmers to plant the crop.
"It's pretty much a conventional canola crop to look at, so you wouldn't know," he says.
"I actually sprayed this yesterday with round-up so that was an interesting exercise to spray a crop with round-up, so hopefully it's still hanging in there in a couple of weeks."
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 47 van 177
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 2:29:56pm
"Chef! Bring IA the GM canola with the high roundup and AMPA residues, the unintended proteins no-one has evaluated, the two intended proteins with the same epitopes as the dustmite allergen affecting 2.5 million Australians and the red shellfish allergen tropomysin affecting 500,000 Australians, 2/3 of them women, and the unevaluated toxins. Feed the high residue plant trash to some dairy cows for the milk in his coffee."
If he was one of the first to plant the RR canola it's surprising it hasn't got to 6 leaf stage yet. He might be facing yield penalties.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
07 Jul 2008 4:35:21pm
Why your constant references to women affected, are men less important? Does it make your argument any more valid? Or are you pushing more than one barrow?
Too much emotion on one side of this debate, just check out the pen names "alert and alarmed (and possibly on medication)"or "concerned" Am thinking of changing mine to "so hysterical I created a pen name just for this one topic so people would see how important it really is (especially to women)" What do you think, too wordy?
Reply Alert moderator
n VoR :
07 Jul 2008 10:06:57pm
Love the post and the name. Madeleine, keep pushing both barrows!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 11:09:01pm
There are a few reasons I refer to women.
First, it's been a bit of a habit since I represented the issues of the What Women Want party (midwives, maternity coalition) at the last election. During the election period I was contacted by concerned women (I hadn't known anything about the GM issue).
After the election I thought the GM issue the most important of all. It would affect the future of every Australian child and something had to be done now. I hoed into it.
Secondly, worldwide, polls show that women are more concerned about eating GM than men. It's a women's issue. E.G. Morgan Polls, 2003, male/female % agreeing to the statement "I won't buy genetically modified food if I can help it"
Aus(M50%, F59%) NZ (M42%, F57%) USA (M42%, F51%) UK (M49%, F61%) Women don't want GM more than men don't want it.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 48 van 177
You will notice that the majority of major players concerned about GM in Australia are women. Julie Newman and Juliet McFarlane are the major players in the Network of Concerned Farmers. Judy Carman is (probably) the only independent researcher in Australia looking at the health impact of consuming GM foods.
I'm in a network of mothers concerned about GM food (MADGE).
Women are more likely to be the usual shoppers, they are more likely to be attending very closely to their bodies and the effect that milks and foods are having on their tiny children.
Bear in mind that when mothers introduce conventional food to an infant they introduce each food one at a time, for two days at a time to ensure there's no impact, by recommended schedule - no conventional food is assumed to be safe.
We withhold some conventional foods for 12 months to 5 years. We're really attuned to food. Where does unlabelled inadequately tested GM food fit in this schedule?
In general, majority men in power are more likely to be unreasonably excited by techno 'advances', without giving regard to the knowledge generally held within the female domain. Women are more likely to suffer allergies and digestive complaints such as irritable bowel syndrome.
If you're wondering about the names, it's pretty straightforward - we know GM food is cr*p, and we're frightened that we're not going to able to avoid it in the future - there's already so much product contamination.
I started studying this before I knew I was eating it - you wouldn't believe how angry I was to find out I was eating it unlabelled, particularly given unexpected new allergies in my own family over the last few years. I noticed sudden health improvements when we excluded the GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
08 Jul 2008 12:19:41pm
Madeleine I appreciate your candour in replying in detail, however I have the following criticisms of your argument: "It's a women's issue", Because (marginally) more women than men are concerned about GM, its a womens issue? That is called extrapolation, and on rather dubious grounds. You will probably also find that the war on Iraq is also a womens issue in that case. Posh and Becks will be a womens issue. Ever wonder how many of the men asked actually didnt do the shopping? Just a thought.
"we know GM food is cr*p". Really? Thats called jumping to conclusions. Considering the range of GM foodstuffs around, Id say at the least that this is a broad sweeping, emotional and incorrect statement. Amazing how being a mother instantly qualifies one to "know" stuff, who needs science really.
I have no love for the large chemical companies, I have no shares in them as you acuse various of your critics, yet I see no rational argument on your side for all GM being bad for us, but then, maybe its because Im just a man.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 2:44:28pm
Your point about the "women's issue" is fully acknowledged and never denied. Many issues are called 'women's issues' though they affect everyone (Childcare,
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 49 van 177
Rape, Maternity Leave, Part Time Employment).
The Morgan Polls didn't split results by sex and by the three shopping statuses. The statistics would work out strangely though if there was not some weight of coincidence between 'usual shopper' and female. There are many other consumer studies.
I think I got your 'pushing barrows' point late. From the declaration of the election results I was no longer beholden to the What Women Want party and I could be myself again. I wouldn't be able to make all these comments if I was still representing!! I'm not pushing this barrow.
WWW formed because Nicola Roxon told the Midwives and Maternity coalition that they needed to 'get votes' if they wanted to get birthing issues heard. It plays a very useful role, but the name appears to off-side some men!
I became very active about 5 years ago and research on just about everything day and lots of night without having to waste time on anything administrative. I love it.
You know, being a woman may qualify one to know stuff. I don't claim to know very much about penises and how it feels to have one.
As mothers we take a great deal of dietary care through pregnancy, and suffer a lot of advice from others.
We find out through indigestion or vomiting what works for the pregnancy and what doesn't (different for each one). We recognize and serve strange cravings - we are attuned.
After the baby is born we are advised to breastfeed which we do with greater or lesser success. We carefully observe the effect our diet is having on the baby, hypothesising and adjusting our diets endlessly to minimise the baby's aches and pains. And then comes the careful introduction of conventional foods.
I think this years-long experience of fairly desperate observation qualifies us (or the paternal carer in respect of non-breastmilk foods) to form opinions on food quality. But I also know that GM is mostly in crap food (see new discussion post 02 Jul 2008 12:15:40pm "Consumer guide to avoiding GM food"). It will also contain higher pesticide residues and that's crappy enough for me.
Emotional response forms a very important part of a rational argument, and it's important to include it in the decision making process. If we didn't consider the population's emotional needs we would turn into a population of psychopaths.
Monsanto holds 90% of the current GM seedbase. Perhaps you should reply telling me why you think this herbicide resistant canola is a good thing.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
08 Jul 2008 3:50:31pm
It might also be that a larger proportion of women are irrational and open to emotive arguments rather than facts.
My bet is that of you also look at the number of women who do whacky alternative medicines like reiki, crystal therapy, naturopathy, iridology, relexology etc, they would far outweigh men.
That doesnt make women more concerned about health - it makes them gullible and irrational.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
09 Jul 2008 1:23:15am
I don't even think you two (IA & BTBS) know what rationality is. You are
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 50 van 177
worshipping an idea of rationality as though it is your invisible God - I think you're missing half your life.
Women are more into natural therapies, and we aren't going to eat the GM on our plate, and your point is???
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 4:57:22pm
I just read your last line again. "...I see no rational argument on your side for all GM being bad for us.."
Do you know that the food derived from GM crops has never been tested for health impact on humans? From memory there have been about 9 tests looking at a few human health endpoints in animals, that 6 of these have been adverse (others neutral), and that Food Standards ANZ is not required to take these animal studies into account when assessing food safety.
Have you studied this topic at all?
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
08 Jul 2008 8:51:10pm
Madeleine I have a passing knowledge of genetic modification as a veterinarian, admittedly more to do with production of vaccines and related to animal husbandry rather than horticulture.
I have not studied GM food in minute detail (and if I did, I would not source much from the interweb), I will readily admit, but with the information I have digested, I see no terrible danger to self from embibing most GM foods normally. In my opinion there is more argument for control due to possible spread of herbicide resistant strains, rather than for food safety reasons.
Equally, I am instantly cynical of any blanket statements that all GM foods are bad, just as I am of foolish statements that all GM is always good.
Being genetically modified dosnt inherantly make something poisonous,or better; it depends what the end product of the modified gene is. Why would the seed companies want to poison their customers, law suits anyone?
As to "Perhaps you should reply telling me why you think this herbicide resistant canola is a good thing" Im pretty sure I didnt claim to be part of any lobby group - unlike yourself. I have no axe to grind, but I think the more rational a person is, the more likely to convince others of their viewpoint.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
09 Jul 2008 1:17:54am
"...I am instantly cynical of any blanket statements that all GM foods are bad, just as I am of foolish statements that all GM is always good..."
In the absence of all human health testing of the existing GM food on our supermarket shelves, it isn't possible to draw any conclusions on safety. To conclude that some GM foods may be good under these circumstances would be a highly irrational act.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 51 van 177
The fact that human tests are resisted when such would be a trivial cost to a company such as Monsanto says a lot.
They (& FSANZ) feel comfortable that they can resist litigation on the basis that it would be impossible to prove that GM food 'did it'. (No labelling, any number of causes). I have a letter from FSANZ.
Food safety is only one small concern in this completely dysfunctional issue; contamination of pollen and product, consumer deception, disregard for farmer rights and property, inefficiency of resource use, increased pesticide into the environment, world monopoly on seed...
"...Being genetically modified dosnt inherantly make something poisonous,or better...:
Have you got any basis for this rather irrational statement?
Rather "Cutting and pasting DNA with the dexterity of a 2 year old" (I liked my line) has less than a million to one chance of working out even-stevens.
And as for the feelings, if a hospital were to tell us a child was fine, but that we feel the child is not well, we are told to trust our feelings and take the child back. In the absence of any rationally derived data from appropriate testing, we must trust our feelings on this one too.
Very few things are ever truly evaluated. People decide using their feelings before they come up with a rational explanation for their decision.
Please provide a rational explanation for your (declared uneducated) neutral stance on GM foods.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
09 Jul 2008 6:18:47pm
Madeleine Unfortunately as your posts progress, you only become less rational, I am beginning to see the spittle at your lips. If my stance is "uneducated" could you please enlighten us as to your bioengineering qualifications? Motherhood perhaps? Degree in websurfing? Doctorate of Emotional Extrapolation? (DOE). Batchelor of unemployed mum with too much time on the computer? (BOUMWTMTOTC)? I remind you again that you are the person with the extra agenda, I have no stake in GM produce either way, I just believe that those who are either pro or anti GM should be kept honest in the debate, something Im sure you would be pushing for if you didnt have your own axe to grind. "In the absence of all human health testing of the existing GM food on our supermarket shelves, it isn't possible to draw any conclusions on safety. To conclude that some GM foods may be good under these circumstances would be a highly irrational act." This is called a self contradictory statement. By the way, not every single non GM food is tested either, but its not sexy to talk about that. ""...Being genetically modified dosnt inherantly make something poisonous,or better...: Have you got any basis for this rather irrational statement?" Whats you beef here, how is this irrational? You have already stated that it isnt possible to draw conclusion on the food safety of GM products, so whos being irrational here? "Cutting and pasting DNA with the dexterity of a 2 year old". I think this is incredibly arrogant of you, personally I dont disrespect the years of training that go in to bioscience, but, then I suppose they arent all mothers, so they must be derided.
Therin lies the rational explaination for why I dont buy in to your extra agenda laden, poorly scientific, over emotionally driven side of the argument.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 52 van 177
09 Jul 2008 11:32:41pm
Aright Bob, i'll play. Glucosilinates probably cause prostate cancers in men. not all cases , but they have their own race in the game with a range of thyroid manipulated open doors, alcohol drinking ,aging etc.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
10 Jul 2008 9:53:16am
Probably? How many GM foods contain said chemical?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:48:02pm
Probably,more than likely, little has the potential that gluco's have for such disruptions, but no -one goes there.How many other GM foods have been the major producer of it in unison with erucic and with a strong history of troubles? Many highly questionable and with liability hanging over them? How many in that list have now been adultered ? Canada claims were well below university findings of trans, what is anyone supposed to believe along with petty tests on rats and pigs? Where are the obvious links and potentials gluco's have with hormone troubles warned to the public?
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
11 Jul 2008 10:59:24am
Jim I suggest you re read Chris Prestons very reasonable post further up the blog in which he explains glucos (I see you are no longer calling them glycos). Why ask me a question already answered by an expert in that field?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
13 Jul 2008 1:23:03pm
Chris Prestons posts are misleading.You don't want an answer , don't ask me.Comments from the peanut gallery are welcome though can we get out of the pre school slapping.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
14 Jul 2008 10:19:53am
Sense you make not of.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 53 van 177
07 Jul 2008 6:10:41pm
Madeleine, Just out of interest, where those two intended proteins in other crops prior to GM?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 10:28:26pm
No. Not that I know of.
The protein with the identical amino acid sequence to Dustmite DerP7 is the CP4 EPSPS protein from the CP4 EPSPS gene from Agrobacterium sp strain CP4 (bacteria) [I'm pretty sure it was from A Tumefaciens - a bacteria that causes crown root gall in many plants by infecting the plants using DNA transfer via plasmid]. It's the gene used in all of Monsanto's roundup ready crops. The plant EPSPS enzyme is inhibited by glyphosate but the bacterial EPSPS enzyme isn't, and the essential shikimate pathway in the plant can be maintained.
The protein with the identical amino acid sequence to Tropomyosin (common red shellfish allergen), glyphosate oxidoreductase (gox) is derived from the gox gene from Ochromobactrum anthropii strain LBAA, another bacteria in soil. In the GM canola gene encodes the GOXv247 variant protein, and I haven't been able to determine yet if the 'variant' was intended or not. Sometimes they talk about both gox and the gox variant. They put it in to break down the glyphosate in the plant.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
07 Jul 2008 9:51:04pm
I wish Geoff good rains and high yields with his crop.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 11:43:48am
Are you catering for the next pro-GM conference?
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
08 Jul 2008 1:56:30pm
I was hoping the What Women Want party would bake the cakes, make the tea, do the washing up - all the things they're good at...
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 10:14:18am
Alas, an argument reduced to such.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 54 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
08 Jul 2008 12:25:01am
Madeline ,and the potential of the half proteins to develope to other under a range of conditions.
Reply Alert moderator
n Agronomist :
09 Jul 2008 12:22:32pm
We now know from Madelaine's later answer to a question of mine that the claimed "untended proteins" are actually the intended proteins EPSP and gox that provide herbicide tolerance, and these proteins have been tested, contrary to Madelaine's statement here.
Whats more the claimed epitopes are also present in out food from not GM sources (eg in beef and chicken.)
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 11:57:41pm
Minature cows? I have a strain of rollers raised for twenty years on a 95% rape and canola diet. Half the size of my competition strains, poor breeders with very little discernable of song and half the size.From a commercial breeder who had them in large numbers and kept books but kept to old woman tales of rape seed for song and diet. It was'nt from inbreeding.I think your chasing petty concerns and points on the matter but i admire your researching.Especially if you are right. You've only have been chasing rainbows, falsely discrediting on other matters.What all those things can do interactively seems to be of greater concern. Can you put your research talents to the words hepatoctyc necrosis, Ilses of lanergan, Hormone variation in thyroid sufferers, hormone fluctuation and levels and pathways for thyroid sufferers taking glucosilinates. Variants- some can taste gluco's some can't, it's genetic.Alcohol drinkers not pigs and chooks.Erucic acid, gluco's,alcohol consumption and effects of human lifestyle.etc ,etc, no one seems to want to talk about it.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 7:06:24pm
Can't say that I approve of flooding the joint with herbicide, especially without any idea of where it will go after it rains.
The spraying probably happened on land that has been burgered for doing much else besides dirt farming anyway, and no self respecting life besides rats and mice would want to live there anyway....
Seems like a wasteful expedience built upon a phobia to me, and unscientific, because with its destruction there is now no way of testing the validity of the accusers claims.
Very "Spanish Inquisition" of you, I must say.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 55 van 177
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 12:19:08pm
Doc, have you not known that this is what the vast majority of GM crops are all about?
They have been modified to resist the herbicide Roundup.
The other GM crops produce their own insecticide in every cell of the plant.
These are the two traits.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
08 Jul 2008 4:42:12pm
Herbicide they may tolerate Madeleine, but one of the basic facts about organic life is that it doesn't cope with the temperature of fire very well.
A weed can always be killed. So long as it needs water warmer than ice and cooler than steam.
Reply Alert moderator
l boy from the bush :
07 Jul 2008 11:59:14am
Maree still hasn't answered my questions about individual financial support for her farming venture from GM companies.If she had any support from Monsanto or the rest, then her post was pure, paid Public Relations and nothing else.
Cheers,
Reply Alert moderator
l Girt by Glee :
06 Jul 2008 4:42:09pm
An excited farmer? I haven't heard of one of those before. Sounds more like someone who has just sent their banking details off to Nigeria. Let us know when the fat deposit goes in.
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
06 Jul 2008 1:44:20pm
Before I sidetracked myself and went off on another tangeant, what I was trying to explain was the needlessness for excessive concern for any real or assumed potential hazards from genetic engineering.
DNA cannot do anything other than what it already does, and nothing transfered from the genome of one thing into that of another, can do anything else.
The chemistry is complex but NOT unpredictable.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 56 van 177
In addition, any product of DNA engineering cannot be anything other than biological, and as a consequence, both fully biodegradable and similarly subject to termination.
By way of example. If a plant is implanted through GM with the DNA necessary to produce effective proteins required for insect resistance or insecticidal properties, then the said DNA already exists to produce the same petrochemical insecticide reducing substance in other species, such as that of the Pyrethrum of certain species of daisy.
Most of the fear in the community in regard to a lot of new technologies is unfounded, given that we live in an environment already full of residual DDT and rapidly degrading pyrethrum, and that whilst forever at risk, we're still here.
There are too many potential gains from genetic engineering, well above producing cats which glow in the dark, as well as in tissue and cell culture, stem cells and embryonic cloning, besides solutions to some fairly horrible congenital ailments and ressurection of extinct species.
There are risks. There are always risks.
IMO, biotechnology as it stands today, is far less likely to be as big a problem as might be an accident in nanotechnology with a self-replicating nanobot upon a program loop of molecular deconstruction and reconstruction into more nanobots, ad infinitum, until the Borg becomes self aware.
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
06 Jul 2008 9:54:23pm
Oh I get it, you learned your big words watching Star Trek. Spitting words out at random isn't really the object, however; the whole is supposed to make rational sense.
Nice metaphor for gobbledegook results of Genetic Engineering, wouldn't you say? Change a word here, throw in a word there, no need for excessive concern ??
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 11:09:56am
It isn't my fault if your conprehension is less that efficient.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
07 Jul 2008 9:56:36pm
If you really liked chemistry, you'd learn some. Or take some. Help is available sunshine.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
07 Jul 2008 6:17:27am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 57 van 177
"DNA cannot do anything other than what it already does, and nothing transfered from the genome of one thing into that of another, can do anything else."
You are so wrong about this Doc - you need to update.
The environment of the gene affects gene expression. Look up Epigenetics. Look up Agouti mice.
Also, changes in the DNA often take place in the DNA on transfer. Again I have to say to you - this is not about moving blocks of lego. Stop reading the pro-GM literature.
A quick read through some of the submissions to Food Standards show all these problems - and these are the submitted 'successes'.
One of the latest ones is a new GM corn MIR162 (Application 1001). The 'transferred' gene did not do what it was expected to do - the protein changed slightly.
"The Vip3Aa20 protein is 99.7% identical to the native Vip3Aa1 protein and differs by only 2 amino acids, at positions 129 and 284. The amino acid change at position 129 occurred during the plant transformation process."
After approval, Monsanto submitted evidence of unexpected gene insertions in their Roundup Ready soy...
"The GTS 40-3-2 soybean line was created through direct DNA transformation by microparticle BOMBARDMENT of plant cells.
The original molecular analysis of GTS 40-3-2 determined that one functional CP4 - EPSPS expression cassette had integrated into the genome.
Recent data submitted in May 2000 revealed that additional DNA sequences are present in GTS 40-3-2. Specifically, a 250 bp segment of CP4 EPSPS DNA located adjacent to the termination element of the previously described EPSPS insert and a second insert comprising a 72 bp segment of CP4 EPSPS DNA were detected."
While you've made your position about risk from your perspective (as an unencumbered man) clear, I am quite sure you have no grasp on the parental position, and wouldn't want your views to influence outcomes.
We see what happens to our children with adulterated conventional food, let alone genetically disturbed food with elevated pesticide levels developed to meet the profit interests of the chemical giants which is then adultered through CO2 intensive processing.
Were it not for the inevitable contamination, product mixing and absence of labelling we may not be so concerned about what a mature man chooses to eat. But all mothers will want other mothers to be able to access quality unadulterated food for their children.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 7:51:35pm
"But all mothers will want other mothers to be able to access quality unadulterated food for their children."
Yes, and I've seen ducklings loved to death by children.
Madeleine, it is possible to have too sterile an environment, and there are arguments against using disinfectants (which include some rather potent chemicals like ammonia and sodium hypochlorate) as well, and a middle ground is difficult to find.
A little bit of dirt is necessary for an immune system to both identify an antigen as
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 58 van 177
foreign as well as to produce an antibody for defense against it, and the most active time of such devolopment occurs in the thymus of children.
Dirt might exercise an immune system enough to avoid any future development of allergic immune responses as well as avoiding any weak immune response to pathogenic relatives of the more benign bacteria for which the child already has antibodies, active or in memory.
If genetic engineering were providing food material which was not only better packed nutritiously, but also contained vaccination proteins against both pathogens and cancer, as well as telomere repairing life extension compounds, would you consider eating it then?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 1:25:56pm
See my reply to you already made on this issue on the thread beginning ggwagga : 04 Jul 2008 5:33:28pm
My post is at: 07 Jul 2008 10:21:57am
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 2:09:40am
"... But all mothers will want other mothers to be able to access quality unadulterated food for their children. ...."
Are we sure about that?
Since so many children are eating sub-standard food, the statement above seems somewhat dubious.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
08 Jul 2008 12:25:55pm
Every mother wants the very best for her child. Whether the circumstances they live within are conducive and amenable will affect what actually happens.
Everybody in the Australian community wants Australian children to receive good food. Few are able to support the parents. Businesses with particular interests will contend the definition of 'good food'.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
09 Jul 2008 4:16:15am
"... Every mother wants the very best for her child. ...."
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 59 van 177
I have limited possibilities to see what they are feeding their children.
But there are a lot of obese children.
And I all too often see pregnant women smoke.
And I all too often see women with children smoke.
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
05 Jul 2008 5:48:11pm
The most important thing to remember about genetic engineering, is that DNA, wherever it exists, defines the nature of the kinds of proteins (enzymes too are proteins) synthesised for the purpose of life and survival in an inorganic world.
It cannot be made to do something which it does not already do.
All which can be done is lift the encoding of one thing into the encoding of another, perchance to make it a better thing than it were.
Bacteria have been doing that since before we were floating jellyfish, and it is called plasmid exchange and if a method by which multiple species of different bacteria can swap information in small rings of DNA, to achieve abilities like antibiotic resistance.
Obviously, after 4 billion years of practice, it hasn't done our symbiotic Prokaryota planetary associates any harm.
They've been through every mass extinction even the planet has had thrown at it so far, and they'll certainly outlast us.
Especially since we need them (for simple digestion, for subcellular fuel cells / batteries) more than they need us.
Reply Alert moderator
n I Like Chemistry :
06 Jul 2008 10:57:22am
Doc, it has been shown that existing GM technology is not a matter of merely lifting DNA from one place and putting it in another.
Through the process, the target organism's native DNA gets altered in an unexpected and uncontrolled way, to the tune of up to a 4% change.
Yes, DNA can be made to do something that it doesn't already do by changing it.
The problem with existing testing protocols is that these unexpected changes do not get 100% screened out.
Additionally, genes function in networks. If a gene is relocated through the insertion of another, followed by tissue culture, there are no studies done to see what has happened as a result of disrupting a network. Gene networks are barely understood at this stage.
You make GM technology (by gum I won't call it a science, it's more like snake oil manufacture) sound so precise and exacting.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 60 van 177
In reality it's like trying to insert a few bricks into a house using a ball and chain.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
06 Jul 2008 1:11:28pm
What can implanted DNA do that the DNA doesn't already do?
Whilst it might not be a natural process for goats to produce spider web instead of milk, the DNA to produce both milk and spider web exist, if not for the latter in a goat but instead in a spider.
Fact is, any product of GE DNA already exists otherwise any prediction in respect of the proteins produced would be impossible.
You cannot, for instance, genetically engineer something to produce anything inorganic from altered DNA.
IMO a lot of legislative and restraining oplicy extends from a futile motivation to legislate against death and disease.
Good luck with that, since legislation against dying is destined to be totally frustrated by the reality.
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
06 Jul 2008 9:33:09pm
I already answered your question in your reply, in my post to which you were replying.
Look backwards to go forwards.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
06 Jul 2008 10:50:22pm
Doc, i'm quite sure that DNA can degrade and be manipulated by factors such as soil chemistry, climate and other.Also considering the laws of nature that the plant holds and adheres to by way of evolving.To where and what direction are the factors going to take it? Even just from age ,the DNA replicates from old and damaged DNA. Dna which is damaged or formed by copy from damaged may produce different proteins and oils in factoring just a couple of directions.It would be interesting to note the actions of results of RNA heavy fertilisers in blind study.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 11:12:37am
DNA degraded too far, with too many missing base pairs, might as well be another sort of macromolecule.
Like polyethylene, for instance.
You cannot encode portional DNA into protein synthesis when large sequences
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 61 van 177
of codon are missing.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 12:10:35am
But DNA is effected by protein acids and other.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 11:15:54am
The missing bits of DNA from what little still remains in fossils going back longer than 10 million years (a lot less really, given that samples of Thylacine DNA is far from complete), is precisely why the Japanese haven't been able to resurrect the Mammoth and why "Jurassic Park" still remains a work of pure fiction.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
08 Jul 2008 12:27:03am
For such a good range of knowledge Doc, you've never heard of mutation?
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
08 Jul 2008 4:54:21pm
Mutation, as a matter of fact, is more frequently something with limited survival chance that something conducive to continued reproduction.
Extreme mutations of DNA encoding rarely live for very long beyond conception, and those which do, are even more rarely positive alterations to survival skills and reproductive tenure.
Cancers are an exception to the rule, given that cancerous cells are frequently as close to immortal as living things can get.
Mutations of DNA at the level of the cancer cell, as far as I know, are usually not a result of extensive alterations to the cell's genome, but just enough change to assist the rogue cells to replicate and swarm as a result of the lack of cell death, and multiple generations of parent and daughter cells all remaining alive together.
GM is probably no more a carcinogenic risk than are half the compounds in the air, water and food, and many of the common household cleaning chemicals.
Heads you win, and tails you lose. Or perchance, the random results have as many possible outcomes as a roulette wheel.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
09 Jul 2008 12:43:01am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 62 van 177
"Probably " not. What part holds thyroid disorders in humans that pass from one generation to another or the susceptibility of such things? Is'nt DNA mechanically manipulated and doctored by chemicals ,acids- amino's etc. The playing field seems to be shifting on capabilities.The plant has the capabilities to shift- evolve and so do the lipids and half proteins balance as everything else to do with the plant.Nature is a lot better at this than we are. Rapeseed oil has never been a strong contender for public affection. But others demand that. Oxygen free radicals promote cross linking of DNA and protein. DNA can't perform it's copying duties and makes rubbish and mutation.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
07 Jul 2008 11:10:54am
Someone once suggested to me that I contribute an Unleashed topic on GM because I was mentioning it rather a lot on other types.
I would like to suggest now that you contribute a topic on death and dying and our attempts to avoid it.
The employment of your current interest on this topic is irrelevant - we already produce predictable quality non-GM food and have no need to subject our children to 90% Monsanto's inadequately tested GM food, nor will we see our farmers suffer the inevitable financial loss from these products, eventually requiring Australian public subsidy as seen in Canada and the USA.
Reply Alert moderator
n god :
06 Jul 2008 3:10:11pm
Yes, I like Chemistry, when one is manipulating fragments at such a quantum, all sorts of fractals and non- lineal, non-Newtonian consequences occur.
ps I like physics too.
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
06 Jul 2008 9:33:41pm
Dear god,
I'm glad you like physics because if you didn't we would all be in deep compost.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 7:14:06pm
What makes you think we're not?
Lots of people like democracy, which is essentially rule by majority consent.
Now if we take as fact of life that 90% of Earth's biomass, the combined weight of all living things, both plant and animal, are the mostly invisible micro organisms, which can also outnumber the total human population on Earth
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 63 van 177
within a single cubic centimetre of soil or water, by majority rule the other 10% which includes humans and trees both, probably exist mostly as food supply for the microscopic.
They always win on votes.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
07 Jul 2008 7:17:56pm
ftr 'almost invisible' applies to the microscopic because they're very visible en masse, as the film in the morning mouth and as spots of slime in the tile grout.
That itch between your toes, the humble mould on the soles of your feet, simply bides its casual time, and waits to eat the lot.
Reply Alert moderator
l g3 :
05 Jul 2008 8:06:10am
3rd method ov science scientia...*** ...... insight,lessons learnt(evolution)
:the cognitive processes ov the h/u man learning act...... thinking
...... comprehension.....considered wisdom
insight.....the moment the observer/z ability 2 re/solve takes place......
(comprehed,understand,enlighted oneself)
Reply Alert moderator
n Julian London :
05 Jul 2008 9:46:03am
4th method.Try qwerty !
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
04 Jul 2008 7:15:53pm
"Would you feed your children, or grand children, produce from these obnoxious crops?"
Is that before or after we shredded the forests to cultivate the monocultures we already have?
Point being, "obnoxious" has also been applied to sheep (field maggots) and cattle (land lice) in terms of their capacity for land degradation and biodiversity destruction, and in many ways cultivated fields of any kind can be seen as a necessary evil at best.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 64 van 177
If a foodstuff dor cattle can be produced from less area, and also provide a methane reduced metabolism for the cattle, then one act might, just might, help clean the other act up.
Rejection of genetic research, trial and error that it might actually be, is still a large handicap to any progressive evolution in science intelligence and technical ability, and effectively sentences many fellow humans to death by congenital disease.
It is unhelpful.
Whilst I recognise that restraints must exist for general public and environmental safety, I nevertheless do not believe that most fears of GE and GM as somewhat "geocentrist" and "flat earther".
Apparently, for all the tragedy of Thalidamide those years ago, the same stuff also has genuine medical use for other human ailments (I've forgotten which?), and even the very worst isn't "ALL" bad.
Any major errors will become apparent soon enough, and don't forget that a knee jerk fear reaction against new Polio virus vaccines also resulted in millions of unnecessary polio victims whilst ALL research was suspended for over 20 years.
Reply Alert moderator
n concerned :
05 Jul 2008 2:04:11pm
You are missing and avoiding the point. GM can contaminate. I don't care about other GM medical fantastic cures as that's not what these comments are about, as I have a choice to have it or not but GM food is another issue all together. We will not have a choice to avoid it. We do not have a choice to retract it as it can stay in the ground dormant for so far 12 years (research in Tasmania) which means that you will contaminate again when the conditions are right. The errors are here now but you are ignoring them.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
06 Jul 2008 11:12:21am
Concerned, your air is contaminated and probably so too is your own genome.
Most people suffer from some sort of minor or major genetic dysfunction, and most people are frequently getting poisoned by unsolicited substances whether by choice or not.
Might as well face the truth Concerned, we're all only filling in time before we die.
Reply Alert moderator
n concerned :
08 Jul 2008 6:15:10pm
I am doing something useful with my life. You can fill in your time whilst you eat your GM food and die a horrible death but I have no intention of doing that. Liver and kidney failure are a horrible way to die and that has been proven that GM will do to us.
Reply Alert moderator
l ggwagga :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 65 van 177
04 Jul 2008 5:33:28pm
Maree, shame, shame, shame you have contributed to “letting another rabbit go!― Would you feed your children, or grand children, produce from these obnoxious crops? If so, I suggest you pay particular attention to the link between GM and Morgellons disease at the end of this post. In my view, GM canola is a noxious weed, just watch how it spreads, and contaminates and how difficult it will be to control. I will never bid on any farm that has grown, or is located near where GM is growing. Biotechnology firms have been hyping genetically engineered crops for some time. During that time, the commercially available GM crops have failed to exhibit the critical traits necessary to produce enough food to feed the world's population. Those traits include increases in maximum yields and improved drought and stress tolerance. In reality, most of these GM crops available today are engineered to withstand the application of glyphosate. A much smaller portion of these crops are engineered to fight off certain pests. Neither of these traits is vital to increasing food production. Weeds, pests and crop disease are all indicators of poor management of soil fertility and biology. Soil biology is vital for the production of food. Agricultural chemicals are detrimental to soil biology. There are no GM crops on the market today to directly maximize yields. There are no GM crops on the market engineered to resist drought. And there are no crops on the market engineered to reduce fertilizer use. Not one. Again the safety of these crops has NEVER been INDEPENDENTLY tested as SAFE, conversely many eminent scientists have consistently found numerous adverse issues with a wide range of GM crops. The furphy that GM has taken place naturally for thousands of years is a big fat lie; has never, will never happen. There are proven ways to increase yields and protect crops. Traditional plant breeding, crop rotation and marker-assisted breeding - which incorporates molecular biology to enhance traditional breeding -- and ecological farming systems that use such methods as crop rotation and cover crops, have a long history of boosting food crop yields. In places like Africa, fertilizer, better grain storage, and improved roads would be much better and more cost-effective options than expensive, patented, biotechnology seeds that so far offer so little, and the risks are so high. GM crops are dependent on an unsustainable production system; you would have to have rocks for brains to ignore all the warning signs. Birds, bees and bats are disappearing at a catastrophic rate in America. Where will we be without these beneficial creatures? Allergies have gone through the roof in America since the introduction of GM. There is no doubt that there is a link between Agrobacterium used in developing GM crops and Morgellons Disease.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:02:45pm
gg
You forgot to add that climate change is caused by GM canola!
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
04 Jul 2008 11:56:49pm
I've heard there are are mass complaints in Germany about increased allergies and hayfever.it is blamed on something else other than the crops.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
05 Jul 2008 6:00:28pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 66 van 177
Allergies are an immune system problem, and I believe as some do, that immune system problems may be acquired from living in too sterile and clean an environment.
Consequently to too little early childhood exposure to benign organisms and chemical impurities, too little exercise of the immune system is acquired for it to develop an extensive memory range in lymphocyte in antibodies, for when it encounters organisms and substances more pathogenic and toxic.
Another word for toxic is "reactive" and not all reactions are good, but finding yourself with an immune system which over-reacts and commits antibody poisoning on itself rather than simply remember the antigen for mildew spore, might suggest that letting the baby get a bit dirty in the garden might not be as bad as keeping one in cotton wool and surrounded by ammonia bleached surfaces.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
07 Jul 2008 10:21:57am
Well Doc, let's go back to the facts then. Anaphylaxis, serious allergic reaction, for the 0-4's has increased 493% from 1995-2005. I've been a mother in the community all this time (three towns, new mothers groups, lots of playgroups, kinders etc).
With the maternal return to the workforce over this period I will testify that our houses are not 493% cleaner, unless the blokes are putting in a bloody big effort. And I think we know the situation there.
I will testify that no fewer children are discouraged from eating dirt than before. Mothers were shrieking about children eating the sandpit sand back in 1996 and they still are.
There are other aspects to the hygiene hypothesis, such as immunization, but again, there has been little change in immunization of the 0-4's over this period - one or two added, on or two dropped.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
07 Jul 2008 3:29:03pm
"I will testify..."
Great! Will you also testify that there is no evidence that GM food is the cause of this 493% increase?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 11:11:12pm
I know that everyone is incapable of proving that GM food isn't responsible.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 1:04:16pm
Ah, but you're the one making the link without evidence. I hate to point out the obvious, but you're indulging in misleading fear tactics.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 67 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
08 Jul 2008 12:29:28am
Talk to Germans Cricket.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 1:02:51pm
What about, Jim? The 200,000 hectares of GM crops they sowed last year? The hundreds of tonnes of GM canola they imported?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
10 Jul 2008 3:55:14pm
All the sneezing asmhatic people who can't be heard above the melancholy spin of those politically involved.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
11 Jul 2008 11:38:07am
What do asthmatics in Germany have to do with GM crops, Jim? Asthma is a respiratory disease which is thought to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, but the fact is that doctors and medical researchers DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES ASTHMA.
There is no link between asthma and food consumption, GM or otherwise. Asthma has been linked to genes (if your family has a history of it you're more likely to get it yourself), air pollution, tobacco smoke, stress, birth by c-section, and the use of antibiotics and anti-bacterial cleaning products. There are some indications that complex interactions of genetic AND environmental factors cause asthma.
Jim, this is a perfect example of the unsubstantiated anti-GM hysteria I've been talking about. You're happy to imply GM food has caused asthma, not even caring that there isn't even a remote link between them or that no-one actually knows what causes asthma. This isn't spin, sunshine, it's plain simple fact.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
18 Jul 2008 12:10:10am
Researchers have found that many cases of asmtha is dehydration. Perhaps as myself , many can taste the poorly monitored and hap hazard approach to treating our water.One doctor and tests have shown water to cure 90 % of asmatha cases.Does'nt Rapeseed crops and the prevalence of it in germany belong on your list or can't you bring yourself to say it?
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 68 van 177
l Hebe :
04 Jul 2008 4:48:54pm
Graeme...you've already admitted that you know little about GM so don't highlight your ignorance anymore by attempting to deride those that have researched the issues and do know why they are opposed to this new and highly dubious technology. Loss of diversity is just one facet that concerns non GM supporters, and the well vaunted myth that GM is nature speeded up no longer washes with us.We are dealing with something that nature does not and could not replicate. Lack of independant research into the possible implications of GM are thin on the ground and this is what worries the majority of concerned consumers.Those farmers that have selfishly opted to grow GM are misguided and it will be interesting to see how they fare come harvest.
Reply Alert moderator
n Graeme Bird :
04 Jul 2008 10:18:39pm
Well the fact remains that there is nothing inherently wrong or hazardous about GM. Now whats been identified is what appears to be a problem with the patents system. The rest is just more environmentalist anti-technology lies and propaganda.
Going against industrial-CO2 and GM food is like some sort of deliberate policy of neo- Malthusian. A human eradication policy. Not unlike the environmentalists war against DDT.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
05 Jul 2008 7:27:34pm
DDT, strictly speaking, isn't a dietary commodity anyone would deliberately choose for themselves.
It takes far too long to be broken down into components molecules through UV, chemical and biochemical processes, and those into which it does decompose are not of themselves particularly benign, and all have too much opportunity by reason of their long term indestructibility, to move extensively through food chains and be a hazard to many.
There are substances out there, in our air and in our drinking water, in our food and the plastics oozing in the sunlight, which all have the potential to be as benign as formaldehyde in the liver, yet we survive.
There are those unknown substances, and compounds they become as they interface with our environment, which mimic biological hormones enough to produce populations of hermaphroditic frogs.
A bit of GM is the least of our worries.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 2:17:50am
"... DDT, strictly speaking, isn't a dietary commodity anyone would deliberately choose for themselves. ...."
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 69 van 177
No, DDT is not very good for you.
But it does not kill you.
Malaria does.
Reply Alert moderator
l Graeme Bird. :
04 Jul 2008 3:13:23pm
GM is in no way dangerous if there is diversity.
Environmentalists just lie all the time. We ought to have seen this pattern forming by now.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:07:13pm
Name calling now Graeme? No environmentalists, do not lie, they show the reality of something that is being hidden. I am not an environmentalist but in this case of GM food, I can see a danger and I am speaking out. You say this is wrong do you? Mmmm. How much do you get paid by the GM companies? How much vested interest do you have in GM?
Reply Alert moderator
n Graeme Bird :
05 Jul 2008 8:30:49pm
They lie all the time. Your post is just one more example of that. And they are characterized by a pathological fear of technology and an obsession with worrying about anything that might help increase the human population.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
06 Jul 2008 11:39:02am
Where exactly am I lying Graeme?
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
05 Jul 2008 7:35:33pm
Diversity is frequently buried beneath concrete and tar, drained and burrowed for piping water in and garbage out, energy in and communications through and out.
That which isn't drained and leveled is fenced, trimmed and mowed, with a tourist shop selling souveniers made in Japan or China, and a view of what is left of the wilderness as stuffed animals and postcards, but you can still buy a McHappy Meal 100 metres down the road.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 70 van 177
Then, like the lyrics in the song, you simply wonder, WTF?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
06 Jul 2008 2:31:14pm
How is forcing monopoly on the populace and other farmers by gm canola a diversity? Is'nt diversity where we can win. I believe, as in drug companies not being able to take patent on natural things, that the gm canola also comes under those bounds.The action and procedure to make a plant and seed, and resistant to a companies weed chemical may me patented but the plant itself does not qualify in any respect.GM concerns have no comeback against others on it's spreading. The court and company have been well out of bounds in their responsability and authority with this opportunism.The court has put itself in a position to make good with proof to the public by overstepping it's bounds.They have not made an artificial plant(--and apparently it is quite a natural and acceptable plant we are told by things GM , the court and business interest in such-- )to qualify like making artificial copies of milk thistle extracts for hepatitus drugs by drug companies.They may own and hold the seeds or plants in their possesssion and patent the action to manufacture such ,but containment of plants is their problem and responsibility,not their neighbours.When a natural plant containing patended genetic modification infects a neighbour, it can be traced by the patentable modification.A mechanically genetically modified plant or seed from a patentable action has no legal rights to live outside or above the bounds and actions of nature. The responsability lies with the patent.The plant has'nt been manufactured, it is adultered to traceable specification by patentable action.The plant holds untested medicinal drug capabilities and the category does'nt exist for courts to preside over as it has done. I think it's quite clear here ,who the onus is on for test results done in law practiced bounds.By all means do it and approach the populace again under proper procedures and bounds of category.
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
04 Jul 2008 2:57:14pm
Now, back to you doc or whatever you are. One gene you say for GM is different but not unsafe. Mmmm. Let me see one gene can result in downs syndrome, Edwards syndrome etc. Actually don't cancer cells start with one gene? Thank you for the extra research material. I still think the same that you are putting bacteria, toxins etc. into my food, now I know exactly how you are doing it.
Ok, new research by Tainer (May 2008) & Malcolm White of University of St Andrews said. “We’ve shown how mutations in the binding site alone can cause cancer. Scientists often thought it was just the active sites that were important—that other changes wouldn’t matter. But we see that other changes can lead to very severe defects.―
"The results also hold an important general lesson for the value of protein structure for understanding gene function. The results of the Human Genome Project have revealed associations between sequence mutations and particular diseases or disease risks, but in many cases we don’t know why,― Tainer said. As in the case of XPD, the protein structures may hold the key.
So, it's not only the gene transference it's the domino effect of proteins and the DNA structure itself and the damage that GM does, can directly influence the health of the environment and humans. As I've said before GM is an outdated technology which has not been fully tested and there is reluctance to openly test the effects of GM from the GM companies by independent sources and I really do mean independent sources not a university that is owned by Monsanto or a GM company.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 71 van 177
l Concerned :
04 Jul 2008 11:16:08am
So you are yelling at us now Graeme because you cannot persuade us that your GM is the greatest thing since sliced bread because we can show you the facts that you don't want to know that GM is dangerous to both humans and the environment. By the way, how much money have you got tied up in GM? How much have you been paid? You waffle on about inadequate science that has been done by GM companies and say "Here put a blindfold on, it's a much better world in here". No Graeme, there is clear evidence against what you are saying and clear evidence that if Australia continues to go down this path, it will be to our detriment. And as for you Maree, I'm not proud of you. I'm saddened, not proud, that an Australian farmer got influenced by the marketing strategy of a company that is going to make lots of money off you. But not only that you are going to contaminate the clean canola of innocent non-GM farmers. They are the ones I am proud of. They are the ones that are seeing the reality of this outdated technology.
Reply Alert moderator
n Graeme Bird :
04 Jul 2008 10:22:20pm
Obviously GM is a much better invention than sliced bread.
Thats if you like the idea of cheap food and people not dying everywhere. The combination of GM and plentiful CO2 would help us heal the world and feed everyone.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:02:24pm
But that's the thing Graeme, it is not going to be cheaper in fact it is going to be more expensive both for the farmer and the consumer.
You must be joking about feeding the world when there is clear evidence that it is less yield not more, and I am not talking about the manipulated science that shows that one paddock of soy has done extremely well in a GM trial run by a GM company. How many sprinklers and extra fertilizer did they put on? And as for CO2 emissions that is going to be more isn't it as the weeds get resistant and more pesticide needs to be used. But you can have your blindfold on and stomp your foot, but I'm not going to listen to something that I believe is going to be a hazard to us and the environment and especially the farmer when there is clear evidence to this fact.
Reply Alert moderator
n Graeme Bird :
05 Jul 2008 8:33:58pm
Clearly unless there is something inherently wrong with the market farmers are not going to invest in things that REDUCE their yield. We all ought to focus on anything that could be wrong with the patents system.
This is the problem with these trade pacts. We get locked into patent systems that are as a result of haggling rather than what we think is right.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 72 van 177
n DocMercury :
06 Jul 2008 11:01:36am
Why?
All around the world people uniformly destroy and bury crops when they've procuced an excess in an engorged market and when they're unable to receive a price for the stuff worth the effort.
Not long ago in Australia half a crop of citrus fruit were just left to rot.
Waste is what we do best, up to and including drowning in our own excrement.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
06 Jul 2008 11:40:43am
The true cost is not given to the farmer upon applications. The true costs are driven up by the GM companies after they initially set the farmers up into growing GM. Case in point India and Argentina.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
09 Jul 2008 10:28:54am
Why would GM be cheaper food unless markets pay farmers less for it? On one hand we have those pushing GM saying it will be cheaper for purchasers and yet on the other hand we as farmers are being told that there is no price difference. Can't cut both ways.
Reply Alert moderator
l g3 :
04 Jul 2008 10:01:54am
SCIENCE: U canot make *** "life"***
U can only...... use/AB the MEchanismz ov.
GE = STERILE = 0
Reply Alert moderator
n Literacy Police :
06 Jul 2008 11:08:04am
Sorry G3 I'm sure you have some wonderful opinions there but I can make neither head nor tail of them because of the unbelievable liberties taken with English spelling and grammar as well as the lack of logical development of your argument.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 73 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
04 Jul 2008 9:23:43am
Graeme, you might like to take a look at the film 'The Future of Food' (google search for the details). It exposes the costs to individual farmers of an aggresive patenting campaign and the controls on seed biodiversity that companies like Monsanto have already instituted in the US.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 1:10:13pm
For pity's sake, the anti-GM mob needs to learn just a little about the industry before commenting on the issue. Costs to farmers associated with end-point royalties and high seed prices which cover research and create a profit for breeders and seed companies are in no way exclusive to GM crops! This is the case for a large range of non-GM crops too.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
04 Jul 2008 2:16:03pm
But never with so much efficiency or direct targeting.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 3:43:16pm
"...never with so much efficiency or direct targeting."
As I said, learning a little about the industry will help prevent ridiculous comments such as this one. The competition among seed companies in Australia is extremely intense, and more recently breeders have put their collective foot down on the issue of EPRs. There is quite simply no difference with regard to GM except with regard to patenting the recombination technique.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:10:14pm
Cricket
It's a bit like the 911 weirdos and the Scientologists...you can present facts until you're blue in the face and they will still say there is a conspiracy and it's all an evil plot by nasty big business. Reality rarely intrudes on their musings.
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 74 van 177
06 Jul 2008 11:09:24am
Same criticism back at you, IA.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
05 Jul 2008 12:04:07am
I would think that the laws accompanying it would make a difference in anyones eyes.My comment is only ridiculous because you choose to ignore it and you want to associate this whole gm matter with normality which the subject and situation is anything but.Even to blind Freddy.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 1:40:27am
"...never with so much efficiency or direct targeting" And never with such impending monopoly.
Realising you've conceded the deep problems associated with the GM patenting issues, but always keen to learn, could you reference your statement
"...and more recently breeders have put their collective foot down on the issue of EPRs. There is quite simply no difference with regard to GM..."
Taking this learning example, and your own suggestions of
"...learn just a little..." (1:10) and "...learning a little..." (3:43)
perhaps you could take the advice of "Alert and Alarmed" and watch "The Future of Food",
and finally take the much given suggestion to read the Vanity Fair article Monsanto’s harvest of fear: Politics & Power; Vanity Fair, Julie Newman's "The Drive Behind GM Crops" is also very informative reading.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
07 Jul 2008 10:16:45am
Thanks, Madeleine, for providing everyone with an insight into how you come to your 'facts'.
I said: "There is quite simply no difference with regard to GM except with regard to patenting the recombination technique." (Too many 'regards', I reckon)
From this Madeleine concludes: "...you've conceded the deep problems associated with the GM patenting issues..."
I've provided no indication whatsoever that there are problems associated with patenting GM technology, but Madeleine has no qualms claiming that I have conceded there are "deep" problems. In other words she has made yet another unsubstantiated claim, something which is all too typical of the anti-GM lobby.
For the record, I don't believe the patenting issue is a problem at all. Madeleine has made a patently false claim, which naturally calls into question everything else she's said here.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 75 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 11:14:30pm
Perhaps I distracted you from my question and will ask it again directly...
Could you reference your statement:
"...and more recently breeders have put their collective foot down on the issue of EPRs. There is quite simply no difference with regard to GM..."
Have you been able to 'face' the Vanity Fair article yet?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 5:15:58pm
Actually I can't reference it as I have heard it directly from breeders, but there have been numerous reports on the matter in Rural Press papers. I thought it was common knowledge that didn't need a reference.
You're really desperate for me to read your precious Vanity Fair article - to the point of mentioning it several times. Why is that?
Reply Alert moderator
n Graeme Bird. :
04 Jul 2008 3:15:29pm
Right. Thanks for the tip. I suspected something dubious like this might be going on. If there are dangers with GM food it is this sort of area which would bring them into being. GM food is inherently a good thing but these are disturbing tendencies you point out.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 2:57:29am
In that case head down to my new discussion
"02 Jul 2008 12:15:40pm
Consumer guide to avoiding GM food"
and reverse it.
Maree's going to need your love of GM foods. I'll try and organise a great big GM label on the front so you can recognise it.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cletus :
05 Jul 2008 6:56:20pm
Wheat is a naturally occurring hybrid that doesn't breed true. Saving wheat from the previous
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 76 van 177
year is pointless as the next crop will be inferior to the last. This is the case for most plant varieties.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
09 Jul 2008 10:26:23am
No, this is incorrect. Most farmers save their own wheat seed, it is not a hybrid.
Reply Alert moderator
l Graeme Bird :
04 Jul 2008 12:13:06am
Maree. I just want to say I'm grateful and undeservedly proud of what you are doing and please don't get disheartened.
Onward.
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
04 Jul 2008 6:50:48pm
Graeme B, Those words were probably said to the people who bought the rabbits here,another pest.
Reply Alert moderator
l Graeme Bird :
04 Jul 2008 12:11:11am
Some proviso's and disclaimers need to be lodged in advance of the fundamental generalizations I will be making here. I'm not up on the system of patents when it comes to genetically modified seeds. Nor am I familiar with the industry. So I don't know if there are tendencies within the industry towards a loss of diversity when viewed from a position of colour-blindness between genetically modified plant life and non-genetically modified plant-life.
You see we ought to be colour-blind between these two. And we can afford to be colour-blind to these two just so long as their isn't some sort of systemic loss to diversity.
I think maybe we ought to remove all patent protection from this industry. More generally patent protection is way too long. And its probably only still needed in the drug industry where the approval process is so onerous.
The above ought to be seen as a disclaimer. In that what I'm about to say does not apply if the patent and industry structure is such that it has an imbedded bias against diversity.
GIVE UP THIS GM-FREE SILLINESS!
Just give it up. That our culture NOW allows stupid people to be upwardly mobile is proven by the extent (but not the existence) of the bottled water market. But that we are a pretty stupid culture all
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 77 van 177
over is reinforced by the knee-jerk (but not the guarded) opposition to genetic modification in plants.
Look people. Its just a speeded up version of what that special class of animal (hominids) have been doing to improve our plant-life for many thousands of years now.
The genetic modification of plants has no ethical dilemmas attached to it. And no outsized environmental risks attached to it so long as a generalized diversity is maintained and improved upon.
GIVE IT UP. THE KNEE-JERK OPPOSITION TO GENETICALLY-MODIFIED-FOOD IS JUST ANOTHER EXTREMIST HUMAN-ERADICATION ATTEMPT BY BARELY REFORMED MARXISTS AND NEO-MALTHUSIANS..
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 8:14:21am
There is some evidence that the GM canola herbicide tolerant trait isn't what the plants would've done in nature.
After a few generations the canola plants manage to kick out the inharmonious screaming GM voice in the canola DNA choir, by edging the herbicide resistant GM infection slowly towards the exit door.
"Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistant transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population." Warwick SI et al; Mol Ecol. 2007 Oct 29
Unfortunately, before they go, they produce a lot of seeds with the HR trait.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
04 Jul 2008 9:45:07am
Please explain the actions and pathways of erucic acid and glucosilinates on the human body. Why concentrate so much effort on a seed that has poor seed per hectare totals than other? And that do not have the history and shady areas concerning human health? Especially when it is done under forced conditions that appear to be all but accomplished in an era of liberal fascism and forced monopolistic intention of market and people. Where is the documentation on what is going to happen to our environment ,creeks and rivers etc? All eggs in one basket is poor practice in most areas, economically, environmentally etc.Where are the results of controlled and totally contained trials in Australia? Let alone the written considerations of effect of monopilising food produce that has a broad spectrum of application in products and forcing it on the populace.
Reply Alert moderator
n I Like Chemistry :
04 Jul 2008 8:37:41pm
Graeme - in no way is GM technology the same as selective breeding that has been used by the human race since agriculture was invented.
Most of your statements seem without foundation. Think you need to touch base with a few facts.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 78 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Groucho :
05 Jul 2008 4:47:36pm
Important Message for Graeme Bird. (Ladybird,Ladybird fly away...... etc) Hurry-hurry there are people hijacking your other blog.They are filling the place with fact based opinions and everything.
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
03 Jul 2008 4:27:53pm
It's a very story book response which lacks scientific research and understanding to a problem that could possibly destroy an entire generation or more. I think you need to take your blindfold off.
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
03 Jul 2008 2:21:19pm
I think most of the fears in respect of genetic engineering are a lot like the ancient fears of sailing off the edge of the world.
Living is a risk. Get over it.
Reply Alert moderator
n god :
03 Jul 2008 3:05:45pm
Doc, you write "Living is a risk. Get over it."
Are you recruiting for another Jonestown?
If not, then perhaps it better for the consumption of Genetically Mutated foods to undergo some longitudinal studies, over a couple of generations. There appears to be a number of your species prepared to act as guinea-pigs for such trials, but I fail to see why a whole species has to be subjected to them. In the evolution of all species, such a universal trial is certainly not my modis operandi. It leads to extinctions.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 6:49:42am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 79 van 177
Hear the word of the lord.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cgarles Darwin :
04 Jul 2008 10:14:16am
Extictions are the fuel of evolution. Most life on Earth ends up extinct. In fact one could almost say that all life on Earth eventuially leads to extinction
Reply Alert moderator
n god :
04 Jul 2008 11:02:26pm
are you another one hankering for the rapture?
another lemming in wool clothing?
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 9:20:50pm
Now you are here small 'g' 'god':
Wasn't it genetic modification in The Old Testament, when somebody placed some tree- branches in the drinking water for the cattle and managed to get all the cattle to born with the 'right' colour (right for him)?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 11:33:03am
Colour change is interesting. I'll give you a reference for Agouti mice below supporting (if anything) greater precaution in the consumption of random GM cut and paste alteration in DNA.
Agouti mice have the 'agouti' gene which tends to make them yellow (rather than brown) and obese. Offspring with the same gene grow like their parents.
Unless... shift into Epigenetics... the pregnant mice are fed particular nutrients - even though the agouti gene was still present the young mice grew lean and dark which persisted into adulthood.
The growing reality of harmonious environmental DNA adaptation is in contrast to the previous fixed notions of 'lego' DNA on which existing GM technology was developed and claimed to be 'safe' in the absence of evidence.
In the growing obesity epidemic the nutritional affects on in-utero DNA development from poor quality processed foods comprised of many artificial and GM additives(in Australia often with unlabelled GM ingredients) should be regarded cautiously.
If you take the bible literally the example could have epigenetic origins, with a leeching of particular minerals from the branches into the maternal diet.
Maternal Genistein Alters Coat Color and Protects Avy Mouse Offspring from Obesity by Modifying the Fetal Epigenome
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 80 van 177
Dana C. Dolinoy, Jennifer R. Weidman, Robert A. Waterland, and Randy L. Jirtle
Maternal nutrient supplementation counteracts bisphenol A-induced DNA hypomethylation in early development Dana C. Dolinoy, Dale Huang, and Randy L. Jirtle
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 2:28:52am
"... If you take the bible literally the example could have epigenetic origins, with a leeching of particular minerals from the branches into the maternal diet...... "
If you take the Bible literally GM is not only very old. It is also approved by God (with a capital 'G').
And whether or not you take it literally, the issue (or the idea) of GM is brought up in The Old Testament.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 3:10:14pm
Doc, if we didn't have children and had no future on this earth we might all decide to sail with you.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
03 Jul 2008 6:22:33pm
Another "Cool Aid" test than Jonestown would be better.
As I see it Madeleine, we're not as omnipotent as we might like to think we are, and since we're mostly water and water tends to find its own level, and given enough time, trial and error, Allosaurus isn't as extinct as it is fully feathered and hunting morning worms from the front lawn.
In sufficient time the ancestors of long distant decendants may barely recognise their own future children.
If indeed, the future species in 100 million years is even linked to our particular branch of the animal tree.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 5:04:09am
It's the philosophical time of the early morning.
Before becoming water the imperatives of life are to be lived. Apart from the parenting imperative there is another.
I learnt about inevitable contamination and the huge power of the agri-giants
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 81 van 177
before learning about the food and inadequate testing.
The whole idea of GM was 'cool and neat', but in the face of world opposition to consuming the food an organisation with a fragment of respect for the wishes of other humans above profits would have stopped.
I recognise the act of walking over the top of dissenting humans as war, and claim another human imperative to fight in such a circumstance.
Let's just say that every human forms a part of a bigger larger body, and that within this large body people take on roles.
At the moment Monsanto et al are invading viruses, already infecting some farmers to do it's work, and I'm an antibody with the right epitope.
You, at the moment, appear to be suggesting that I disregard the virus and join you instead in lining up to become a piece of hair.
But if I'm to take your previous posts about regular medical checkups for good health seriously I don't think you are really so ready to be cut off. Follow the imperatives first.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
04 Jul 2008 10:49:58am
"You, at the moment, appear to be suggesting that I disregard the virus and join you instead in lining up to become a piece of hair."
You'll never become a piece of hair Madeleine.
We'll become a food source for fungi and weeds first.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 3:49:50am
Another philosophical morning.
This is not the right forum but it seems the right moment in the discussion... At the risk of exciting IA, it is possible that some parts of you will not immediately become a food source...
I was stirring a tomato sauce by the stove one night when I suddenly said to my husband "I think your mother's here" which was a strange thing to say because she'd been dead 6 months - I'd just felt her so strongly.
A screensaver suddenly appeared on the computer in blue and red that said "I love my man". My husband thought I must've set it up but I didn't - I don't know how. The computer never worked after that. We took it to get it fixed and were told that the motherboard had melted. My mother-in-law wasn't very good with computers.
On sharing this story so many others have replied with similar experiences. A mathematician proposed that we may all be characters in an exceptional virtual reality computer program - I'm not sure about that.
Reply Alert moderator
n concerned :
05 Jul 2008 1:56:38pm
And GM is the virus
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 82 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 8:20:42pm
Sometimes I wonder what some parents are doing to their children - no wonder superstition and ignorance persist...
Reply Alert moderator
n god :
04 Jul 2008 12:50:03pm
Finally IA, a little self reflection.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
04 Jul 2008 1:18:51pm
Hear the word of the lord.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 5:06:38pm
Your are a funny god!
Are you going to World Youth Day?
Reply Alert moderator
n god :
05 Jul 2008 9:45:29am
I'll probably passover
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 2:59:02am
Hear the word of the inclusive lord.
Reply Alert moderator
l Julie Newman :
03 Jul 2008 11:26:46am
Maree, I would recommend you have a closer look at the reports you are promoting.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 83 van 177
I mentioned earlier (see bottom of screen posts) why GM canola can not agronomically or economically be of benefit to farmers, but it is worth looking at how the pro-GM activists promote it and why. Firstly governments and researchers are desperate to promote GM because it not only encourages corporate investment into plant breeding (at a far higher cost to farmers) but it is a way they can capitalize on their investments they have already made. This is why government institutes such as CSIRO have such strong alliances with the GM companies and why they make such statements as: "It is best to get into bed with these companies". This is why the regulatory process has allowed industry self management where the GM industry can avoid health testing (see below post) and the GM industry can escape legal action by preparing inadequate coexistence protocols and leaving it to non-GM farmers to sue GM farmers for economic loss caused.
If you look at Pratleys report you will find the four year trial found only a $7/ha economic advantage for Roundup Ready over GM but they forgot the massive additional costs involved. If you add these costs, non-GM is far superior economically and that is despite the trial deliberately avoiding adequate weed control in non-GM varieties.
Try looking at the detail of ABARE's reports. They are all based on an assumption of a yield advantage when there is none in GM. The GM is only an additional gene that gives resistance to chemical and there are stated reasons why there are yield penalties. For example, if glyphosate is sprayed after 6 leaf stage, massive yield penalties are expected in RR so its a toss up between yield loss from inadequate weed control or yield loss from adequate weed control. The OGTR also explains that Bayer Cropscience's GM hybrid shows 20% less vigour than non-GM hybrids. ABARE's last bizarre report assumed that all farmers would grow GM wheat when there is no market for GM wheat which is why it is not grown anywhere in the world. These ABARE reports are nothing more than a prospectus to attract investors as their profit is based on the supposed advantage to farmers. The Canadian National Farmers Union research showed that on average technology providers captured 144% of the benefit gained. So the ABARE figure is not what farmers can make from adopting this technology, it is what farmers are expected to pay for this technology.
Researchers and government need to realise that telling lies is only a short term solution.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:20:16pm
"Researchers and government need to realise that telling lies is only a short term solution"
You might also want to take this advice.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
07 Jul 2008 4:29:03pm
I'm exposing lies and happy to discuss where you disagree. The standard "lies" campaign promoted by the pro-GM activists to counter the truth is only to cover their own. GM is nothing about higher yields etc. it is only made resistant to chemicals like our non- GM varieties. The problem is that, not only does it offer less and cost more, it is met with market rejection.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 84 van 177
08 Jul 2008 10:13:53am
"The problem is that, not only does it offer less and cost more, it is met with market rejection."
I think this is a little over-simplified and as a result, a bit misleading. After all, exporters such as Canada and the USA ship millions of tonnes of GM produce to overseas markets every year. Some markets may be rejecting it, but clearly not ALL are rejecting it, and that includes Australia along with those mythical rejectors of GM food, Japan and the EU.
Julie is correct about the current variety of GM canola being grown in Australia this year by farmers like Maree not being developed for yield. However, the breeders are certainly not providing low-yield varieties - indeed, yields are expected to be on a par with the best non-GM canola varieties and oil content is expected to marginally higher than average. Canadian experience strongly indicates there are yield advantages through hybrid varieties under moisture stress - something Australian farmers are more familiar with than their Canadian counterparts. It may be an agronomy thing: in the UK, some GM canola test plots have achieved yields of seven tonnes per hectare as a result of researchers maintaining leaves on the stalk up to flowering.
There are indeed some additional costs and protocols associated with GM canola, but there are also input savings to be made from it. Ultimately, a few season's experience with the technology will decide if growing GM canola is a profitable prospect - and we're going to get that experience whether the Network of Concerned Farmers likes it or not!
As for what the technology offers, there is considerable potential in it as Julie is fully aware - hell, even Madeleine acknowledges it! To ignore it would be folly.
Oh, a bit of irony here: "The standard 'lies' campaign promoted by the pro-GM activists to counter the truth is only to cover their own." One could easily insert 'anti' for 'pro' and be as close to the real truth as Julie!
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
08 Jul 2008 6:30:55pm
The yield you are talking about is the non-GM part of the plant Cricket, not the GM part. The GM bit is only the chemical resistant bit and if you are spraying Treflan, you already have your grass cover and you can't spray after 6 leaf stage so you miss your late emerging radish. What benefit? The benefit is in the non-GM plant and the non-GM related chemical control. Canada does not have a radish or ryegrass problem where they are our worst weeds.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 10:30:05am
My point, Julie, was that you were being misleading by saying GM canola offers less than non-GM canola. Do you seriously think that companies like Monsanto could compete with non-GM varieties unless the GM varieties they had developed were at least equal in terms of yield potential and oil content, if not better?
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
03 Jul 2008 11:12:46am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 85 van 177
Transparency and accountability is being demanded of the pro GM lobby and is currently lacking. Agribusiness with GM driven profits providing funds to traditionally independent research centres, commentators and influential individuals don't declare their interests in bio tech companies. How many of those 120 farmers growing GM canola are prepared to publicly identify their location? As a farmer I would be exploring my legal options in response to when, not if my crop is contaminated.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 2:31:16pm
"How many of those farmers growing GM canola are prepared to publicly identify their location?"
Given that tree-huggers overseas have shown no hesitation in destroying GM crops out of their fearful ignorance whenever they discern their location, I think it is very much in those farmers' interests not to disclose their location.
Reply Alert moderator
n concerned :
05 Jul 2008 1:55:03pm
Look at another point of view. They don't want to say because their neighbors might not want GM growing in their paddock.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
07 Jul 2008 1:23:50pm
Do you know the origin of the word 'sabotage', concerned?
During the Industrial Revolution, Dutch artisans fearful of the progress represented by steam-powered machinery - which could do their work much faster and more cheaply - threw their boots (known as 'sabo') into the machinery so it wouldn't work anymore. Hence the word sabotage.
And that's exactly what's going on here. Anti-GM groups have destroyed GM crops when they have been made aware of their location. The anti-GM lobby represented here is full of unsubstantiated what-ifs, short on evidence and big on fostering fear of the unknown - it's almost a religion.
There's no point in a farmer providing a location when there are religious crazies with lit torches just waiting to burn their crop.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 11:21:39pm
"...unsubstantiated what-ifs..."
Unfortunately concerned mothers have to ask the What If questions because the regulators have not asked them.
"...short on evidence..."
When there haven't been independent studies the evidence is, of course, short.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 86 van 177
I'll hope you'll be able to reference the statements made in your post closer to the top.
"...religious crazies..."
Try to be polite with people of differing views Cricket.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 5:21:37pm
"Try to be polite with people of differing views..."
I'm not going out of my way to be polite about criminals who vandalise and destroy valuable GM research crops. Considering their motivations for such acts, it is entirely appropriate to refer to them as religious and crazy.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 2:35:52am
"... There's no point in a farmer providing a location when there are religious crazies with lit torches just waiting to burn their crop. ...."
Or some other crop if they get the wrong address.
-and to 'religious crazies' one crop looks like another crop.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 5:26:34pm
LOL!
One is reminded of those German animal rights tree-huggers who freed about 2000 pigs from a research facility only to be stampeded to death by them (served them right), or that story about the million dollar rehabilitation of a couple of seals after the Exxon oil spill being released back ino the wild with great fanfare, only to both be eaten by killer whales in full view of all the tree- huggers on the beach.
One is also reminded of the Keystone Cops when it comes to greenies.
Reply Alert moderator
l Arthur 1 :
03 Jul 2008 8:56:03am
Monsato & assorted other companys must be celebrating with the news that our miserable governments are allowing GM farming on a limited scale.
They are using the domoino theory to great advantage.Over a period of time contamination could result in all farming being GM.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 87 van 177
I am surprised that farmers who keep telling anyone who will listen,how independant they are,would even dream of being controlled by a seed company,and an oveseas one at that.
As I said before,the previous goverment did it's best to destroy unions for running closed shops,but it seems to be alright for multinationals and farmers to run closed shops,as with the price of petrol,if rain doesn't occur at the right time,it is academic what sort of crops are grown.
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
03 Jul 2008 8:56:00am
You have to laugh. You are quite happy to discredit the anti GM scientists because they have found something major wrong with GM, but what about the rest of it? You cannot deny that there were problems with the Monsanto reports, the CSIRO reports, Calgene, Syngenta/Bayer etc. You cannot because they are GM companies and they must be right but you cannot discredit them because its true. GM is dangerous. There reports say it but it is so hidden in their reports like page 300 or something in a 1,200 page report, so that we as consumers cannot find it.
And Gerard you are quite happy to note the stuff that is discredited but what about the other stuff like the cane toad, rabbits and then foxes to get rid of rabbits, and in weeds, how many of our weeds were introduced? Most of them. Farmers were saying when it was introduced that radish for example would become a weed and lo and behold it has. The list is very long with what we introduce to Australia becoming pests both in animal and weeds.
You even flaw your arguments when you do forums with graphs that say how wonderful GM is and the increase in food is fantastic and the pesticide use is down to nothing. But if you have a close look, the graphs themselves date back to 1950 (of course there will be an increase in crops since then) and also the GM sector brags about getting rid of pesticide out of rivers that the only reason that it happened is because it was banned in Australia. GM manipulates the farmers, consumers and Government into thinking that it will help both the environment and our health when there is clear evidence that it is going to do great harm.
Reply Alert moderator
l Mustard Cross :
02 Jul 2008 10:12:15pm
Gosh, 120 excited farmers, eh. And for that pitiful, whining little number of delusional bleaters, the vast majority of us have to pay for all the segregation, the testing, the endless danged hassle, risk our certification and our GM-Free markets, find ways of monitoring and dealing with uncontrolled contamination in feeds and volunteers in paddocks, have endless squabbles with neighbours, ultimately lose our own freedom of choice because we'll all end up GM whether we want to or not, fail to meet our customers' needs .... Enjoy your excitement while it lasts, Maree. There's one very big storm coming.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 9:16:20am
Nice to see a well reasoned reply MC.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 88 van 177
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 1:47:55pm
No-one needs to reason-out the danged obvious IA.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
03 Jul 2008 9:25:11pm
Mad, was that Walter Brennan?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 8:38:41am
Not intentionally. The danged word was stolen from Mustard Cross.
Reply Alert moderator
n Mustard Cross :
04 Jul 2008 8:44:50pm
My pleasure.
Won't it be interesting if the career GM Canola comes to an early end through the commonsense of grain harvesters.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 11:54:25am
Interesting - after this intensity of effort I'd describe it as a Miracle and thank them everyday thereafter.
Reply Alert moderator
l gerard oosterman :
02 Jul 2008 6:38:44pm
Back in 1965 the change to decimal currency was supposed the bring us the wrath of 'Mother England' and total collapse of economy.
Later on the widening of the combs to sheer sheep was absolute the ruination of sheep farmers and sheep alike. This was followed with summer time changes, whereby the curtains would fade, Flo Bjelke's pumpkin scones would spoil and collapse, the cows would go off their milk and roosters would sink into deep depression.
Then the onset of freight containers would bring about the collapse of harbours, raise sea levels and bring about the ire of Tajikstan and Russia.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 89 van 177
Now we find that GM will cause..... unexplained death. How can someone blame a death on GM when it remains unexplained.
Is it the new tautology?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 9:24:23am
The anti-GM argument isn't a bleat against change. Neither coins, nor combs, curtains or clocks required assessing to the test the affect on our children.
If only someone had thought to complain about thalidomide and asbestos. The wonders of modern science brought us scientifically adjusted cows milk in a bottle with a teat for all babies, and then we found (particularly in Norway) that, after all, breast was best for most.
That so many people feel wrong about GM should be noted and valued, at least by the odd trial of the food on people who are promoting it. I trust people's intuitive sense when it comes to their health. GM canola oil has never been subjected to any such test.
Personally, I think summer days already go far enough into the time of night. And farmers don't like agri-chemical companies walking onto their land unbidden to test for rougue genes.
Reply Alert moderator
n xpatt :
03 Jul 2008 8:44:51pm
Madeleine, Summer days go even further into the night in Norway. I wonder how they manage.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 8:53:15am
I've had the pleasure of living in Norway (Moss) for some months right through midsummer. It was beautiful, and returned a number of times. The people I was staying with had blockout curtains (faded I'm sure).
If there was going to be a time alteration I'd prefer a longer 'day' after work in winter to go for a run or something - I don't need more daylight after work in summer when the days are already long.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
04 Jul 2008 9:49:01am
There is a higher incidence of Multiple Sclerosis in that region . It occurs in the north and southern hemisphere.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 90 van 177
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 2:41:38am
"... The wonders of modern science brought us scientifically adjusted cows milk in a bottle with a teat for all babies, and then we found (particularly in Norway) that, after all, breast was best for most. ...."
It should not have come as a surprise that breast was best for most.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 2:47:57am
"... I trust people's intuitive sense when it comes to their health. ...."
If people had an 'intuitive sense' it would hardly be necessary to tell them that junk food is not good for them, would it?
By the way, I assume you don't smoke. Your 'intuitive sense' probably would tell you that burning the leaves of a poisonous plant and inhaling the smoke is not a healthy idea. But some people *do* smoke.
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
02 Jul 2008 5:04:52pm
In answer to your question Gerard about what is scientifically wrong with GM:-
1st generation (what could potentially happen to you):- * damaged immune systems and increased allergies (2, 4, 6, 7) * development of lesions &/or pre-cancerous growths (2, 5, 7) * unusually enlarged or damaged organs (2, 2, 7, 9) * temporary infertility (9) * unexplained death (1,5,10)
2nd generation and/or developing animals (what could potentially happen to your children or grandchildren): * smaller brain, liver and testicles (7,8,9) * immune system damage and metabolic change (7,9) * organ damage (7, 10) * abnormal anxiety and aggression (8) * precancerous tumour findings (7,10) * infertility up to 100% permanent male sterility in offspring (8, 9) * abnormally high death rates (8)
References: GM companies own test data: Syngenta /Bayer Cropscience paid compensation (1), Monsanto (2), CSIRO(4), Calgene (5) Independent scientific studies: UK statistics 1999 (6), UK Arpad Puztai (7), Russia Irena Ermakova (8), Malatesta(9), Fares(10)
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 91 van 177
Ref: Jeffrey Smith - "Genetic Roulette" While the above results are limited, the GM industry is doing everything they can do to prevent further independent research.
There is more if you would like more scientific evidence.
Concerning genetic changes for thousands of years, this is a furphy with GM. It is not the same as you do not cross species with selective breeding. GM inserts bacteria, toxins and even viruses into the plant or animal which we then eat. Genes change in normal non-GM grain yes but it is done on an evolutionary basis not a forced bombardment of genes which stresses the plant or animals immune system. We do not know the consequences of this GM action.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 10:33:09pm
"GM inserts bacteria, toxins and even viruses into the plant or animal which we then eat."
No it doesn't, but it might use virus of bacteria plasmids as vectors for moving a portion of the DNA of interest into an alternate host that the one it was born to.
And then only when it isn't using something less organic like a gold/platinum bullet at high velocity.
The most simple of bacteria have more than 100,000 base pair DNA sequences (and virus about 1/10th that). At this point in biotechnological development, a transfer of that much DNA into something else is reserved for the cloning of entire genome, nucleus, chromosome and all.
Insulin requires a segment of DNA about 10,000 nucleotide base pair long, which is about as large a portion as genetic engineering splices in.
Not much amid the entire 3 billion base-pair of the human genome, and I suspect dodgier things can happen as a result of industrial chemical poisoning or staying out in the Sun too long, than are likely as a result of most GM.
No one is going to roll back industry to avoid poisoning your children.
After all, they're only worth 5 grand. :P
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 11:29:10am
Dear Doctor No one is going to roll back industry to avoid poisoning your children,
Good comment! Perhaps not, but mothers can warn the other mothers of where the dangers lie just as we warn on all the other dangers. We can make the industry unprofitable.
Our hope in the USA is Obama who is in favour of labelling GM - his wife is pro- organic. At least the people are waking up. I'd like to see if he can counter the government revolving door with Monsanto. Plenty of US companies have crashed before.
Now on the virus issue - GM uses the promotor of the virus CaMV (P35S) to keep the desired novel genes permanently 'turned on' - like viagra for a gene.
'Twas said that this virus was plant specific so there was no need to worry our pretty heads, but, like most science concluded solely on the 'studies' provided by a commerical company of interest, this has now been shown to be wrong by the persistently intelligent
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 92 van 177
(equal sharing of male:female power) Norwegians. It also acts as a promoter in human cells.
Reply Alert moderator
n xpatt :
03 Jul 2008 9:02:04pm
Madz, My Norwegian great-grandfather intelligently jumped ship from a merchant vessel in Fremantle some time ago.
What does this have to do with the topic. Nothing! Just as it doesn't nearly every time you mention your favourite Nordic haven.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 9:12:11am
Thank you for the opportunity to bring up the exceptionally relevant points about Norway and GM.
Between 1996 and 2000 Norway had televised public forums on the issue of GM. Community consultation groups were brought together to discuss the issue.
The Norwegian population was therefore relatively informed about what was coming.
I have read that the major supermarkets have banned GM products.
Epidemiologically this seems to be beneficial. The incidence of severe allergic reaction in Norway appears to be running at pre-1996 Australian levels before the sly introduction of food from GM crops into our food.
I think you indicated you're a doctor? Check out "Pediatric food allergy trends in a community-based special allergy practice, 1995-2006"; Mullins RJ; MJA Volume 186,No 12,pp618-621 to see the change in allergy experience.
If you want me to tell you a Norway study for comparison let me know.
Despite pressure no GM crops are grown in Norway as yet, but there is still very healthy Gene Tech research mostly doing useful things.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 9:34:13pm
".. What does this have to do with the topic. Nothing! Just as it doesn't nearly every time you mention your favourite Nordic haven. ..."
They hunt whales, don't they?
(And that hasn't got anything to do with GM either.) (And the people in Sweden tell 'moron jokes' about the people in Norway, by the way.)
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 93 van 177
05 Jul 2008 12:23:44pm
[I think this is how it goes...] Sweden captured Norway with a lot of threats and one ship. Norway capitulated before they realised the true extent of the Swedish fleet. No references.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 3:09:35am
"... Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 12:23:44pm
[I think this is how it goes...] Sweden captured Norway with a lot of threats and one ship. Norway capitulated before they realised the true extent of the Swedish fleet. No references. ...."
I am glad you wrote that.
I shall read your posts in the light of the research you have demonstrated here.
-and when was it Sweden captured Norway?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
10 Jul 2008 11:36:24am
yen, it was in 1814. Sweden was sort of 'given' Norway during the Napoleonic Wars. Norway at the time was part of a joint Danish-Norwegian union, but due to that kingdom being on the losing side in the wars, the king was forced to cede Norway to Sweden. The Norwegians were unhappy about it and declared independence. Sweden invaded to press its claim. The Norwegians fought valiantly but they were ultimately forced to accede to a 'union' in which Norway was nominally independent but ruled by Charles XIII from Stockholm. It lasted until 1905 when Norway finally declared independence.
I don't have any references to the incident Madeleine has mentioned. Norwegian gunboats did fight an action against the Swedish fleet but they were driven off and took no further part in the war.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
02 Jul 2008 11:11:12pm
Concerned,
You really should cherry pick your sources a little more carfeully. The main authors you rely on have all been thoroughly discredited in peer reviewed journals.
Ermakova's trial designs were sloppy and poorly implemented.
Poor Manuela Malatesta didnt know how to follow international trial protocols and couldnt even identify the samples correctly!
Fares et al - just plain wrong. As FSANZ states: "Interpretation of this paper as evidence that GM foods are unsafe is either selective quoting or misinterpretation of the data" In other words, lies.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 94 van 177
Puztai - best left to the Royal Society of London which scrutinized Puztai's work and concluded that the experiments were flawed in both design and statistical analysis (Royal Society of London 1999).
Keep em comin' sweetie and I'll keep battin' em away!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 1:50:56pm
IA, I suspect you are getting your information from that trumped up pro-GM site gmopundit - most of the stuff on that site has been discredit you know!
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:23:30pm
Never heard of it. Nice try at a smear though...
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 12:24:49pm
Yes, you're right. Better can be done without.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julian London :
03 Jul 2008 8:24:47pm
Can I just request a gm food that will conform to the 1st phrase of the 1st (potential) generational change. We will have to set up a 'dead letterbox' to do this of course.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
08 Jul 2008 3:00:28am
"... Genes change in normal non-GM grain yes but it is done on an evolutionary basis not a forced bombardment of genes which stresses the plant or animals immune system. ...."
What does this actually mean?
What is 'evolutionary basis'?
What is a 'natural' mutation, and how do you know that it does not 'stress' the plant or animals immune system?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 95 van 177
And in what way is the immune system significant in this connection?
(And in what way would it influence my digestive system if I eat a carrot with a stressed immune system?)
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
02 Jul 2008 4:39:50pm
It interests me that many on the pro GM side often have personal interests in the bio tech industry, Sir Gustav Nossal for one. Maree Mckay presented simply as a farmer on this website has lobbied government in her role as the NSW convenor of the Australian bio advocacy group, The Producers Forum. The ABC really should clearly identify such links.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
02 Jul 2008 5:08:04pm
You clearly are a dunce.
Read the bio.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 1:51:41pm
You're only wised-up because of Gregor's chaser post - don't act so smart.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 2:10:23pm
Madeleine
You must join your mate in the corner. Wrong again!
Reply Alert moderator
l The Arch Bishop of Consumerism :
02 Jul 2008 3:43:24pm
Madeleine, as of 3.41pm you have 38 posts or 25%. Hell hath no fury?
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 96 van 177
02 Jul 2008 5:03:38pm
...like a greenie scorned...
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 9:28:20am
I'm not a greenie. I'm a mother.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 1:39:03pm
Maybe both...maybe a meenie? a grummy?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 2:15:47pm
I once was a yummy mummy.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 9:45:15pm
"... Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 9:28:20am
I'm not a greenie. I'm a mother...... "
Being a mother may give you reason to seek information.
Being a mother does not in any shape or form prove that you have done so.
Actually, a superficial study of mothers across the world suggest that mothers vary from very low intelligence and intellect to very high.
And also actually, Being a mother suggests that you would not have had the time to study anything in any depth.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 11:00:06am
Yen, sorry to intermingle serious comment with one-line repartee with IA.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 97 van 177
From previous posts I know that IA has a particular interpretation on the word 'greenie' which was too inaccurate and had to reject it.
I replied with a descriptor 'mother' which also has a particular and fixed interpretation to many.
The image I wanted him to understand with the word 'mother' was more related to a fierce instinct to care, protect, and teach and demand accountability.
Part of the job is to teach one's own children to care for other people's children and to say 'sorry'. There is no tolerance for profit-taking business and regulation which doesn't demonstrate similar ethics of care, protection and accountability.
My children are now at school age (although I was able to do a great deal of study with a lot of partner support after the hardest 7 years). I'm not in paid employment and have let most community commitments rest for now to focus on this issue.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:13:25pm
I am sure that Madeleine has taken the time to do her research and it has nothing to do with her being a mother. You are trying to discredit her when there is clear evidence that she has concerns and points that show that GM is dangerous. Get over it and stop trying to slander someone that has done her research.
Reply Alert moderator
n Binko :
02 Jul 2008 5:31:54pm
It is called New Mother Syndrome. They worry about everything.
A family member who is trained both as an anaesthetist and accident and emergency specialist is fairly nonchalant about her young sons. She lets them eat food dropped on the floor "a bit of dirt is good for their immune systems". She never worries about miniscule risks such as GM foods.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 9:31:47am
Binko, thank you for the complement, but I am not a new mother.
And you have wrongly characterised them. All clean dirt is welcome here and always was.
Your family member is probably assuming that SOMEONE has 'scientifically' tested the food.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
04 Jul 2008 8:14:06pm
More fool her. Does she even know the risks or have you blindfolded her too. Have a
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 98 van 177
look again at her children in about 5 years and then see how they are faring in allergies and diseases.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 11:47:47pm
Thats what i'd call adding a bit of chlorine to the gene pool.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
03 Jul 2008 12:27:16am
Come on Bish, as gregor says, they had it coming. They shoulda known !
This is Madeleine's baby and I for one love to see her rip. Poetry.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:38:53am
...like a woman who has been breastfeeding her children unlabelled GM-adjucted bacterial DNA fingerprints and who has to ask the parents of children coming to play if the children are allergic to anything (because most our now).
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
02 Jul 2008 3:38:12pm
http://humanitiespolicy.unt.edu/topics/our_work/What%27s%20Wrong%20With%20Genetically% 20Modified%20Food.pdf To understand what GMOs are and how they affect our health and the environment we should at very least address the issue in terms of hazards rather than risks. It is even more important, however, to consider the ways in which these hazards occur within a free enterprise system. That way we will be able to see a number of rather predictable connections between free markets and the erosion of public interest safeguards, including public health and safety, environmental degradation, and even human rights. GMOs do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of complex social, political, and scientific networks the connect the biotech industry with national and international laws, markets, and dietary practices. If we analyze them within their multiple use-contexts we find that they not only raise narrowly construed issues of health and environmental hazards but also more broadly construed issues of social justice. Now, instead of entering the thickets of scientific debates, we can make a stronger argument on principle: GM food production, distribution, and consumption, driven by market imperatives, backed by institutional power, violates our human rights. Specifically, the trade policies enforced by the WTO that requires nations to purchase GM food, privatize public farms, and transform agricultural production from subsistence to export violates the internationally recognized right to food security.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 99 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
l Jenny :
02 Jul 2008 3:27:54pm
It is interesting to note that Maree McKay used the words 'considered GM' when referring to the Canadian GM canola export crop.
A small percentage of GM canola contamination may eventually result in the entire Australian canola crop being labelled GM. The risk of contaminating neighbouring crops by GM crops results in a lack of surety for GM free crop security.
Who will be liable for the contamination caused by a small number of Australian farmers to the GM free crop security of the whole nation?
The Federal and State Governments have a duty of care:
1. To protect the nation from the health and environmental hazards of GM crops.
2. To protect farmers freedom to grow and market clean green crops.
3. To protect the freedom of world markets to access GM free crops.
4. To protect consumers rights everywhere to secure a reliable provision of GM Free food throughout the food supply (including developing and famine affected nations).
Reply Alert moderator
l gerard oosterman :
02 Jul 2008 3:25:58pm
As far as am aware, genetic changes have occurred naturally for thousands of years. Selective breeding through the ages has given us beef with better and more meat, sheep with finer and more wool, and seed potatoes with better taste and higher yields.
If we stuck with what used to breed or grow years ago the world would then rely on the suvival of the fittest. We are still concerned about the new-born, and the old, the sick, the poor. The millions ravaged by endless wars etc.
I am reading a lot of posts about the bad GM canola but not much what is the actual 'bad'.
I have looked deep inside my canola bread spread bucket and studied the writings on the lid but am not any wiser about the pro's and con's of what constitute normal canola or the GM modified canola.
No matter how often I read the anti-GM modified canola contributions I don't really get much science against the GM. Of course, the hi-jacking of the GM foods by large corporations and the owning of that science is a totally different matter.
Despite dire warnings not to eat anything with GM in it, I am not getting the'why' answered very well.
I read that, 'thank goodness', fruit and vegetables are as yet not been touched by the demon of GM, but let me assure you that the Granny Smith of to-day is totally different from the Granny a few hundred years ago.
Breeding or growing anything without seeking advances in doing it better will condemn the world to the 'survival of the fittest'. Let's stop vaccinating or taking medicine. I am sure humans will eventually
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 100 van 177
become resistant to chicken-pox, polio and a myriad of all sorts of nasties.
Most arguments seem to concern themselves with the economics of the GM canola and Monsanto but precious little about what is supposed to be bad about this science.
Reply Alert moderator
n Binko :
02 Jul 2008 5:04:32pm
Wheat, barley, oats or maize don't exist in the wild. All have been four artificially hybridised several millenia ago. Strawberries and loganberries were created in the 19th century by artificial hybridisation. Carrots were all green or white until the 17th century. Wild potatoes are far too poisonous to eat. Wild tomatoes are yellow and grape sized. Almost no plant eaten on the planet is natural. Virtually all food plants been substantially modified over hundreds or thousands of years to be palatable.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 9:50:35am
None of those had bits of DNA cut and pasted with the dexterity of a 2 year old.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
03 Jul 2008 3:36:51am
".. As far as am aware, genetic changes have occurred naturally for thousands of years. Selective breeding through the ages has given us beef with better and more meat, sheep with finer and more wool, and seed potatoes with better taste and higher yields. ...."
There is even a 'terminator gene' - as with mules.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:15:52pm
Same species which is a difference. Same animal kingdom. Jumping species and kingdoms is the problem here.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
09 Jul 2008 4:48:53am
"... Same species which is a difference. Same animal kingdom. Jumping species and kingdoms is the problem here. ...."
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 101 van 177
But, wasn't the risk that a *naturally occurring* genetic change in the virus could make 'bird flu' 'jump' to humans the reason for the extermination of a great number of domestic birds a couple of years ago?
And isn't the fact that cattle TB affects humans an example of another 'jump' sometime in the past?
And the other way. The mule example shows a change in horse and/or donkey DNA over time.
DNA changes in nature.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 9:49:31am
Gerard, I don't know where to begin with that post.
I feel I've failed you by not giving you science. It's difficult to put numbers, graphs and diagrams into this forum, and too many references are unpleasant for the majority to read. But tell me if you want detailed, heavy information and I'll write.
As a very quick answer, there has been negligible science done on the food which we are going to eat. There is little to read.
Monsanto etc owns the genes, and the seed, and they have to give approval for research to be carried out.
Almost every study I've read which has directly used proteins, seed or feed has had an employee of Monsanto on the author list, or has thanked Monsanto for their generous 'donation' of product.
You continually refer to foods developed through traditional breeding methods, as though such methods are the same as those used in Genetic Manipulation. They are quite different. Tell me if you want this explained in exact detail.
Reply Alert moderator
l Jim Bond 007 :
02 Jul 2008 2:55:25pm
Glucosyanates are to be avoided by persons with thyroid disorders whether born with or developed by women having daughters or from alcohol consumption.Should Aboriginal diets be monitored for glucosyanates effect as fresh produce now supplied by white govt,brasicas etc.Few people i know are warned of this.Many thyroid problem sufferers have a craving for gluco laced foods and are not supposed to consume them.Radishes ,mustard etc,etc.Many thyroid sufferers- lacking thyroxine- are suckers for a positive sales pitch and are easily led in many cases.Can be easily manipulated.(More prone to floating along with authority and accepting of commercial media spin.)Thyroid problems , are widespread and growing in many areas,iodine deficiency etc.I know a family whose child developed needle dependant diabetes because of testosterone hits during pregnancy. pre Clampsia? Mother had and has thyroid disorder.Goldfinger lives IA.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 9:14:00pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 102 van 177
Glucosinolates- is the right spelling and pronounciation.I'll just mention that Canada claims 0.2 of trans fats in canola oil and the University of Florida found it has 4.6 %. Erucic acid and glucosinolates levels were genetically lowered in rapeseed.It was there for a reason, like to cater for a certain bug or moth?or some form of weather ? or seasonal tolerance? etc but is it possible for the other chemicals ,oils etc still present to move now in other directions and just which exactly.Is the plant going to develope in different directions now? Was the small human browsing content of rapeseed compared to mass consumption actually a health benefit like milk thistle was used and eaten for thousands of years perhaps even helping caucasians develope? Milk thistle has a chemical in it that actually triggers human livers to start repairing themselves as well as removing toxins from the body.Concerning Glucosilinates,does the consumption for thousands of years in caucasian development account for the noticings of an overactive nervous system in caucasions? Many questions -no answers.
Reply Alert moderator
l IA :
02 Jul 2008 1:29:01pm
Good article Maree.
The disconnect between those that produce our food and the majority of city dwellers is big and I'm afraid is getting bigger. The science proves GM product safety but the conspiracy theorists and pseudo new age green groups keep trying to muddy the water.
Eventually the sphincter tightening self generated fear by amateur 'experts' will pass and reason will prevail.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 3:21:03pm
I'm not so sure IA.
Either GM, as you say, will prove to be harmless and everyone will eat it in a generation, or like synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc, we may find there are great benefits, but they come with serious problems.
Even the geneticists I knew were divided or non-comittal on the matter, and I think it is wise to adopt a precautionary approach and tread very lightly for a generation or two. See where the stuff gets and whether it is acceptable. Determine whether there are any side effects of prolonged consumption and if these are manageable, ensure GM crops do not become a panaceae for lazy farming. (no inference made on the author) With food still being thrown out I think we can afford it.
Perhaps one of the first steps might be a discussion of what GM is, what selective breeding is, what transgenic is, to see what we think we are getting is what we are getting, and identify what issues we have with it.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
02 Jul 2008 4:53:02pm
David, That's the thing - the debate has been had for 20 years now and the science is clear. What we have now is a second order debate where the non experts and fringe players feed off
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 103 van 177
public uncertainty and fear to continue to try to delay what is a good thing.
Perhaps I'm too influenced by Gus Nossal when he says:
"The present debate about GM foods is like that about GM pharmaceuticals in the 1980s. At that time, fears of GM ran so high that, at one stage, the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts, threatened to shut down all the laboratories of Harvard University that were conducting genetic engineering research.
Who now worries about the pharmaceuticals that resulted from GM processes: interferons to fight virus infections, some cancers and multiple sclerosis; the hugely effective vaccines against hepatitis B and the human papillomavirus — the first anti- cancer vaccines in history; erythropoietin to revolutionise quality of life in the chronic kidney disease patient; G-CSF, the unique Australian invention to help restore the white cell count after cancer chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation?
All the merchants of doom about GM pharmaceuticals have long since been silenced.
Thus it will be with GM foods."
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 8:52:17pm
Vitamins are a drug when taken in specific dose. We're not talking about a medical dose or use ,we're talking about widespread heavy consumption.Success in some areas does'nt justify other problems perceived or outstanding.DDT worked wonders getting rid of mossies and lice too if you bathed in it.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
03 Jul 2008 12:46:47am
IA, I often find myself impressed by your encyclopaedic knowledge. More than broad - like an encyclopaedia, your knowledge has deep pools too.
I agree and also disagree with this post.
Yes, lab-produced GM pharma has done great things. My late father had type II diabetes, and the human insulin produced by house-trained e-coli was a lot less problematic than porcine or bovine insulin.
However, with lab pharma GM, you are talking about tightly-controlled use of the technology, not so with agri GM where we seem to be spreading GM around like a madman's shit and hoping for the best.
For my sins, I once worked for CSIRO and while there were - and are - great people working there, to my knowledge, none have been omniscient.
Gus is rightly celebrated for his mega science, but he isn't renowned for single- handedly halting the spread of cane toads, which like GM crops, seemed like a good idea at the time, but may prove a tad difficult to recall if things go pear- shaped.
What do you have to say about big agribusiness controlling the food chain ?
Regards,
Emmjay
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 104 van 177
03 Jul 2008 9:12:35am
Fair point Emmjay but they are somewhat separate issues. The GM food safety issues and the scientific and regulatory frameworks around them are clear and work well.
Who owns what is a bit more problematic but in reality is more an issue for a producer than it is for a consumer. As a farmer, if you want to use the higher producing GM varieties, you pay more. There are vast numbers of non-GM varieties also available if you dont. To me this issue is not a first world concern - it is a third world concern and how we will feed people into the future in India, China etc more efficiently.
(I'm glad you made it out of CSIRO in one piece!)
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 1:15:03pm
IA - On what basis could you possibly assert that "The GM food safety issues and the scientific and regulatory frameworks around them are clear and work well"?
This sounds like a religious-like committment to the uninterested caring omniscience of the World and Australian Regulatory systems, including those related to the Australian Wheat Board.
There is an exceptionally long list of Regulatory failings, many of which have been pointed out in independent scientific literature and by governments in such diverse places as Wales and Western Australia.
In light of the 1200% increase in food allergy over the last 10 years, here's one related to allergenic assessment of GMO's - 8 different groups, seven countries, including the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Perth.
"Suggestions for the Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Organisms"; Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2005;137:167-180
It pointed out ten discussions not yet had...
1. Is it Important Whether a Newly Inserted Gene is Derived from an Allergenic or Nonallergenic Source? 2. The Questionable value of Seque Comparisons for Assessing the Allergenic Potential of a Protein 3. The Novel Protein Has to Be Tested with Sera of Allergic Patients: Differentiation between 'Specific Serum Screen' and 'Targeted Serus Screen'? 4. The Misconception that Allergens Are Always Characterized by Resistance to Proteolytic Digestion 5. Is Glycosylation a Feature of an Allergen? 6. The Importance of the Expression Level and the Amount of a Protein in Allergenic Activity. 7. Animal Models 8. The Importance of Various Exposure Routes and Sensitization Scenarios 9. Guidelines for GMOs May Also Be Applicable for Natural Organisms and Processed Products 10. Hypersensitivities Other than IgE-Mediated Allergies Are Also Important for Risk Assessment
You're being bluffed by the Mystique of Biotechnology? "Trust me, I'm a biotechnologist" has resonance for you?
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 1:46:21pm
Madeleine
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 105 van 177
You may choose to ignore the facts about the rigorous evaluation of GM foods, the regulatory framework that is in place and the science behind the whole topic but that wont make it go away.
The anti-GM debate is driven mainly by two things - fear of the unknown and a more general bias against science and reason. You demonstrate the point perfectly - obsession and a lack of balance are poor substitutes for facts.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 2:19:52pm
I'm not sure you read my deeply reasoned reply.
People who need to finish a job before the first GM canola flowers need to do it with intensity.
When it's finished I'll move on to the next job that needs doing.
The Work of Women is never done, and ... naturally ... I'm not being paid for it.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
03 Jul 2008 9:36:20pm
Yes Madeline driven by fear of the unknown and a more general bias against science- you know ,like what they stand by and let get done to our environment, creeks rivers, housing developements, farmland,public health.. I'm going to run out of etcetera's..
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
04 Jul 2008 8:56:43pm
"rigorous evaluation" !
"bias against science and reason" !
Quite the comedian, IA. Or are you cherry-picking from a biotech phrasebook?
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:19:06pm
I am not against science but I am against manipulated science which is what the GM sector does. I do not have any fear of the unknown just a knowledge that GM will give us a massive amount of problems rather than solutions.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
04 Jul 2008 9:52:25am
That framework is called spin.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 106 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
03 Jul 2008 10:56:07pm
I can't believe I wrote "none have" Mea culpa. I throw myself on the scant mercy of the grammar police.
Reply Alert moderator
n Grammar Student :
04 Jul 2008 2:00:57pm
??? not one has ???
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
07 Jul 2008 11:02:33pm
Correct, I believe.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
05 Jul 2008 12:11:31am
Thats a dangerous thing to do here Emmjay, you'll end up as food for the compulsive obsessive.It's like chalk on a blackboard to some.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
08 Jul 2008 9:08:54pm
Scant mercy, indeed, Jim. I'll refrain from downing my strides from here on in.
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
02 Jul 2008 10:21:44pm
Science has not proved GM safe. The so-called safety testing of GM foods, in the main, does not qualify as "science" and is largely not reported in recognised scientific journals because it wouldn't pass peer review.
How about we have a look at some crop products that have been passed by FSANZ as safe to consume, and talk about how it was tested and what showed up as a potential health problem or toxic reaction during the testing?
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 107 van 177
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:44:52am
If science had proved GM safe I wouldn't be writing here.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 1:47:09pm
Yes you would!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 2:21:17pm
Well, yes, I would be. I love it. But I'd be having more fun, and it wouldn't be about GM. I only learnt about this sh** in my food in January.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
03 Jul 2008 3:32:35pm
I've really got to congratulate you Madeleine, some of us might not agree with everything you say, but to amass the amount of information and subject knowledge you appear to have, in six months, is incredible.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 5:38:23am
I learnt the contamination, soil and world power issues in late Nov/Dec, so it made discovering the food deception all the worse. I felt like I'd been raped by Monsanto's genes - righteous fury is a powerful motivator for learning, but better suited to revenge war.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
04 Jul 2008 1:27:46pm
AS long as you don't get burn out. The world needs people like you to keep fighting.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 3:23:15am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 108 van 177
Kindness again! Behave properly - you're on Unleashed. If there is long term success it will be due to the people who compiled the info such as Julie Newman of the Network of Concerned Farmers and others too many to mention.
No chance of burnout. Premature death is more likely. I come from a long line of people who can't help fighting. We impaled our wedding cake with my great grandfather's sword.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:21:14pm
Way to go Madeleine. For us that have been against GM for years, congratulations on seeing the light in time!
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 10:03:14pm
"... Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:44:52am
If science had proved GM safe I wouldn't be writing here. ...."
How can anybody possibly prove anything safe?
The humble potato may be safe for 1000 generations, only to strike on the 1001th generation.
But: By the way Has anybody tried to prove that Fluorine is harmless?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 12:40:56pm
Yen,
I don't want to bore the others because I've written this before, but you can read the Final Risk Analysis Report done by Food Standards ANZ, called the "Inquiry Report"
You will notice in the safety assessment that every one of the 27 studies used (as well as data supplied) was done by Monsanto itself. This is called "Advocacy Science", where Monsanto are doing work to advocate for their own product.
This situation is often compared to the tobacco industry which persistently provided 'no harm' outcome studies in relation to smoking.
This is inadequate. FSANZ are entitled to commission independent research as needed, but haven't commissioned any. They are responding to their other obligations to their Trade objectives [FSANZ Act 18(2)(b)&(c)] rather than their primary Public Health and Safety [FSANZ Act 18(1)(a)] objectives.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 109 van 177
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 1:16:45pm
I'm surprised that not one pro-GM lobbyist has hit back yet. Waiting and braced to be hit by their genes::::
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
02 Jul 2008 2:13:54pm
Good old IA ! That took about 13 minutes.
Welcome back. There's some beef cheeks for you over on the offal blog.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
02 Jul 2008 5:09:10pm
I LOVE ox cheek (dont tell anyone. I claim it isnt offal).
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 3:08:16pm
Does IA count 02 July 1:29pm?
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
02 Jul 2008 4:54:58pm
God it's a bit scary when I am the pro-GM lobby!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:04:46am
You can probably claim some money for that effort IA. Everyone else spruiking GM is paid to do it.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 1:49:44pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 110 van 177
Madeleine
Have you ever been paid for your services?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 2:26:53pm
All services provided without exchange of cash IA.
At times I traded services for security during less fortunate periods of life.
I always tried to exercise discretion on where these services were offered, not always with success.
Sometimes I have been paid for work.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
03 Jul 2008 3:33:50pm
IA, I think that was a challenge, dare ye take three steps and turn?
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
03 Jul 2008 8:24:00pm
It's a Zoolander thing...I cant turn left...
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
04 Jul 2008 11:41:45am
What is this ? A blog for ANTS ?
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
04 Jul 2008 1:29:06pm
What are ANTS?
Acronym, something intellectually small or an invertebrate?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 1:14:47am
It's possible Emmjay was referring to a long series of very short posts.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 111 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
07 Jul 2008 11:05:13pm
Sorry, it's an in-joke with IA - actually a quote from Zoolander. Borrow the DVD, otherwise it's too difficult to explain. Funny movie, though.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
04 Jul 2008 1:34:09pm
Here IA, I'll help you turn , Madeleine, hold fire a mo while I get back to the stands.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 4:23:27pm
Can I take a quick dishonourable shot to get him back over his 911 effort?
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:32:44pm
Madeleine
LOL!
Shoot away. No doubt it will end up being a grassy knoll conspiracy in a few years if your mates get hold of it.
You 911 troofers were just so funny. What was funnier was their lame attempt to take over the Q&A program on the ABC. They really are the Keystone Cops of the nutty conspiracy groups!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 10:19:08am
Don't label me IA. I was interested in reading the 911's point of view, considering it, and participating in discussion.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
05 Jul 2008 1:22:37pm
Madeleine
Oh please...
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 112 van 177
You announced in that forum that you were a 'believer'. C'mon, own your opinions.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 2:26:07pm
You might have missed a keyword. I carefully used the word "story" in respect of each account. I had decided that one "story" was more believable than the other.
I used the word carefully to illustrate that the story was all I had to work on, in each case, having made no effort to research the issue (apart from watching a lot of the referenced footage).
I acknowledge that the 911 troofers are likely to have put more effort over the intervening years to compile a credible "story", which may influence my capacity to find it believeable.
This is in contrast to the other group who seemed to have the "story" up and animated within a week or two after the event, and little more has come to my attention since (which doesn't mean it isn't there).
The experience of learning about the GM issue influenced my capacity to believe that disparate organisations could be capable of complete disregard for fellow human beings.
Reading the posts of Graeme Bird highlights that some individuals look to protect their race or group in competition to all others (nazi neocon I think some are called), and in many respects I value this protective response. In a threatening war I would like Graeme Birds to act. But I think we can do better.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
05 Jul 2008 11:35:47pm
Really interesting post Madeleine.
I started to type a long winded response but my guess is, you will believe hat you want and any words I type here wont amount to much. Maybe just remember that bogeymen usually arent real, even if we truly believe we do hear them under the bed.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
07 Jul 2008 10:27:27am
Thank you for your discretion IA. I wouldn't want to reply to it.
Both stories came with bogeymen. I have none under my bed, but my daughter has magic friends that live in the clouds. Sometimes I ask to to ask them if they know when it's going to rain.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
06 Jul 2008 1:30:28am
I have to disagree here. If the GBs in this world were to act in a war, and the
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 113 van 177
other side was to tell them something more palatable that gave them an out..
GB has some valid points, but in with them is either incredible misunderstanding, an irrational (yes that word) alternate reality or blatant evil deception. Given who I think he is, and I could be wrong, I suspect it isn't the first and hope it isn't the third.
I quite enjoyed IAs posts on 911, gave me something to smile about in with all those other posts. Still, it's a pity it got shut down, although was said the theme was well examined in 500 posts or so I suspect it never will be. Has me thinking that maybe one needs to have some distance to be able to consider things adequately and compose appropriate responses and for certain groups thats not possible.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 1:04:45pm
You're probably right with the GB hypothesis.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
03 Jul 2008 9:48:04pm
Madeline, been their done that...all GM involved listen and watch and see how to pull apart ,handle ,handle politically ,what angle to run with and run with publicly,basically summing up their opposition and formulating an offence. What's right or wrong will hardly come into it.The most the people will probably get out of this is an "I told you so "in a few years.You know how it goes---River systems and ecology falling apart,No commercial media giving air,loud and threatening rebuttals, health problems blamed on other and dismissed.Public paying to clean up the mess for a small section to retire soaked in millions of dollars.Then because a couple of commercial stations put a cunning 20 minutes on about it 10 years previously ,they beat their chests and take the credit for uncovering it- while the public still pay.
Reply Alert moderator
l Alert and alarmed :
02 Jul 2008 12:24:34pm
Mary McKay claims crop varieties have been proven to be safe since 1996. In 2000, GM maize entered the USW food chain and in 06/07 contamination of world exports of US rice resulted in a collapse of the industry there. Rice future prices fell by $150 million. Contaminated rice unfit for human consumption was found in over 30 countries. Farmers and suppliers paid the price not the large agribusinesses. All this in the light of Australia refusing to have sign up to the International United Nations Biosafety Protocol. Funny thing only US, Canada and Argentina refused to adopt the protocol which addresses concerns re the impacts of gmos contaminating the food chain. The current US economic plight can perhaps in part be attributed to the contamination of food supplies and the flow on costs having to be met by the little people.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 1:00:12pm
Maize / corn has proven the disagvantages to monocultures of the same species before, and it is
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 114 van 177
always possible that a single predator or pathogen can wipe out the lot since every plant has an identical capacity for defense or tolerance.
It is a risk we've taken since long before the Irish potato famine over 100 years ago, and it is a risk we'll continue to take well into the future.
For all the best laid plans there are always the unexpected random surprises and re-evaluations.
It is the only way we learn.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 1:02:51pm
"Contamination" is an emotive word.
Especially when all the while you are breathing contaminated air, drinking contaminated water, and fail to see the contaminated zoo of creatures living upon ones own thick skin.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 1:35:13am
For good reasons people also complain about contaminated air and contaminated water. The zoo of creatures on the skin (if balanced) is a sign of good health.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 12:15:40pm
Consumer guide to avoiding GM food
[After months of extensive search I've only seen one product in the supermarket labelled "genetically modified"]
First, the good news: Fruit and Vegies are GM free, as are all our cereal crops grown in Australia (until the GM canola gets away). We have wonderful delicious locally produced food and it’s worth celebrating.
- The only GM crop being grown in Australia at the moment is cotton, and only two products are for human consumption: cottonseed oil and cotton linters (may be in bulking agent 460), although the leftover insecticide producing cotton trash has been fed to animals.
- Find out what your chips are cooked in. “Formula 40― is GM cottonseed oil – most other brands will be GM.
- If you buy food labelled “Product of Australia― the “significant ingredients― will be sourced from Australia and (except for cotton) should be GM free - until the first crop of GM canola comes to seed.
Now the bad news: There is a lot of imported GM food coming into our country, mostly from the Americas. It is in Australian made and imported products on our supermarket shelves, and unfortunately is being fed to our animals from time to time.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 115 van 177
The main international GM crops are Soy, Corn, Canola and Cotton.
If you avoid ingredients from these crops, and products from animals fed on these crops, you and your family can avoid GM food, with a few small exceptions.
But a handful of soy flour or soy lecithin is thrown into almost every processed item on the supermarket shelves, so this cuts out a lot of your consumer choice.
You can either seize this opportunity to make delicious Anzac biscuits out of Australian ingredients, or you take the word of a producer.
Many producers have declared themselves GM-free, particularly those with a healthy image, and up- to-date lists will be available soon. Arnotts and Goodman Fielder are two such companies.
Ring the information numbers on the packaging. You have to ask the question “Were any of the ingredients derived from a genetically modified crop?― and persist until you get a direct answer.
- GM corn can be in your food under many names – maize starch/syrup, corn starch/syrup, glucose syrup(corn), maltodextrin, thickener – think laterally.
- Watch out for the cotton products, canola from the Americas (and from Australia in a few months), sugar from beets and potato starch.
There is no way to recognise animal products fed on GM – labeling at all ends is grossly inadequate - ask your butcher or local producer. Until things improve, buying grass-fed meat and organic dairy and poultry is the only way to be sure.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 1:08:09pm
"Until things improve, buying grass-fed meat and organic dairy and poultry is the only way to be sure."
Yet you will buy stuff cheaper if you just don't care.
Madeleine, I'd simply prefer to get down and dirty and exercise my immune system than to treat myself like fragile crystal wrapped up in paranoid delight in cotton wool.
Fact is, no one wants to kill off their customer base, or make said customer base sick and angry enough to litigate them into fiscal oblivion.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
02 Jul 2008 5:03:04pm
It's so funny when people talk about 'grass-fed' and organic as though this offers some sort of magical protection.
Madeleine, you really ought to look behind the greenwash. Everyone in the meat industry knows organic is a joke - a great way to get more money from mug punters in the city.
Here's a little test. Count up the properties that are certified organic. Work out the expected amount of product available as organic. Then get the retail figures on the amount that is sold as organic. Spot the discrepancy?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 116 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:16:12am
Just because the GM companies are deceptive doesn't mean everyone else is.
I know the advice I was giving would limit availability, and hence my own chance for well-being, but this is what is fair and right to do. Coles ran out of organic milk after I posted that advice in letterboxes in town. Hopefully there will be market pressure for more low pesticide (and hopefully GM-free) products.
I'm really lucky to have a butcher in the street behind me whose beef and mutton are grass fed and raised on understocked paddocks - no hormones, no GM, carcass hung for three weeks. She is her own outlet and is a gourmet supplier.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:09:40am
Doc Mercury,
I don't care at all if you eat GM. Hoe in! My position is that people are being deceived into buying food they otherwise wouldn't.
With respect to dirt, I'm down and dirty in the carrot patch every day, we eat them fresh with residual dirt and cook and eat them skin on.
GM isn't dirt. You will not be exercising your immune system by getting down and dirty with it. Just ask the little CSIRO mice what happened when they ate a pea that FSANZ would have approved.
"Transgenic Expression of Bean a-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in altered Structure and Immunogenicity", Prescott VE et al, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 9023-9030
Suddenly their immune system recognized previously harmless substances as threats. This is the point with the massive increase in food allergies. Nothing in the hygiene hypothesis can explain the experience here in Australia.
The supermarkets can't make decisions on whether they will make their customer base sick. The consumption of unlabelled food is difficult to evaluate.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
03 Jul 2008 9:51:27pm
Ah yes, the captive audience.Freedom.The freedom to monopilise under a thousand excuses.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
03 Jul 2008 3:43:54am
"...Until things improve, buying grass-fed meat and organic dairy and poultry is the only way to be sure.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 117 van 177
..."
Where did the term 'organic' come from?
Surely, nobody eats in-organic dairy.... -or in-organic poultry....
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
03 Jul 2008 11:56:07pm
Yes, be intersting to trace back the origins of that term. Big O Organic seems to now mean anything produced without synthetic fertiliser/pesticide etc inputs. Little o organic still should maen what is always did, and it would be very hard to eat a non - carbon based lifeform.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
07 Jul 2008 1:29:26am
"... Yes, be intersting to trace back the origins of that term. Big O Organic seems to now mean anything produced without synthetic fertiliser/pesticide etc inputs. Little o organic still should maen what is always did, and it would be very hard to eat a non - carbon based lifeform. ...."
'Organic' is such a 'good' and 'positive' word.
(Of course some proteins are both 'organic' and very toxic.)
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
07 Jul 2008 6:24:36pm
Why choose it over any othe good and happy word though?
Couldn't they just as easily have called it "weekend" produce?
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 12:11:11pm
Genetic engineering of plant genome is easier than for animal genome.
Vegetative DNA repeats coding sequences in a manner in which animal DNA does not, and is consequentlier less dependent upon precise splicing in of additional or substitute DNA coding.
All genetic engineering, and DNA sequencing and ID matching, relies at some point in its procedure and investigative process, upon retriction enzymes donated by bacteria which are known to cut DNA at precise points along its nucleotide base sequence.
The RE are produced by bacteria as part of their immune system against virus, whereby invading virus
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 118 van 177
have their DNA sliced into impotent segments and made harmless to the bug and digested or excreted.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 11:57:13am
"Two reports from the University of Melbourne have also predicted positive results from the uptake of GM canola in Australia."
We understand that Melbourne University received $7.5 million funding from Monsanto to establish a biotech lab. Many of the ag researcher at Melbourne Uni have received funding from the biotech companies for their research. Independence questionable.
Reply Alert moderator
n I like Chemistry :
06 Jul 2008 9:42:41pm
When science loses its independence It no longer serves social need And is no longer truly science at all
IMHO
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 11:53:39am
"Canada's GM canola is also finding ready markets."
In 2005 Canada's main export markets were Japan, USA, and Mexico. Canada and Mexico suffer for their geographical position (currently the whole of North America is dismantling regulation - one great North American continent), and Japan is not beyond pressure.
How do you feel about selling your grain to people who sell their product to consumers who wouldn't buy it (or would buy at a reduced price) if they knew the crop origins?
You don't feel guilty about deceiving Australian shoppers, mostly women?
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
02 Jul 2008 5:55:46pm
Canola is from a brassica isnt it, not a grain?
Perhaps understanding exactly what it is we are paranoid about would be a good first step, then, carry on with the paranoia.
Good luck. Bob
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 119 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:20:26am
Bob the Beard Stroker!! Yes it is a brassica.
For marketing and sales purposes canola is treated as a grain. Canola is a grain to the GRDC and Graincorp and every grain organisation in Australia and that's sufficient for the purpose addressed.
There is no paranoia. I am demanding openness and accountability from those who wish to profit by deception.
Reply Alert moderator
n bob the beard stroker :
03 Jul 2008 1:19:46pm
A fair answer, although I much more enjoyed taking the mickey than admitting it!
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 11:43:47am
"According to a grower survey conducted by the Canola Council of Canada, farmers chose to grow GM canola for easier and better weed control, better yields and reduced costs"
Farmers in Canada don't have uncontaminated non-GM choices and non-GM markets are not open to them. None the less many Canadians chose to grow the contaminated non-GM crops in preference - for yield, profit, or philosophical reasons I understand.
The one positive of the GM systems mentioned by the anti-GM Canadian farmers visiting Australia is that it allows a slightly bigger window of spraying opportunity because of the winter snow problem. The costs of belonging to the GM system are very high though.
Reply Alert moderator
l Conce :
02 Jul 2008 11:29:57am
http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2006/concurrent/systems/4591_yeates.htm Using Roundup Ready® varieties increased the relative costs by $39/ha due to the difference between the licence fee and the saving in herbicide cost.
Reply Alert moderator
l Conrad :
02 Jul 2008 9:56:28am
I suggest you read the following about glyphosate:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 120 van 177
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html
In summary no dangerous effects whatsoever on non-plant species even in very high doses.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 10:29:42am
Then add the adjuvants to the glyphosate. Read this study and accompanying editorial comment.
Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells; Richard S et al; Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 113, No 6 June 2005, pp716-720
Roundup Revelation – Weed Killer Adjuvants May Boost Toxicity, Bonn D, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 113, No 6, June 2005, pA403-404
Reply Alert moderator
l Concerned :
02 Jul 2008 9:53:50am
Our government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research, patenting and now marketing of GM so of course they would want to see a profit at the end. But little do these short sited politicians realize that GM will not only make farmers broke with the fees that increase each year dramatically and the compulsory pesticide use, it will make the economy broke. As in other countries farmers have walked off the land because of GM costs. So what happens when we have no farmers on the land of OZ except the GM farmers? We have to import most of our food. The economy will collapse. Food prices will skyrocket and the farmers that are left on the land will increase their pesticide use exponentially as it has in other countries which the consumer will have to pay. Their costs would increase as the cost of their seed and fertilizer that they now have to buy from the GM companies will continually rise and if Argentina and India is anything to go by, it will increase fourfold within one year as soon as every farmer is contaminated.
There is clear evidence that there is a problem with the safety of GM and the more independent research that is done and the more the integrity based scientists that look at the GM scientific papers done so far, the more it shows that it is manipulated science to get results in favour of GM. Wake up Australia and say No! This is a great marketing campaign that does nothing for our economy, farmers or consumers. If you plant GM, there is no way you will ever get it out of your soil as it lays dormant. You cannot change your mind when the evidence comes to light on how dangerous it is. We don’t want it as consumers and the majority of farmers do not either.
Reply Alert moderator
l Greg Revell :
02 Jul 2008 9:33:42am
You can tell Maree McKay's been to her Monsanto accreditation course as she faithfully trots out all the "old workhorse" arguments for GM, which under basic scrutiny simply don't stand up. Other commentators have pointed out some already. Lets address some others:
"state govt bans ... have prevented farmers from acessing these new varieties ...(we now) have the opportunity to assess their performance now".
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 121 van 177
Independent Plant Variety trials (IPV) are the standard and independent way to test new variety performance. GM companies have refused to submit their seeds to IPV. Why? Do they know something we don't?
"(In Nth America)... farmers chose to grow GM canola for easier and better weed control."
The rural press is currently overflowing with stories of epidemics of glyphosate resistance in Canada and U.S, so much so that Monsanto has instructed its farmers to till and apply a pre-emergent herbicide to combat weed resistance. Not surprisingly, Monsanto's agrichemical division has just posted record profits!
"According to a long-term trial undertaken by Professor Jim Pratley at Charles Sturt University..."
What is not disclosed is the fact that Monsanto funded this study. Integrity nil.
"The ABARE has reported that the potential benefits of GM canola.".
This report is the stuff of fantasy. All claims were based on the ludicrous assumption that all farmers would adopt GM canola in the first year, therefore they could exclude segregation costs!ABARE's march estimate of GM benefits stated $912m. Three mths later, the benefits are apparently $8,500m!! Thats a lot of zeroes in just 3 mths! Integrity nil.
And lets not forget the ultimate aribiter - the consumers. No matter which way you slice and dice the numbers, one fact stands out above all else - consumers do not want GM food!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 10:39:50am
And the consumer is me, and every other consumer I speak to when they realize they've been deceived into buying GM products. Integrity nil.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 9:33:18am
"...Canadian farmers have been growing GM canola since 1996 and these varieties now represent around 85 per cent of the country's canola crop."
The Canadian farmers had no choice about shifting to GM. There was a deep shortage of non-GM seed, within a few years the non-GM seed bases were contaminated, and there was no non-GM market for Canada to sell to.
One of the Canadian farmers telling his story to Australian farmers said that he had saved large amounts of seed before GM canola came in.
He is still now planting this original seed, years later. He knows it is GM-free when he plants it, but with all the pollen flying around he doesn't know what it is when he sells it.
But at least he doesn't have to pay a $15 licence fee to Monsanto for accidentally carrying genes in some of his seed. And of course he doesn't have to buy seed from Monsanto year after year.
He told everyone a joke about his situation...
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 122 van 177
"There were two farmers hanging onto the edge of the Titanic as it slid into the sea. One farmer said to the other "I think I'll let go". The other farmer said "I think I'll keep hanging on until she comes back up again"."
Nobody laughed.
Reply Alert moderator
l Joon :
02 Jul 2008 8:18:09am
Eating genetically modified (GM) food may give you cancer. That is the stark warning made recntly in Scotland from one of their leading experts in tissue diseases.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 10:25:58am
Use of the word "may" does not consist of a "stark" warning.
Living beyond your use-by date WILL cause biological degenerative diseases, from wrinkles to brain shrinkage, from arthritis to cancer.
That is a "stark" warning.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 2:23:36am
"[Canada] have had access to GM canola for more than a decade"
We hardly started growing canola until Canada went GM. Our production in the five years before 1996 was about 1/6 of our production in the five years from 1999. It's like every farmer in Australia thought they'd grab a share off Canada.
No wonder a Canadian farmer was out here trying to pursuade Australian farmers to go GM. Why would a Canadian farmer be trying to help us take Canada's GM market off them? Just kind? Or trying to limit the non-GM competition. I asked him what his motives could be.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 2:10:25am
"Our competitors overseas..."
Our competitor overseas is France - the other major non-GM canola producer. They will be laughing because we will no longer pose a challenge to their non-GM market.
We used to compete with Canada, but when Canada went GM, Europe closed off to them and now
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 123 van 177
grow their own. Mexico (south of the north american buddy system) seems to have soaked up Canada's unwanted GM. Canada's farmers went broke - they were on the streets demanding subsidies, and got them.
Our exports into the non-GM market increased 5 fold between 1996 and the year 2000 (FAO statistics). Production is variable (depending on land planted and drought etc) but in 2005 Canada exported 4 million tonnes, France exported 1.4, Aus exported 0.85, and our closest rival Germany exported 0.25.
GM canola oil is labelled GM in Europe, so we won't be selling GM there. Japan is clearly desperate for non-GM. Perhaps Mexico will soak it up.
We shouldn't be selling it to the developing UNLABELLED.
Reply Alert moderator
l yen :
02 Jul 2008 12:34:30am
Has anybody defined GM?
-exactly?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 10:37:23am
Well, yes. With respect to food assessment (one of my main areas of concern) the World Health Organisation's Codex Alimentarius defined it as follows in their "The Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology", CAC/GL 44-203
"Modern Biotechnology" means the application of:
i) In Vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or
ii) Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family,
that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombinant barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 12:03:11pm
Most basically of all Madeleine, biotechnology relies upon restriction enzymes produced by bacteria (as a defence against viral attack upon said bacteria), which can cut DNA at precise points of nucleotide base sequence.
It is this ability to cut DNA precisely from which all else in biotechnology has derived.
The natural restrictive enzymes of bacteria, and the ability to amplify and increase DNA samples by PCR through the use of heat tolerant DNA polymerase from etremophile bacteria near volcanic vents.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 124 van 177
We owe bacteria for biotechnology, as much as we owe Crick and coy...
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 12:29:12pm
The existing (old tech) GM crops were created by two methods.
The GM canola much discussed was created with an agrobacterium. At first they believed the infection into the host DNA was random (although they used the word insertion to make it sound good). Later they learnt that the infections were more likely to occur at defined places in the DNA (transposons and other forgotten for now) and I understand this comes with risk.
The other involved bombardment of the host DNA by small particles of metal such as gold, coated with the required "insertions". Occasionally it worked, but in the case of RR soy (40-3-2), other partial insertions occured as well. They don't know what bits have been knocked out. See the FSANZ reports. This is not precise science.
I haven't read much about the newer methods of transfection - I just read a Norwegian study where human cells were transfected with the CaMV virus - I don't know if they still use agrobacterium. Happy to have a further reference or wikipedia will have something.
Reply Alert moderator
l spinna :
01 Jul 2008 11:35:55pm
Facts. Canola itself started out in Canada as a GM modified rapeseed crop (it's been stated elsewhere Canadian companies paid the US FDA US$50 million for its mass market approval). By the way the very same FDA has recently approved cloned meat and milk for human consumption - fancy a medium-rare chop from Dolly The Sheep's loin, anyone? Rapeseed in its prime state is toxic to human beings - hence its use as the basis of manufacture for mustard gas in World War 1. There have been no controlled, rigorous health checks on long-term effects on humans of consuming GM canola (or any other allegedly safe GM crops or organisms). Heck, ask yourself, exactly how long have these GM products been around? Our family steadfastly boycotts all such products and foods (many of which are deliberately mis-labelled for minimum accountability and contravention of the intent of A&NZ food labelling laws); so does most of the developed world, including Japan and Europe. The only proponents are powerful corporations from the USA and Germany. These corporations have been mounting a cunning and incessant marketting assault for some time, including enlisting the support of such organizations as our own CSIRO. Australians are complete mugs for swallowing this sales pitch. Economically, biologically and physiologically Australians will inevitably count the huge longer-term costs of this folly, foisted upon us by Monsanto and Bayer. This is about controlling the world's food supply and seed supply, allied to rapacious profiteering from those companies' complementary herbicide and pesticide products. Agriculturally and economically Australians could be benefitting from our inherent clean and clean advantages with increased exports. (For example, individual Japanese buyers visit Australia to buy, on average, around 150,000 tonne of organic rice at a time, and come away with only around 2,000 tonne. Here there is enormous unmet demand and it's growing. The Japanese offer 5 and 6 times the price of standard rice per tonne.) In the US, owing to GM cropping and other environmental factors, we are witnessing signs of biological disasters already - inexplicable, massive, widespread devastation of bee colonies. Bees are our link with the natural pollination of citrus and other crops. US agriculture is suffering as a result. Epidemiological data from the US reflects poor nutritional and health outcomes, including alarmingly elevated rates of cancer, vascular diseases, obesity, diabetes etc. Sounds familiar? Consequently organic produce is currently the biggest growth sector in the US retail food sector. Consumers are voting with their wallets. All surveys of Australian consumers I've seen emphatically reject the notion of GM food (response rates of 90% and above). Contemptible, isn't it, that certain inept and corrupt politicians in NSW, Victoria and at the
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 125 van 177
Federal level conspicuously undermine the public interest by legislating and endorsing GM crops?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 12:09:17pm
I think this whole matter was given legs by the Canadian court descision that saw an open opportunity for some of Canada's woes.The whole thing based on monetary descisions, opening a can of worms, and supplying an open view of how peoples lives and government manipulation takes place.i wonder if the court descision would be the same under today's circumstances and knowledge.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 10:52:41pm
"...to gather the practical information needed in relation to the agronomic and commercial aspects of the crop..."
It sounds like accreditation classes to drive 200km/hour on the road, forget everyone else. The wind can't be stopped. Is someone going to be riding shotgun around the crop 24 hours a day to stop the birds taking the seed?
This isn't just about you. Farmers around the country are going to have to learn (on your account) how to test whether YOUR pollen and YOUR seed has ended up in their crop. And the available test kits aren't particularly good. We have to pay more at supermarkets to cover all of the costs created by your privelege, for our USUAL FOOD.
Have you read the report on Contamination in Canada? 32 out of 33 non-GM seed banks in Western Canada are contaminated with GM seed.
Everyone else has to dodge you on this road.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 10:23:35pm
"In March, we attended an accreditation course ..."
Have you, or anyone close to you, attended a non-GM forum to learn uninterested information? We have found that the majority of farmers such as yourself have not given themselves the opportunity to learn of the full story.
It was very enlightening to hear the non-GM story from the Canadian farmers who presented at Corowa, and also to witness the pro-GM story from the Canadian farmer who presented at Dookie.
It's important to be fully informed. Take the clues from the majority of Australian people, and people round the world.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 126 van 177
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 10:18:53pm
"...a small number of us will finally have the opportunity to grow GM canola and judge its performance for ourselves"
If you allow that crop to go to seed it is not just a one-year job to 'see how it goes'.
You will have residual GM canola seed in your ground for up to 10 years. Year after year you'll have to spray with a stronger herbicide than Roundup to get rid of the volunteers.
You will not be GM free again until the full 10 years has expired (and it could be longer). Do you not have the possibility of forming a supply contract with non-GM Goodman Fielder or GM-free Coles in the meantime?
There is a continuous risk of product contamination (your GM canola seed from volunteers getting mixed up with your wheat) - many markets have zero tolerance. I will be looking for wheat products made from SA and WA wheat, and will encourage manufacturers to buy this wheat.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 10:28:35pm
"... There is a continuous risk of product contamination (your GM canola seed from volunteers getting mixed up with your wheat) - many markets have zero tolerance. I will be looking for wheat products made from SA and WA wheat, and will encourage manufacturers to buy this wheat. ...."
Rape seed has been grown next to wheat before.
Wheat has been grown in fields that had had rape seed before.
Nobody suggested that it would 'get into the wheat' before the GM debate.
So, why would the canola?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 10:22:08am
The non-GM canola does get into the wheat which is the issue. Go to the Network of Concerned Farmers website to see the photos
When the GM canola gets into the wheat the zero tolerance markets will be challenge. People who don't want to eat GM, don't even want to eat a 'tolerated by the regulators' amount of it.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 10:08:28pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 127 van 177
"...but state government bans across the country, based on market issues, have prevented farmers from accessing these new plant varieties until now"
Maree, WA and SA and TAS have kept their bans on growing GM canola (not relevant in QLD or NT - too hot) to PROTECT the interests of farmers, trading economy, and consumers.
Have you not stopped to wonder why the VIC and NSW governments have lifted their bans against the wishes of the vast majority of farmers, consumers, marketers, Australians?
NSW isn't my speciality, but Victoria is heavily invested into the biotechnology industry. Who has supplied the techniques? Who has supplied the funding for their "gold digging" exploration? Premier Brumby is deeply connected to the Biotech industry - he is not connected to farmers - just ask the PLUG THE PIPE people. Who wants to drain the Murray and irrigation systems for Melbourne?
Since when has the Labor cared for farmers? You are being used as their excuse. If you are a genuine farmer with no financial, business, power or social capital to lose on this issue, you would've been in farming long enough to know motivations of governments.
You know that Tasmania has tripled it's planting of canola to service the non-GM needs of Japan. The South West of Western Australia has also greatly increased it's planting.
Perhaps you'll be selling to the US biofuel market (so much for world hunger) but it's the mess Monsanto's product will create along the way that is the greatest trouble.
Reply Alert moderator
l harquebus :
01 Jul 2008 9:58:48pm
This is the same mind set that gave us DDT, PCB's, CFC's and Agent Orange. The only beneficiaries are big business. eg. Monsanto. Consumers will ultimately pay. This is a bad move Maree.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 9:42:33pm
"...Two GM canolas were approved for commercial use by Australia's federal gene technology regulator in 2003 following a rigorous, science-based assessment..."
From the 2003 Senate Estimates Hansard: (Dr Meek, the Gene Technology Regulator is being questioned by Senators.)
Senator CHERRY You are not requiring any independent, totally arms-length assessments or considerations of issues like biodiversity or food safety.
Dr Meek Food safety, I think we have already established, is outside of the remit. It is Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
Senator CHERRY What does human health mean under your act then?
Dr Meek It can be things to do with occupational health and safety issues. For example, as I said earlier,
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 128 van 177
exposure to the crop. If the GM version of that crop is likely to, for some reason, be more allergenic than a non-GM, that is something we would look at. It is human health outside the food side of things.
As you see, although the Object of the Gene Technology Act reads...
"The object of this Act is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with GMOs"
...the GTR said that the safety of food arising from gene technology was not her business.
But as far as we know the OGTR also initiated no studies to determine whether the GM crop and associated regime for Monsanto's GM canola is safe for farmers. In the words of one farmer I know "If GM canola was so dangerous that it stabbed you as you walked past, [the GTR] would just tell you to wear protective clothing".
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ, was ANZFA) also used no science to assess the safety of the food from your crop Maree.
If you browse through the Final Risk Assessment Document you will read that the 27 studies put forward all came from Monsanto - the company with the commercial interest. This is not science.
Science involves vigorous, transparent, peer-reviewed work supported by independent funding (and when I say independent funding I don't mean Government funding in the situation where the Government has heavy biotechnology investment). Company advocacy science can be taken into account, but with the transparency of inherent bias.
Is Cadbury chocolate good for you? Cadbury scientists say YES!! Is smoking harmful for you? Philip Morris says NO! Is Monsanto's RR canola safe to eat? Monsanto says YES!
And Food Standards ANZ says, OK then, and we won’t label it so they’ll still buy it and you’ll be able to make profits by deception.
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
01 Jul 2008 8:51:46pm
Given that we've a bit more technical nous than when we were buying panacea made of tinctures of radium, I'm prepared in 2008 (about 80 years later than the radium snake oil) to take an acceptable risk.
Life is resilient.
As a matter of course, things are juggling around bits of DNA within and without, swapping, replicating, splicing, and synthesising proriens from out of its coding, in a rush to perform better against whatever odds are thrown against it.
The probability for genetic disaster is probably greater through random DNA replication failure in sexual reproduction (congenital disorder) or during cellular replacement within tissues (cancer), than via passage by genetically engineered clones of other species than our own.
We're not talking military grade, genetically engineered virus here.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 129 van 177
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 9:11:55am
That's what they thought about tinctures of radium Doc.
We're only just learning about DNA. At the time these GM crops were created it was thought that genes were independent blocks of lego. We now know about alternative splicing and suppression of gene expression (agouti mice).
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 10:28:16am
Madeleine, the potential exists for prions in sheep/lamb brains and in raw egg to cause serious damage too.
It you want to avoid risk, I suggest you employ someone to ointment your bed sores and stay in bed permanently.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 2:06:43pm
If we could ONLY go to bed... we're looking after children.
This is a completely unneccessary adjunct to the food chain which enriches chemical companies, impoverishes farmers who need subsidies to continue, and in our yet to be proved or disproved view has already caused immeasurable and irreversible harm to the welfare of Australian children.
Serious allergic hospital admissions up 493%. Food allergy consultations up 1200%. Hygiene hypothesis can't explain it.
Serious food allergy admissions decreased in the UK after full GM labelling, rates half of ours. Rates lower in Norway where GM is banned from the major supermarkets and there was full televised public debate between 1996-2000. Kids barely suffer - mostly drunk young adults who eat dodgy takeaway food.
I was an at-home mother in 1996 and we didn't need to ask their parents about allergies. In 2008 it's the first question we ask when children come over - Do they have any allergies? (what can they have for afternoon tea? - do I have to clean the house of nuts?)
This f**ks up the life of mothers and won't do any good for the long term health economics of Australia.
You know the TJ Higgins CSIRO study - no-one has checked to see if the same thing is happening to our children.
I don't like people profiting by deception.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:37:44pm
Classic case of confusing correlation and causation.
100% of people who breath also die! Breathing must cause death!
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 130 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 10:35:52pm
"... Serious allergic hospital admissions up 493%. Food allergy consultations up 1200%. Hygiene hypothesis can't explain it. ...."
It's probably caused by fluorine poisoning playing havoc with the body's immune system.
And the increase in diabetes is probably caused by fluorine destroying the pancreas.
Both problems started at the same time as fluoridation of the drinking water.
-and before GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 1:55:20am
I've looked at lots of things, fluoride isn't one of them. I don't know the epidemiology of exposure to flouride in the Australian population. Give me a reference if you have one.
I imagine it's been fairly stable for some years in respect of the urban populations, and seems an unlikely explanation for the increase in allergies in respect of the detail of the allergy increase.
I wasn't specific enough - the 493% referred to the increase in the 0-4 age group over the period 1995-2005. There would have to have been an increasing exposure to flouride over this period in this young age group, or [perhaps] some sort of increasing dysfunction in maternal capacity to bear children with moderate immune response.
Is there a proposed mechanism at all for fluoride and allergy? There is one for GM, which has been verified in the CSIRO pea GM tests on mice.
Send your references. But in the meantime, hold the GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
07 Jul 2008 10:12:49pm
"... Send your references. But in the meantime, hold the GM. ...."
1. I haven't got any references with respect to fluorine and the problems mentioned above.
2. The dentists claim that fluorine is good for children's teeth.
3. The dentists also claim that fluorine has no poisonous side effects. However, dentists know about as much about people's pancreas, heart, bones, thyroid, liver, stomach, etc. as they know about foot and mouth disease in wild boars: That is: What they pick up at random through newspapers.
4. Politicians are convinced that they can save money on the health budget by giving fluorine to everybody so children will have better teeth.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 131 van 177
5. Politicians are unlikely to give money to research into harmful effects of fluorine.
6. Fluorine is a waste-product from the industry. The industry is obviously glad to sell it instead of having to pay to get rid of it.
7. The industry is - obviously - not interested in giving money to research into harmful effects of fluorine.
8. Fluorine is chemically related to chlorine, with a couple of differences. Ionized chlorine is part of natural stomach acid. Fluorine is not. Fluorine is very reactive. The acid HF corrodes glass. Fluorine ions will no doubt do interesting things to people's stomach. Fluorine compounds will no doubt do interesting things in several places of the human body.
9. The problems you mention, Madeleine, actually started *before* GM. But after fluoridation of tap-water, and tooth paste. -and fluorine tablets.
10. But neither governments nor industry are interested in research in the area.
Reply Alert moderator
l dan :
01 Jul 2008 7:49:47pm
just like nuclear proponents, gm proponents uses other environmental issues (ie climate change) to justify their use of bad technology where's everyone else's choice to not farm gm canola, considering how easy it mixes and contaminates the seed bank, oh well too late now thanks maree and the other 120 farmers for contaminating our food supply, so sorry that those concerned about this held you up on your new profit venture
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
02 Jul 2008 9:27:12am
Dan, if it were proven that the chemicals coming off your car were causing cancers, would anyone stop driving?
About as many who would give up booze if the same were proven of that.
Personally, I believe in giving people all the rope they need to hang themselves, and then tidying up afterward.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 10:47:49am
Tidying up afterwards. Doc - do you know how big canola seeds are? "Tidying up" GM canola is about trying to separate the brown 100's&1000's from the other brown 100's&1000's amongst the dirt.
Read Canada's experience:GE Canola – Out of control in Canada (fully referenced)
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/GE/ge-canola-out-of- control-in.pdf Accessed 26/3/08
And remember that Australian's are not known for precision.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 132 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:39:38pm
Oh snap!
You actually referenced Greenpeace. Greenpeace? They make Monsanto look like saints.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
05 Jul 2008 10:25:29am
Greenpeace was the organisation with the funds to compile the independent peer reviewed studies which are fully referenced, many of which I had independently found through Pubmed - look them up for yourself.
It's important to access all information sources, including those at sites such as gmopundit, without personal bias.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
05 Jul 2008 1:30:25pm
Madeleine
Here's the problem. When the group you reference starts with the objective of 'how can we destroy the GM industry' then everything they do, everything they write is tainted.
Having had experience with these sorts of groups, they absolutely love well meaning and kind hearted people like you. You are the perfect vector for transmittal.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 1:55:52am
Tell me all the bad things that Greenpeace has done to you.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
07 Jul 2008 9:52:35am
Greenpeace once attempted to interfere with the deployment of Australian military forces. For this act alone the entire organisation should be banned from Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 133 van 177
07 Jul 2008 11:37:58pm
Tell me why you think Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola is a great idea Cricket.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 10:20:03am
"Tell me why you think Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola is a great idea Cricket."
Duh! It's high-yielding, high in oil content, allows excellent weed control and enables farmers to reduce their input costs. This is just the first step in the technology, of course. We're already seeing developments in GM crops towards better tolerance of environmental stresses such as drought and frost, along with developments in quality attributes such as oil types.
On a personal note, GM canola also incenses tree-huggers. Anything which does that has GOT to be a great idea.
Reply Alert moderator
l David L :
01 Jul 2008 7:49:00pm
I still have some reservations with GMOs and not just as food crops. It may be my fears are totally unfounded, and GMO food will prove to be our saviour in the next century, but I really hope that the legislators and administrators still insist on a period of intensive monitoring and evaluation during and after this trial, and with any new crop, to see just where it turns up and in what form.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:59:27pm
"..120 farmers from NSW and Victoria excited to be involved in the small-scale roll-out of Australia's first genetically modified (GM) canola varieties.."
Only one variety has been rolled out (Monsanto's). Bayer aren't ready.
Reply Alert moderator
l Arthur 1 :
01 Jul 2008 6:58:47pm
Is it true that Japan is buying GM canola?
I thought there was adelegation from Japan recently practically begging Australian farmers not grow to GM food.
I would be happy about it if those big US firms were not pushing it so hard,the very idea that Farmers can't keep seed to plant from one year to another,strikes me as being a multi national closed shop,if that were a Trade Union operating in that manner,the sky would seen to be falling in,and life as we know it would end
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 134 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 12:03:37pm
Tobacco was run the same way. The farmers had to buy seedlings every year.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 10:21:20am
Yes it's true. Japan imported about 2.3 million tonnes of canola in 2007 (Australian Grain Yearbook 2008). About 85% of this was from Canada and considered entirely GM.
Reply Alert moderator
l Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:54:44pm
OK everyone. Sorry I was late. But there are benefits in waiting to see the whites of their eyes.
Reply Alert moderator
n Tomokatu :
02 Jul 2008 8:52:01am
Go in hard. You have the lead.
Reply Alert moderator
l Arthur 1 :
01 Jul 2008 6:52:15pm
Anybody heard of the cane toad?
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 3:25:13pm
Bufo marinaris?
I have, but not quite sure which way you are running here.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 135 van 177
02 Jul 2008 4:00:47pm
I think Arthur's echoing something I wrote about ten metres of text south of here :-)
Meaning - once it's out, there's no practical way to get it back - if the need arises.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 5:05:48pm
Have faith Emmjay and Arthur,
Someone WILL invest ENORMOUS effort on a GM specific bio-control, and GE will give us winged piglets.
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
03 Jul 2008 9:16:17am
David L I do have faith in the human ability to succeed.THe cane toad is a perfect example of humans at their worst.Fortunately there are thousands of examples where they prevail,polio,smallpox etc.
But what if these programs are being run by morons like the Bin ladens,George Bush and similar cohorts,then we may be in for a few surprises. There are plenty of other examples of cane toad like problems.Maccas Australia all over program had a poem read out one day about all the bad cane toad like experiments,hindsight of course but very interesting.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:22:19am
We already have glow in the dark piglets so I'm sure wings are coming.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
03 Jul 2008 3:35:06pm
I think there would be more money in extra ribs, although a buffalo with wings could find a market.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 11:00:29am
Remember the one about the farmer who had bred three-legged chickens because of the demand for drumsticks?
"How do they taste?"
"Stuffed if I know - I haven't been able to catch one yet."
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 136 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
l Scott Kinnear :
01 Jul 2008 6:37:18pm
I genuinely feel for the farmers who struggle to remain competitive in Australia. However there is a lot of hype surrounding GM canola from both sides. I implore all farmers who feel like Kay that this will be their savior in a glabally competitive world to be mindful that what they grow must be in demand by the end user. There is a huge lack of research into the health risks of GM foods including GM canola.
However the small body of evidence (which has been attacked by the pro GM groups) that concerns me greatly. There are a number of smoking guns out there and as the saying goes, "where there is smoke there is fire".
Fortunately there are attempts happenning across the world to conduct research into the long term impacts from eating GM foods. Until then everyone who says, "Millions of Americans have been eating these foods with no evidence of harm" should really stop and think carefully. There is not one population health study anywhere in the world that has looked at disease progression in Nth America in relation to the consumption of GM foods. Sure there are a tiny number of short term animal studies that we can confidently say mean that the GM feeds studied enabled the animals to put on weight. A key requirement to be able to sell the GM crop to farmers for animal feed production. To attempt to suggest that these foods have had no impact on millions of americans (or Australians) is grossly misleading and immoral. Sometimes these claims come out of the mouths of so called respectable scientists to my great dismay and disappointment.
As an agricultural science graduate majoring in biochemistry, I am horrified at our cavalier attitude to genetic manipulation.
And I have not addressed the solutions to many of hte worlds' problems of food and water shortages and long term soil sustainability.
I am out of time to go into detail suffice to say that biological activity in soils is so important in building resilience in food production systems, better soil structure and water holding capacity and ultimately healthier foods. Organic farmers are committed to enhancing biological activities in soils and we will gain far more in solving our global food problems by paying attention to soils than to GM crops designed for corporate, mono culture factory farming techniques.
Reply Alert moderator
l IB :
01 Jul 2008 4:24:31pm
Such usage of GM is bad science. It reminds me of the children's poem: There was an old woman who swallowed a spider, ... She swallowed the spider to catch the fly, ... She swallowed the bird to catch the spider, ... More expensive seeds then more chemicals. The worst thing about such technology is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. On that basis alone it should never be allowed. Many biologists who are involved in GM are also appalled by such usage of GM science, and find that their own better motivated science gets tarnished with the same brush.
Reply Alert moderator
l Ankelbita :
01 Jul 2008 4:09:15pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 137 van 177
I won't purchase anything with canola in it...or any other GM food (if so labelled).
Reply Alert moderator
l Doug Lavers :
01 Jul 2008 2:38:31pm
Canola oil does not contain any protein or DNA, and hence it cannot matter from the point of view of genetic modification to the consumer. Non GM canola oil should be identical chemically to GM canola oil.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
01 Jul 2008 4:17:30pm
Before Canola was invented and it was still called rapeseed, i think it was the glycosucinates? that were a problem. Affect the hormones and endocrine system?.I'd wonder what misbalances have been left by taking the glyco's away.The plant had them for a reason and now "someone" has adultered it again.Canola and rapeseed is still heavily advertised today as having high protein value for poultry and aviary birds to balance carbohydrates.I believe the Roller canary's song has suffered from change of diet to canola from rape.They are losing intensity in the song and beat and the "stutter"(thyroid perhaps?).Many have been fed little more than rapeseed for a couple of centuries.If monsanto's grain took the heat off the environment and animal cruelty problems by way of substituting meat diets by coming up with a plant protein that covers a decent spectrum, one may NEARLY be able to live with the current situation but according to you Doug it does'nt even do that.
Reply Alert moderator
n Binko :
01 Jul 2008 7:26:46pm
Canola is actually means 'Canadian oil'. It was bred from rapeseed to remove erucic acid. Erucic acid is a fatty acid (oil component) which causes heart disease in rats.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 10:35:14am
And chemical imbalances Binko?
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
02 Jul 2008 12:02:24pm
I looked it up on the net.Glucosyanates. Rapeseed was high in it and Canola is lower.Wiki says it has medium proteins in a big way.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 138 van 177
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 10:33:43am
Quoting from the Food Standards approval documents (which doesn't mean the information is right):
"Rapeseed varieties naturally have very high levels of the toxic components erucic acid and glucosinolates both of which have dietary concerns. Erucic acid has cariopathogenic potential and glucosinolates have goitrogenic properties, which makes rapeseed unsuitable for human consumption (ref). Canola refers to those varieties of rapeseed that must meet specific standards on the levels of erucic acid and glucosinolates.
The Can part was about Canada, but from memory I think the OLA part referred to oleic and linoleic acids (I think it was higher in those acids instead of erucic acid).
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
03 Jul 2008 9:57:00pm
You can't have either of those properties without a few and a lot of others. I think terming Goitrogenic is quite cunning.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 10:55:29am
I was particularly intrigued by 'goitrogenic' too. What on earth could it mean?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:12:50pm
Doug...
Canola oil does contain protein. Monsanto advised Food Standards ANZ (ANZFA as it was known then) of this fact when it applied for approval - 0.29 ppm for GM canola (GT73). In my view FSANZ 'decided' to give Monsanto a helping hand so the oil didn't need to be labelled by our lax labelling laws. There are lists of studies which have found protein in refined oil.
In the Executive Summary of its Final Risk Analysis Report, ANZFA (as FSANZ was previously known ) states “...all protein and DNA are removed― from the oil. But in the Final Safety Assessment Report Attachment the level of protein Monsanto actually found in the refined oil was stated:
P3 "[The oil] undergoes extensive processing such that all protein and DNA are removed."
P7 "... oil is not considered to contain any protein (or DNA). "
P18 "As a result of the processing steps, canola oil contains negligible protein."
P25 "... all protein is virtually removed upon processing canola seed [...]"
P25 "Total protein present in refined oil of 1992 field trial of GT73 - 0.29 ppm [this figure is typical of the protein levels in refined oils].
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 139 van 177
If FSANZ cannot be certain about the composition of the GM oil can their assessment be considered either scientific or an adequate?
Did the politicians on the Ministerial Council (businessmen lawyers and union representatives) read all the way through to page 25 of a "quasi-scientific" report, or do they stop at the Executive Summary?
Canola oil does contain DNA fragments,
"Determination of DNA traces in rapeseed oil; Hellebrand M, Nagy M, Morsel J-T; Zeitschrift fur Lebensmitteluntersuchung und -Forschung A; Vol 206, Number 4/April 1998, http://www.springerlink.com/content/63776h6ukudrwu0j"
and the Norwegians have devised a testing procedure good enough to identify it even it is very fragmented.
Reply Alert moderator
n Over Oiled :
01 Jul 2008 7:21:33pm
Dear Doug
Actually FSANZ documents state there is 290ppb protein in Canola oil. That's enough to kick in an allergy (that's why peanut allergy sufferers can't take peanut oil).
So your statements are completely incorrect. It certainly does matter whether Canola oil is genetically modified or not.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
01 Jul 2008 7:44:01pm
Doug, where did you learn biology?
Reply Alert moderator
l George :
01 Jul 2008 1:52:37pm
On a purely person point of view, I certainly hope the supporters of GM crops put their money where their mouth is when Monsanto start knocking on the next door neighbours door for money like they did in Canada. AUSTRALIANS ARE FOOLS if they believe for one second what happened in Canada wont happen here.
Another comment points out we have been indirectly using GM food because it has been fed to our chickens and pigs. Thats because they cant get people to eat the food direct.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
01 Jul 2008 7:49:50pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 140 van 177
Go veggie and read the labels and you might get away from it.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 12:03:48pm
Don't eat the soy unless it says GM-free and comes from a non-GM country. Nice to see you again - I wait everyday on the verandah for my kitten. You didn't take Emmjay's assessment and give it Arch did you?
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 12:42:51pm
I can't get it through the post, not humane.
Have to wait till I leave this side of the continent. Nice to see you again, been out in the sticks a while.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 10:17:00am
"That's because they can't get people to eat the food direct."
No, it's because GM soy used to fatten our pigs and chooks has the necessary protein levels. Non-GM soy grown in Australia also has the necessary protein levels but we simply don't produce enough to satisfy the demands of intensive livestock production.
Reply Alert moderator
l leigh :
01 Jul 2008 12:26:58pm
So the big advantages of GM crops are (1) The farmer gets paid as much for GM as for normal canola, and (2) The farmer can spray lots of herbicide on the crop without killing the GM.
Lovely.. and all one has to do in return is sign up with a monopoly supplier.
There's also the added comfort that eveyone else is doing it too.
Reply Alert moderator
l malgosia :
01 Jul 2008 11:22:01am
Well, do you know that in Europe and other countries every body is looking for NOT GM soja and other products. I think it is better to sell less but better product for more money. Now, more people are more conscious that what we eat it is very related to our health.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 141 van 177
And around GM products there are lots of uncertainty how that efect our health and future generations.
Reply Alert moderator
n Binko :
01 Jul 2008 4:24:21pm
It is because European farmers are totally uncompetitive. They are using GM as a basis for preventing competition.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:18:49pm
No Binko. It's because all GM food (except for animal products being fed on GM) now has to be labelled in Europe - oils, sugars, starches, the lot. People don't want to eat it - that is why non-GM is in demand.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 10:36:54pm
".. I think it is better to sell less but better product for more money. ..."
Hungry people in third world countries would prefer not to pay more than necessary for their food.
Reply Alert moderator
n malgosia :
02 Jul 2008 4:17:47pm
Yen, I understand your point of view and I agree, but 1/ not everybody is in that situation, 2/ not so long ago Africa refused to accept help with GM products.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
07 Jul 2008 10:18:43pm
".. not so long ago Africa refused to accept help with GM products. ...."
Actually, malgosia, it was not 'Africa' that refused. Some well fed politicians in some posh offices did it.
The starving people were not asked.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 142 van 177
l kika :
01 Jul 2008 10:26:18am
How sad that Oz has missed out on staying canola and gm free. The value of our crops would increase as gm predictable and unpredictable disasters proliferate overseas.
As the price of oil increases, gm canola will become too expensive to grow, spray, harvest and export. I don't see a future for it.
Reply Alert moderator
l The Arch Bishop of Consumerism :
01 Jul 2008 9:46:31am
Where is Madeleine? While I dont always agree with her I never doubt her good heart and earnestness. Maybe the National Farmers Fed have snatched her?
Reply Alert moderator
n Diana :
01 Jul 2008 2:13:40pm
I wonder if Madeleine is writing a rebuttal to this article to be published on Unleased in the very near future? I, for one, would love to see it?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:00:50pm
I'm back...
And look what's happened while I've been working (I had 8 more GM studies to review).
Fragments from GM canola transgenes have been found in the liver and kidney of pigs, and in the digestive tissues of sheep and pigs.
The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus used to keep most of the GM transgenes 'switched on and pumping out' (the loud annoying voice in a choir) (35S CaMV) has been found to be active in human cells.
That part of the 35S CaMV promoter has been found in muscle tissue of chicken and pork.
That it is impossible to get correct quantification on the 1% GM allowance ratios (which most of us reject anyway), because heat and other activities denature the DNA used in the tests at different rates, depending on particle size of tested crop, heat, processing, and the test used. Such quantification doesn't work.
I hadn't actually reviewed the old TJ Higgins CSIRO pea study - the only study by the producers of a seed which actually looked to see if the pea would be safe for humans/environment - lo and behold it wasn't safe. Poor little mice suffered for that finding.
I haven't even read the article yet. There are so many jobs to do.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 143 van 177
If anyone wants an information forum to Demystify GM, go to www.madge.org.au or [email protected] - Madge will attend.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
01 Jul 2008 7:41:02pm
Perhaps.
Perhaps her access to internet is currently curtailed.
Reply Alert moderator
l ausearth :
01 Jul 2008 8:04:58am
It doesn't take to much research to see that these crops are truly the corporate Frankenstein crops. An efficient way to Cary Aromatase disrupters through the environment at every level, Including your dauters overies. Its called greed Maree.
Reply Alert moderator
l Nigel Kirwan :
01 Jul 2008 6:29:00am
The GM Food Movement is a huge con:
- GM crops don't provide higher yields or attract higher prices (in fact the contrary) plus farmers are beholden to the seed producers to pay for their seed every year - Japan & the EU won't take GM food products - US & Canadian farmers can't find markets for GM crops which are then dumpeed in the 3rd world - the science has not been demonstrated to be safe - ample evidence has emerged about negative effects - GMO's pose a serious threat to biodiversity and containment has been demonstrated not to work - farmers whose crops are contaminated by GM crops can be prosecuted for not paying for the seed with the burden of proof put on them - Australia's Office of Gene Regulator is a sham organisation dominated by Bio-tech industry/research proponents of GM
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 10:12:18am
More myths about GM.
"GM crops don't provide higher yields or attract higher prices (in fact the contrary)..."
Actually in many cases it has been documented that some GM varieties yield higher than non- GM varieties under the same conditions. Canola yields in Canada have risen more than 15% in
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 144 van 177
the past 10 years and up to 90% of the canola is GM.
"Japan and the EU won't take GM food products."
Wrong again. Japan imports most of its canola from Canada and nearly all of it is GM. In Europe they also import it, and they're growing it too.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 10:23:57am
"US and Canadian farmers can't find markets for GM crops which are then dumped in the third world."
Wrong again. They have plenty of markets. Australia buys a lot of the GM soy produced by the USA, which last year exported almost 28 million tonnes of it around the world. Japan and the EU buy GM canola from Canada. These are not thrid-world markets.
Reply Alert moderator
n pilotyoda :
03 Jul 2008 6:39:20pm
If it is so good, then LABEL it as an ingredient! If people are buying products containing GM ingredients, or derivatives, it should be on the label.
Then watch sales fall!!
Why is there such reluctance to include GM info on the label? We put the other ingredients there.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
07 Jul 2008 10:24:07pm
"... We put the other ingredients there. ...."
GM is not an ingredient.
As for ingredients: Most often there is no information about how an ingredient is produced.
Reply Alert moderator
l g3 :
01 Jul 2008 6:28:39am
maree i suggest u donate all * from ur grops 2 the antidote 4 GM STERILITY.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 145 van 177
l Jim :
01 Jul 2008 3:25:38am
I wonder how long it takes this time for all the facts and figures to show the damage."DON"T Spray This Near WATERWAYS Or Where Fish and Wildlife can get access to it" It says on the bottle. I've seen what glyphospate salts do.Where do all our rivers run? Murray Darling mostly.Put the wrong amount on and it's like some steroidal fertiliser.Depends on concentration.Monsanto is the American health system of the Chemical world.Would anyone like to discuss just what farmers have put on crops we eat for the last hundred years and if they care.
Reply Alert moderator
n Binko :
01 Jul 2008 4:38:45pm
It is the surfactant (detergent) that harms fish not the glyphosate. They make glyphosate based herbicides specifically for aquatic use without a surfactant.
Glyphosate affects a metabolic pathway found only in plants. The plants 'starve'. It is not a fertiliser.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:21:23pm
It is the surfactant (detergent) in Roundup that doubles the effect of glyphosate on human placental cells - it's an endocrine disrupter.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
01 Jul 2008 7:49:06pm
Many weeds that don't die grow deformed and crippled, as do some of the second generation weeds.I saw choko's for sale here in sth east Qld.White Choko's $1.oo dollar each the sign said. Went up to a friends farm to get some pumpkins and choko's and all the choko's were white and the vines were all dying in patches.They overdid the tractor spraying with the glyco's."They don't take too well to the poison" we were told "Boss dos'nt know what to do ,it's happened to all the guys around, but they're alright to eat." No thanks.
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
01 Jul 2008 7:53:27pm
They starve or thrive depending on the dose. Just wondering about algae blooms etc in creeks and rivers.Smoking was touted as harmless too for years.I'm not sure what thalliminide kids would say about all the promises and ethics here.It is not uncommon for many to say anything with motive and self benefit.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 146 van 177
n David L :
01 Jul 2008 7:56:15pm
Binko, it is my understanding that glyphosate can increase a plants growth (affecting the metabolic pathway as you point out), hence Jim's "steroidal fertiliser" analogy.
And I'm skeptical over Monsanto's claims about stream safe glyphosate, after they claimed the original wasn't a problem for the entire duration of its patent, before stating it could cause problems and releasing the new product.
Reply Alert moderator
l yen :
01 Jul 2008 1:11:20am
While on the topic of GM: What happened to Golden Rice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
It seems that sometimes GM-opponents would rather see children die or be blind than accept GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
01 Jul 2008 3:00:58am
Nobody wants that ! However, it's a tad more complex than one might think from the propaganda, yen. Allowing penniless third world farmers to mortgage themselves to the eyeballs to agribusiness giants - to be able to afford variety-specific fertilisers and pesticides / herbicides to grow "wonder crops" sounds pretty dodgy to me. It's like a new form of slavery. Might be better to go with natural genetic variation, locally adapted crop strains and just provide Vit A supplements as aid..... if in fact that's a priority in the face of an HIV pandemic or a constant civil war.
All the high tech crops in the world aren't worth a rat's if there's no water.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 10:49:08pm
"... All the high tech crops in the world aren't worth a rat's if there's no water. ...."
I think they are working on a kind of rice that needs less water.
But you probably don't want that either.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
07 Jul 2008 11:16:51pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 147 van 177
Sorry, yen, I've been away. In case you come back and read this, it is of course possible to grow dryland rice like other cereal crops, but the yields are far less than paddy rice. But to answer your question truthfully, no, not for Australia. I don't want a less water rice crop. We live in (after Antarctica) the driest continent. We don't need to grow crops that compete with countries like Thailand that can get three good paddy rice crops off per year. We need to be more careful with our scarce water than that.
Reply Alert moderator
n DocMercury :
01 Jul 2008 8:21:22am
We can't ALL live forever you know, or we'll be up to our necks, elbow to jowl, ankle to forehead in people, crammed together like proverbial sardines to be smothered by our mutual body odours.
Not even mice like a life style like that.
Reply Alert moderator
n csr :
01 Jul 2008 8:22:33am
Hey, do you mean that stuff otherwise known as "Fools Gold"? Poverty stricken nations find it hard enough to afford conventional seeds, but biotech companies are not aid agencies, and their pursuit of license fees has rightfully earned them a vicious reputation. Why don't you instead look at this BBC link, and note the direct quotes from Richard Horton (editor of The Lancet), and Steve Smith (Sygenta Seeds): http://www.biotech-info.net/mirage_of_promise.htm
Reply Alert moderator
n Callie :
01 Jul 2008 1:01:28pm
GM crops will not answer poverty and starvation and sickness. The answer to that is human compassion and love for each other regardless of race, religion or region.
Right now there is enough food available to feed the whole world but many countries cannot afford to buy it and the big conglomerates would rather see a total loss and dispose of excess food than sell it cheaper than they want to.
If you do some research into farms in areas that are fully into GM farming such as Canada and the US you will find that a farmers better long term financial futures lay in traditional farming.
Many farms have gone under in these areas for different reasons related to GM crops including well publicised cases where Monsanto sued and won against farmers had been poluted with neighbouring GM crops. They took everything. This is disasterous for the farming economy because all that information is lost when they walk away from their farms never to set foot on one again.
If you really want to do something good for farming get involved in community farms, where you can pay the farmer directly for produce. Also cuts down CO2 emissions as the food travels less to get to you.
Looking after the land and putting back into it rather than reefing more out is the only answer. And that is what they call common sense. Not so common any more by the looks of things.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 148 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:22:25pm
Perhaps we could give them a carrot instead, or even some carrot seeds, and save a huge amount of money.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 10:53:19pm
"... Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:22:25pm
Perhaps we could give them a carrot instead, or even some carrot seeds, and save a huge amount of money. ...."
Yes, perhaps you could.
Funny nobody thought of that before.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
07 Jul 2008 10:27:46pm
"... Perhaps we could give them a carrot instead, or even some carrot seeds, and save a huge amount of money. ...."
You will have to give them some carrot seeds *every* year.
Reply Alert moderator
n Oh what next for Pete's Sake :
01 Jul 2008 7:41:15pm
That would be the rice that has to be eaten in the amount of about 50 cups a day to meet the Vit A recommended dose?? If citizens of the developing world could afford 50 cups per person per day, if they could actually EAT 50 cups per person per day, they would be dying of some other cause, such as diabetes II, or perhaps an unexpected, untested side effect of the GM technique.
Reply Alert moderator
l pilotyoda :
30 Jun 2008 11:29:54pm
Actually. Japan has said they DON'T want GM canola. They sent a delegation to ask us NOT to
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 149 van 177
proceed. They were ignored, so expect export earnings to fall!
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
01 Jul 2008 2:51:32am
Didn't we tell the Japanese that we didn't want whaling ? Fifteen all, I guess. Our serve.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:28:01pm
More GM-free canola to Japan means bigger bucks for Tas farmers
Posted Wed May 21, 2008 5:00pm AEST http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/21/2251778.htm
A group of Tasmanian farmers has secured a deal to supply Japan with canola that's free of genetically-modified materials.
They'll combine with farmers from South Australia's Kangaroo Island to supply canola.
Two shipments have already arrived in Japan.
The deal will treble the amount of canola grown in Tasmania, to about 3,000 tonnes next year.
Keith Pengilley, from Tasmanian Agricultural Producers, says the canola is needed for Japan's livestock industry and for use in cooking.
"They identified Tasmania as being a reliable area to grow canola," he said.
"So they came to us and said this is what we do, can you produce canola to meet our specifications, which is GM-free which we can market in Japan as Tasmanian-grown canola."
More markets lost to Victoria and New South Wales!!
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 10:00:15am
"They sent a delegation to ask us NOT to proceed."
Yes, but if you examine the details you'll find the 'delegation' did not represent the Japanese Government, and in fact represented a small retail buying group catering to only a few thousand people in a country of more than 100 million. Japan imports about 85% of its canola from Canada and it is almost entirely GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 1:24:40pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 150 van 177
A Japanese group (not sure it's the same one) got 1.25 million signatures on a no-GM petition and that is pretty big.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 4:49:39pm
Perhaps so. That would represent about 1% of the Japanese population, Madeleine.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 6:56:07am
Two hundred thousand signatures would be pretty big in Australia, Cricket.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 10:57:47am
...and would still only represent 1% of the population.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 4:21:28pm
200,000 would be a lot in Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
n IA :
04 Jul 2008 9:46:49pm
Over 800 million people dont have enough to eat Madeleine.
That's a lot.
Every one of them would welcome GM food.
200,000 is a smug, well fed number.
Reply Alert moderator
n Concerned :
05 Jul 2008 12:32:16pm
So how many signatures would you expect to be big then when most will be the silent majority. Only the ones that are truly concerned would sign a petition. So how many do you want? No everyone will not and does not welcome GM food. Africa for example. There is enough food in the world for all and the only thing stopping it is distribution. GM is not the answer, GM is the problem. Suicides in
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 151 van 177
India for example due to GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 2:26:30am
IA, I'm glad to see this new caring side of you emerging IA...
Given Australian conditions the non-GM drought resistant canola just developed through less invasive GE research has a better chance of protecting yields than GM RR canola, but canola is hardly a subsistence crop.
The reports of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) cover most of the issues around world hunger, and 54 countries, some with hungry people, signed off that GM in it's existing form is no solution for world hunger.
[The IAASTD was launched as an intergovernmental process, with a multi- stakeholder Bureau, under the co-sponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO]
Reply Alert moderator
l pilotyoda :
30 Jun 2008 11:20:08pm
Will you pay the royalties to Monsanto that will occur for other farmers when their supposedly non- GM crops are contaminated. The do do grain elevator DNA testing! Try telling the wind and the bees your crop stops at the fence.
What happens when we end up with Round-Up resistant weeds spreading everywhere? Everyone must understand that this product is NOT pest resistant. It is resistant to the chemicals we spray on them, allowing higher levels of pesticides to be applied (with higher absorption of these chemicals)
I wont ever knowingly buy a GM product for consumption. If it is so good, will you support or demand FULL labeling of GM content on all food products for human and animal consumption?
What is wrong with better farming practice? How will you lay over seed when there is a terminator gene?
This is not a medicine. It has NOT had the full, lengthy and stringent range of safety studies that medicines do have.
Simple test. Will those who grow GM foods guarantee their own grandchildren there will be no long term health effects?
GM may be here to stay, but proper safety testing and labeling is critical to full acceptance. Until then, GM canola could well be the next Cane Toad!!
-Lee
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 2:58:50am
"...
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 152 van 177
GM may be here to stay, but proper safety testing and labeling is critical to full acceptance. Until then, GM canola could well be the next Cane Toad!! ...."
And why should the farmers be more careful than governments?
Fluoride in the drinking water no doubt *is* the 'next cane toad'.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 3:01:09am
".. How will you lay over seed when there is a terminator gene? ...."
If there is a terminator gene there probably wont be any cross contamination.
Reply Alert moderator
n pilotyoda :
01 Jul 2008 6:57:47pm
Good grief. If enough people want an to fluoridation then the Government can simply "turn off the pumps" and there wont be any. You can't do that with cane toads of contaminated crops. (Research has shown that tooth decay has dropped significantly and nutrition improved since this water treatment came to pass, but we are going backwards lately because of the rise of bottled water and soft drinks and the reduction in drinking fresh water).
Terminator genes only hold for pollination within the GM crop. When crops cross pollinate, all bets are off. If it couldn't happen, then why does Monsanto test other crops? Because it can and they do want their royalties!
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 10:58:51pm
"... (Research has shown that tooth decay has dropped significantly and nutrition improved since this water treatment came to pass, but we are going backwards lately because of the rise of bottled water and soft drinks and the reduction in drinking fresh water). ...."
So, people will die before their time, with good teeth.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
01 Jul 2008 7:58:59pm
IFF the terminator gene works ALL the time.
I seem to recollect, but haven't found a reference yet, that some field trials of GM plants suggested the terminator was not always effective.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 153 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Jim :
01 Jul 2008 3:36:40am
It's a monopilising system that will be pushed down our necks to sustain it.The hype will abound over coming years till people get there feet back on the ground.It's going to get pushed that hard that any environmental or human damage will be brushed aside.The next asbestos.
Reply Alert moderator
l Earle Qaeda :
30 Jun 2008 10:04:41pm
Okay Maree, nice to hear about all those benefits & cost savings GM crops will accrue. Care to comment on the corporate licencing of seed & the resultant annual expense?
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
30 Jun 2008 8:19:39pm
At first base, it might be said that our species isn't involved in enough genetic management, if not engineering, of itself.
At least, I'm certain we could do better.
That aside, the practical use of genetic engineering also involves cloning organisms such as yeast and bacteria to synthesise proteins useful to public health.
Insulin amongst them.
Reply Alert moderator
l Mike :
30 Jun 2008 8:08:44pm
I just hope that when hard times come, the farmers don't go whingeing to the Government for public money so they can pay the extortionate fees to the foreign owned seed oligopolies.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 1:07:45am
you wrote: "... Mike :
30 Jun 2008 8:08:44pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 154 van 177
I just hope that when hard times come, the farmers don't go whingeing to the Government for public money so they can pay the extortionate fees to the foreign owned seed oligopolies. ...."
You would rather see the farmers go bankrupt and the country starting to import food, we suppose.
Reply Alert moderator
n csr :
01 Jul 2008 9:01:10am
Yen, if farmers choose to pay the heavy license fees to biotech companies and go bankrupt in the process, why is this concern of taxpayers? We don't rescue other businesses that get into trouble, and neither do we rescue farmers who make bad business decisions (not the same as drought assistance, but hey - GM crops are supposed to be drought resistant too). Just watch the stuff hit the fan when the increased yields don't eventuate, or they have to pay for weedkillers they say they can do without, their markets disappear, or the lawsuits come from both contaminating other crops or from the biotech companies themselves - all this, and more has already happened in the US & Canada. It is not as though we weren't warned.
Reply Alert moderator
n The Arch Bishop of Consumerism :
01 Jul 2008 9:43:38am
We already import food [30%?]. At the same time we are a huge grain/meat etc exporter.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
01 Jul 2008 8:01:00pm
All those giant airfreighted Californian strawberries and canned EU beans and tomatoes?
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
02 Jul 2008 6:50:29am
David L, Is the airfreight giantsized,or are the strawberries giantsized?
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 1:34:48pm
Strawberries.
I prefer the little sometimes sun and frost damaged ones full of flavour my sister grows, if the dog doesn't get them first.
Why would anyone airfreight "fresh" tasteless food halfway round the globe
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 155 van 177
when you can grow it in a pot on a balcony? Just so you can eat strawberry shaped cardboard out of season?
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
03 Jul 2008 12:56:57am
It's a direct result of the free-trade agreement that the rodent and his people negotiated with the US. Can't say no to a giant tasteless strawb from the good old US of A.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
03 Jul 2008 3:45:49pm
Did you know stawberries were a candidate for fish genes? Supposedly help with frost tolerance.
Don't know if it ever came to fruitition.
Reply Alert moderator
n Arthur 1 :
03 Jul 2008 9:19:08am
Money David,and the desire of small minded people who insist on having the same seasons offerings all year round.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
02 Jul 2008 1:53:56pm
Apparently small children can hollow one out and hide therein. Strawberries of California, that is. I find them useful on windy days when one can sit on the leeward side.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 3:29:10pm
Yes, 1.5 inch high children, as long as they're not to obese.
Does anyone think 1.5 inch high strawberries are normal?
Reply Alert moderator
l Gary :
30 Jun 2008 5:07:09pm
It is time for all those manning the barricades against GM to realise that they have been defeated.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 156 van 177
Until recently, the signs were weak but there is now no doubt. There may be some residual skirmishes, but the battle is essentially over. It is time to direct your energies to other worthy causes.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:33:23pm
Gary,
This latest event has only served to give long-deserved free press to the fact that consumers have been eating GM food. I only just found out in January this year, and hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Just ask your buddies.
I've been breastfeeding my children while eating untested GM food, and there is no place that I'm going to stop on this issue.
In every country consumers have only get stronger. No-one accepts it. Sell your shares now. Such a foolish move.
Reply Alert moderator
l Davoe formerly anti now pro GE :
30 Jun 2008 4:11:38pm
This article above is probably to stir up debate. But i should give my thoughts. I'm an environmentalist but i now reject the hysterical nonsense that the anti-ge people go on with now. Despite ten years of relatively successful use of GE crops worldwide they still go on with the same arguments that start with "if we do this then..". The only problem has been intellectual property rights, and that is a legislative rather than scientific issue. Fact is humans have genetically modified plants and animals for thousands of years. And we will continue to do so. Organic crops are a con and only serve to make basic food more expensive. Its about time Organic farmers were taken to account for the amount of dammage they cause.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 4:45:11pm
"Fact is humans have genetically modified plants and animals for thousands of years."
Another fact for everyone: GM is already very much in Australia's food chain and no-one's died yet. If you ate a pork chop or a chicken leg recently, it is quite likely the pig or chook you're eating was fattened on good old GM soy from the USA.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:38:58pm
Cricket, Surely you're smarter about the issue than that - what a pathetic line!!..
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 157 van 177
For the uninitiated...
As GM food hasn't been labelled it has been impossible to evaluate the health effects (including deaths) from eating GM food.
Doctors and researchers don't asked "Have you been eating GM food?"
And if they did, the answer would have to be "I don't know, it isn't labelled."
We don't know of any tumor investigations which have looked to see if (for example) GM promotors have set them off.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 9:52:57am
What's the matter, Madeleine? It's not my fault the claims of human health being adversely affected by GM food can't be substantiated.
Reply Alert moderator
n concerned :
08 Jul 2008 6:26:55pm
Got any evidence to back up your claim Cricket. Got any health testing on GM food that has been performed showing without doubt there are not long term side effects? There are none.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 10:09:44am
I'm just waiting for someone to present evidence it's harmful, concerned. Have you got any? Madeleine doesn't.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:45:18pm
Yeah, yeah, once I was against GM crops but now I'm a convert... Yeah yeah.
No-one who is an 'environmentalist' would call the anti-GM crops issue "hysterical nonsense", unless, perhaps, they came from the Australian Environment Foundation which is affiliated with the Insitute of Public Affairs which is supported by Monsanto.
Genetically Modified crops were first planted for acknowledged food production in 1990's - no Genetically Modified crops existed in the milleniums before.
Reply Alert moderator
l Brett :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 158 van 177
30 Jun 2008 3:57:43pm
Like it or not GM crops are here to stay and they will only expand. For a while, it made sense to be GM free and do the research in the background while others took the heat. Now with GM slowly starting to lose its stigma and with rapidly increasing populations, food shortages, climate change etc - it actually now represents our only hope of feeding the world. So guys, get used to it!
Reply Alert moderator
n graeme :
30 Jun 2008 4:35:18pm
the above statement is written, authorised and paid for, by the makers of Agent Orange.
A huge risk is that GM crops will expand, as Brett asserts, and expand into neighbours' farms, native forests, indigenous grasses and who knows where else.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 4:38:55pm
I would caution anyone who believes GM technology will be the ultimate solution to feeding the world. I agree GM technology is here to stay, but I think it will be only part of the solution. I believe the real revolution in food production is only just beginning, and it has nothing (or very little) to do with GM.
Reply Alert moderator
n Examinator ant :
30 Jun 2008 5:40:52pm
Brett, But is it? consider the market domination of the seeds. In many 3rd world countries the practice of saving some the current crops seeds for next year*s planting. Under GM licence this isn*t permitted. Therefore in a bad year the there maybe no money to buy the licenced seed. These *life science* countries are patenting native seeds via the back door and only stocking the seed that gives the corporation the biggest earn. I have no doubt as to the science but the patenting and marketing dominance of seeds by the same corporations will be counter productive to the 3rd world farmer and the world in the long run Likewise puting all our eggs in one genetic basket is dangerous. Supose there is a disease that only attacks this genotype what then? Ask yourself what happened to the public*s need to know and make it*s own choice and letting the market decide rather than "we know what is best for you--- our profit!" Surely the product souldn*t be allowed if it transfers herbicide resistance. All it will take is one farmer not to do the right thing and the genie is up and gone.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 12:43:20am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 159 van 177
you wrote: ".. In many 3rd world countries the practice of saving some the current crops seeds for next year*s planting. ..."
1. -A practice that can continue with the 'old' sorts of crops.
2. But 1st world countries have not done this since before WW2 (give or take a few years), long before GE was thought about.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 11:36:18am
GM isn't losing it's stigma - it's gaining stigma at a rapid rate, and when the independent health studies begin to trickle in it'll be gone. Consumers are only getting stronger.
By 2004 Europe had gained full labelling. The Americans and Canadians are waking up to what they're eating, and are demanding labelling too. They are learning exactly what sort of corporation Monsanto is. I can tell you with certain knowledge that Australian consumers are only just coming to know what's in their food. And that'll be the end of it.
Again, the hungry world has rejected GM crops in their present form as any solution for world hunger, fully aware of the real causes of world hunger/world obesity, and loss of 'ownership' of their own seeds.
See IAASTD: http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Synthesis_Report_261107_text.pdf biotechnology pages 59- 69. The Biotech Giants were not interested in serving the needs of the hungry world.
Reply Alert moderator
l DocMercury :
30 Jun 2008 3:57:14pm
Doesn't concern me, other than my objection to any patency laws pertaining to existing life forms, if the ethical phobes could get over their objections to genetic engineering upon people.
I mean, we already have the sporting arena for it.
Athletic performance could be enhanced by genetically engineering in the myoglobin of cetaceans, and gills and webbing between fingers toes and limbs, could turn butterfly stroke competitors into flying ichthyhominids.
Then there is the military and law enforcement potential through resurrection of reptilian armour plating.
Reply Alert moderator
l Simmo :
30 Jun 2008 2:21:48pm
I suspect that Queensland sugar cane farmers said much the same things in 1935 on the introduction of the cane toad.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 160 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Brett :
30 Jun 2008 4:15:31pm
FYI they are now investing heavily in GM - like the rest of the world's agricultural industries. Why? Because they realise that if they don't they won't be cane growers in too many years time. GM is a reality - as good or bad as that may be.
Reply Alert moderator
l Boy from the Bush :
30 Jun 2008 2:15:03pm
Dear Maree, have you ever received financial support from any of the major GM seed companies? Where did you get the GM Canola seed for this season and did you pay for it? Did you get your glyphospate free or at at a concessional rate from the same seed/ag-chemical company?
Have you ever undertaken PR training by the companies or their representative body?
Until you answer those questions I'll take your post with a large grain of Murray river salt!
I would be happy with trialling GM crops, if and only if, the major GM companies were honest with their research and government instrumentalities were able and willing to do truly independent studies. I have seen so much cr-p from Australian unis which have been funded by big biotech. It's rather like believing a hamburger chain's research into obesity.
Reply Alert moderator
l Demac :
30 Jun 2008 2:11:45pm
That is a long winded way of saying 'farmers want to make a buck and damn the consequences.'
If you want Australians to accept GM crops then you will have to make the case a bit better than 'there's a dollar in it.' Some issues you have not addressed:
1. Labelling of GM products to allow the consumer to exercise their choice. 2. Cross pollination of neighbouring non-GM crops. -- See 1 above. -- Monsanto owns your crop, regardless of whether you chose to plant GM or not. 3. Massive increase in glyphosate use. Good for Monsanto. How about the creeks? And consumers? 4. Developing glyphosate resistance in weed species. Who pays for the cost of eradicating resistant weeds?
And so on.
If you can't be bothered making your case then why bother us?
Reply Alert moderator
l BlzBob :
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 161 van 177
30 Jun 2008 1:51:25pm
What are you going to spray with, when you decide to do some crop rotation and don't want your alternative crop contaminated with canola? not "Round up" obviously.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 3:00:24pm
Chances are that Maree's GM canola crop is already part of a cereal rotation. There is a range of herbicides completely different from 'Roundup' (glyphosate) which Maree could use to spray out a paddock of GM canola effectively.
Reply Alert moderator
n BlzBob :
30 Jun 2008 4:58:54pm
Yes cricket I do know that there are many far more dangerous concoctions that can be used on plants that are resistant to glyphosate, I have used many of them, but would rather not.
Reply Alert moderator
n Oh what next for Pete's Sake :
01 Jul 2008 7:48:47pm
Yeah like 2,4 D Ester. Yum yum.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:48:21pm
I think it's recommended to spray 2,4-D to kill the volunteers. The Canadian farmers mixed some in with their Roundup prior to planting their next crop. But then, they are assisted by having snow on the ground all winter.
Reply Alert moderator
l Mix :
30 Jun 2008 12:48:05pm
Maree McKay's article is clear about her motives for wanting to grow one of the big GM "success" crops, but it fails to even mention a single objection, let alone respond to the "No" arguments.
At a fundamental level, there may be nothing intrinsically wrong with speeding up natural genetic variation and selection - after all - non-GM plant varieties (for example rust-resistant wheat, early- and late-flowering fruit crops) are all the results of highly skilled breeding programs. And nobody complains about them.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 162 van 177
How courageous was Granny Smith ?
I can accept that there are apparently many economic arguments in favour of having a shot at growing GM crops. But I have serious doubts about the industry, the government or anybody else for that matter being able to guarantee that no GM material will appear in my next bottle of canola oil.
This cannot be seen as a major breakthrough for consumer sovereignty, nor a bright day for food safety.
There is no practical way to stop pollen from a GM crop fertilising a non GM crop across the road (unless the agribusiness giants breed infertility into the seeds). And the seeds all look alike, so if a load is mixed, nobody could tell without a DNA analysis - prohibitive beyond the occasional sample because of cost and delay.
It's natural for people to be concerned that the sage agricultural advice of even the former greats in CSIRO is not a gilt edge guarantee. Was it not a member of that august body who released cane toads (with the best intents - however misguided) into Australia ? How well have our experts managed water ? Apparently, not very......
So the sticking point - apparently that our GM regulators have chosen to discard or disregard - is that once the genie is out of the bottle, there will be no turning back.
And if in 30 years time, we start to see serious consequences beyond the concentration of the agricultural gene pool in privately-owned mega corporations, where will the chickens come home to roost ?
More likely with the taxpayers than with the author.
Reply Alert moderator
l Examinator ant :
30 Jun 2008 12:42:09pm
Maree is simply doing what farmers do best think with their boots, Button up ones at that! (Obsolete thinking) What they are doing is subscribing to is a marketing plot and to hell with the consequences. The safety argument is a myopic one and I would argue illusionary. Wasn*t it a fact that this type of profligate and recalcitrant thinking in the past that justified inappropriate practices and thereby instigating the current effect of diminishing returns that is driving this *quick fix*. Apart from this Farmers know best regardless of the facts. Yes the crop as such may or maybe safe but its the consequences, ranging from corporate dominance and the effects there of the extra herbicide and odious profits motivated control over your Farm even if the benefits turn out to be for all practical purposes bogus. More plants/yield mean greater leaching of nutriments from the soil necessitating more artificial fertilizer. Then if we get rain there’s the phosphate run off into rivers and then the toxic algae blooms more chemical solutions. Polluted rivers and in coastal areas red tides and help in the smothering the barriers reef… But tourism is or has potential become a bigger income industry. Yet family farming is decreasing. Figures show that farm products are under valued because of subsidies exclusions land degradation etc that distort the real costs of the products. Then there are the adverse effects of GM on other farms and farmers. As for the third world well, Maree needs to read more. Salt, drought, drying polluted water ways and sources even the artesian basin water is decreasing and global climate change. And yes, their attitudes of *Profit quick Fix* are part of the problem too. I’LL BET THEY DON*T SUPPORT GM FOOD BEING LABELED even though a MAJORITY of AUSTRALIANS DO. Who need democracy when a minority (family GM farmers) profits are at stake? Why should they be immune to the other side of Capitalism like the rest of the population is?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 163 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 1:19:42am
you wrote: "... Yet family farming is decreasing. ...."
Funny argument.
Shouldn't we talk about the production, not the number of people in the industry?
'Family farming' has been 'decreasing' in the western world since WW2. And production per area-unit has increased.
Reply Alert moderator
l Emmjay :
30 Jun 2008 12:22:51pm
Unleashed regulars know Madeleine well and I for one am prepared to hear her views, however fiercely they might be held.
As a lapsed ag scientist, I am reasonably well placed to judge what I read on the topic - provided the moderators don't pull the posts.
So where IS Madeleine's response ?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 1:13:24pm
"...lapsed ag scientist..."
That covers a multitude of disciplines, Emmjay. In what area, if I may be so bold as to ask?
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
01 Jul 2008 2:42:04am
Animal husbandry.
It was a long time ago, Cricket. I soiled out in the early 1980s and got a city job that paid actual cash.
And your reason for asking was ......
Are you a summer sport or an insect ?
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 164 van 177
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 9:48:57am
Emmjay,
I like to debate matters with qualified people who can teach me something, that's all.
My forum handle pertains to the great summer sport rather than the insect species.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 1:26:31pm
It's John Howard Emmjay.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 4:46:08pm
"It's John Howard..."
Oh dear, the pro-GM 'Cricket' can't be pigeon-holed as a vested GM interest. Quick! Let's drag out the tree-huggers' favourite bogeyman and suggest he is posting as 'Cricket'!
Sorry, but I simply don't reach that level of eminence.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
04 Jul 2008 12:02:46am
Ouch, I feel for you Cricket. Next they'll be calling AFL supporters Eddie.
These bodyline tactics have got to stop.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 10:56:17am
Remember Stan McCabe's 187 in Brisbane, David? If you've got a good hook shot you can put that Bodyline stuff over the boundary.
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
04 Jul 2008 3:33:24pm
Sorry Cricket, I only know about bodyline cos my brother told me, but I got a great bowling action, learnt it from watching the old PM playing with the troops. I know its what to do cos he was a great fan.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 165 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
07 Jul 2008 3:48:42pm
Well, David, Stan McCabe was a batsman who on his day was capable of producing innings that even today are considered among the best ever witnessed, and during the Bodyline series he hooked his way to 187 and almost put an end to 'leg-theory' then and there.
That's all we have to do here: play a straight bat to the considered concerns and knock the anti-GM hysteria for six. Australia is the only major food exporter where this debate continues - for the others the argument against GM is dead and buried, and Australia is looking quite the backwards fool.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 6:54:37am
It was a flight of fancy that occurred to me some weeks ago reading the surety of unwavered opinion in a discussion mentioning Bradman.
Reply Alert moderator
l Polony :
30 Jun 2008 12:21:44pm
My counter-arguements awaiting response:
Can GM canola become a weed more pesticide resistant than feral cats and more prolific than rabbits?
Should we trust technology without an extreme level of proof that it will not cause problems? High tech solutions are not always reliable. E.G.: the Titanic. I think this is OK as the Canola is so processed before human consumption than GMness is irrelevant, but i'd like confirmation.
Will consumers buy it? YES - already answered.
Could the GM bits cross species and contaminate something that is better marketed without any GM content? Some products are sold to consumers who make a fuss about GMness. When marketing things its the consumers that matter; science is just a marketing tool.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 1:11:28pm
"Can GM canola become a weed more pesticide resistant than feral cats and more prolific than rabbits?"
In short, no. Feral cats are no more resistant to poison than domestic cats, by the way.
Canola - regardless of whether it is GM or not - is not a hardy plant and it's considered very unlikely as a candidate to be a runaway weed.
In a bit more detail: GM canola currently being grown by Ms McKay has been developed to be resistant to one type of herbicide, glyphosate, which has a specific 'mode of action' compared to
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 166 van 177
other herbicide types. I visited a GM canola trial last year and without a doubt, Roundup Ready canola is highly resistant to glyphosate. The trial had used double the normal rate of glyphosate on the GM canola and it was standing tall and healthy while the other canola varieties were nothing but dust.
However, in the canola plots which were treated with different herbicides, the GM canola was just as dead as everything else.
The risk with regard to herbicide I mentioned is in the development of other glyphosate-resistant species resulting from over-use of glyphosate. In the USA and Canada farmers have not managed this issue sufficiently and as a result, there are several weed species in the US now showing resistance to glyphosate. This is the most serious objective, science-based warning coming out of the USA and Canada about GM, and this is why I asked Maree if she had been required to implement a specific strategy which manages herbicide resistance. If she was a best practice farmer Maree would already have a strategy in place to manage herbicide resistance, which is a serious issue for farmers regardless of whether they grow GM canola or not.
Reply Alert moderator
n martini :
30 Jun 2008 3:35:06pm
Cricket; your post is intelligent and factual, you clearly know the industry and have an understanding of the real issues and you seem interested in evoking a measured response. Entirely out of place in discussing GM crops! My concern has always been with the power GM crop use gives the manufacturer over the farmer and the consumer and the risk of glyphosate resistance. I too would like Madeleine to address those concerns.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 4:35:04pm
martini, I am only ever interested in prompting measured responses but I imagine others will dispute the relative intelligence and factual content of what I post. I would disappointed if they didn't.
Corporate ownership of the technology is indeed an important issue - with regard to good old over-the-fence trading, it's ancient history as far as GM is concerned. But please don't let anyone tell you this issue is exclusive to GM technology. Farmers in Australia already pay end-point royalties and high seed prices to breeders and companies for a large range of non-GM crops, some of which also cannot be traded over the fence.
The risk of glyphosate resistance is entirely manageable. Farmers need only rotate herbicides with different modes of action, which is recommended practice anyway. There are already weed populations in Australia with resistance to glyphosate and trifluralin because farmers have not followed best practice. Grain producers across much of Australia don't even bother using group-A or group-B herbicides anymore. This is what happened in the USA: over-reliance on glyphosate and little to no rotation though herbicides with different modes of action.
Are we talking about anti-GM poster Madeleine or the author of this article?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 11:11:31pm
Stop right there Cricket.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 167 van 177
I am a provider of informed information. Most people don't want to eat GM food, or wish to pay less for it, and they deserve accurate information about the products they are buying.
I am not an anti-GM poster. However, given your clear interests (priveleged to see a GM wheat crop from a distance) I regard you somewhat differently. How will you profit from the acceptance of GM crops? Are you prepared to finally declare your interests?
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 9:46:10am
My apologies for misrepresenting you, Madeleine. Based on your previous posts on the 'hungry poor' thread I assumed you were opposed to the introduction of GM crops. Are you not?
As for my own interests, I have none to declare that are relevant to the debate. In the interests of preserving my anonymity here I won't say too much. My job involves consulting to a range of industries and for many years the most prominent of these has been the Australian grains industry - particularly the research sector. For the record I am a journalist by qualification - I'm not a farmer or a scientist. I can't personally profit from the acceptance of GM crops. I am what you might call an interested observer with some knowledge of the grains industry and many contacts within it - some of these are opposed to GM, some are not.
I hope that settles the matter. Is it impossible for you, Madeleine, to acknowledge the possibility that someone with no financial interest in GM could still approve of it?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 11:54:16am
If you were consulting with the Australian grains industry it is likely that you were being indirectly paid by the GM industry for your skills.
Regarding your final suggestion - it is my experience that everyone who takes the time to learn about the issue beyond the highly promoted buzz-lines...
"feed the hungry world, reduce pesticides, fully scientifically tested, overwhelming evidence, fully segregated"
...realises it's a terrible thing. Everyone has doubt about GM in them. I think even IA has that doubt, and we think some Australian pro-GM researchers have that doubt too - they perform with internal conflict on camera.
In my experience, the only people who have spruiked GM have been augmented by money or power - perhaps this description applies to you also.
Have you read the Vanity Fair Article yet? Monsanto’s harvest of fear: Politics & Power; Vanity Fair, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805? printable=true¤tPage=all
Something we've noticed in journalism on this issue is how little educated the journalists are. It's a big issue, and few have the time to learn it.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 1:51:25pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 168 van 177
"If you were consulting with the Australian grains industry it is likely that you were being indirectly paid by the GM industry for your skills."
In other words - despite an honest post in which I clearly stated I have no commercial interest in GM and cannot personally profit from its acceptance - you choose to believe I'm still spruiking GM not because I approve of it, but because I'm "indirectly" supported by pro-GM interests. Perhaps it IS impossible for you to acknowledge the possibility that someone with no financial interest in GM could still approve of it. It is very convenient to label pro-GM posters as vested interests in an attempt to discredit their contribution to the debate, but in this case it is utterly misleading to do so.
You really need to get past this particular problem of yours, Madeleine. I would happily tell you exactly where the money for my skills comes from except that it would compromise my anonymity. Instead I will simply say that you are wrong - I am not paid, directly or otherwise, by the "GM industry". The money for my skills in this area is 100% public funds - that is, YOU are indirectly paying for them.
I'm also pro-whaling (well, I'm not against it, anyway) and pro-nuclear, other things which seem to upset tree-huggers for no substantial reason. My work is not funded by whaling or nuclear interests either.
You say that in your experience, people who take the time to learn about the issue realise GM is a terrible thing, and that those who spruik GM have been augmented by money or power. It's time to add to your experience, Madeleine. I have no money or power, so the description doesn't apply to me at all.
"Something we've noticed in journalism on this issue is how little educated the journalists are. It's a big issue, and few have the time to learn it."
You mean to your satisfaction and in accordance with your opinion? Actually, this applies to almost any subject covered by journalists today. Most of them are simply too busy to study issues in depth.
Nice try but no cigar, Madeleine. I haven't been a journalist for several years and I've had plenty of time to study the issues of interest to me.
You make a valuable contribution to this debate, Madeleine. Don't undermine this with poorly veiled attacks on posters who disagree with you for no other reason than the fact they have a different opinion.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 3:07:00pm
Don't worry about the cigar. I don't think you've read that Vanity Fair article yet.
I apologise for finding it difficult to accept that someone can be pro-GM in the CURRENT circumstances.
I don't know how anyone in possession of the same information could regard this situation differently.
What is the positive outcome of the contamination and gene stacking that has occurred with GM canola in Canada? Even the GM canola seed bases in Canada are contaminated - Monsanto and Bayer have stacked.
Scott Day (the Canadian pro-GM Bayer farmer) pointed out his Monsanto and Bayer stacked plants in his slideshow of his property.
We suspect the 10,000 acreage GM "tests" in NSW were about supplying clean seed.
From the 2003 Senate Estimates:
Senator HEFFERNAN In New South Wales, there is a 10,000-acre seed study. Do you realise just how much canola that is, in terms of where it is going to be, the risk, ahead of all the approvals? This is a nightmare.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 169 van 177
Senator CHERRY But that is outside her [Dr Meek-Gene Tech Regulator] act [Gene Tech Act], apparently.
Senator HEFFERNAN I know. That is why it is a bloody nightmare.
I do continue to assume that you are not in possession of full information, or want to maintain a high level of naive wishful thinking.
If you feel positive after reading the Vanity Fair article - which I've suggested many times with no feedback - I will assume that we operate on different moral systems.
I don't know if Public funding was ever 'Independent funding' but it's not now - for example, money from the Victorian government at this time to investigate 'grains' would be loaded. If findings from GM studies came down against GM they would be ignored. Read Julie Newman's post near the top about Public Funding.
From many consumer studies I know that about 1/3 won't buy GM at any price, 1/2 will buy it at a reduced price, and the other 1/6 don't care. Perhaps we will agree to disagree, but read that Vanity Fair article first.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
04 Jul 2008 10:41:33am
"...I will assume that we operate on different moral systems."
This is the case without doubt, Madeleine. Working with the grains industry as I do, I'm quite confident I'm in possession of as many facts about the issue as you are. None of the facts I possess could on their own, or together, justify a deliberate policy of ignorance towards technology of such potential. They do, however, warrant a cautious approach to the widespread adoption of them in Australian cropping systems and the provision of appropriately independent food health and safety information that facilitates consumer choice.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine Love :
04 Jul 2008 4:20:12pm
Working with the grains industry you are unlikely to have spent much time reviewing research in health fields, nor chatting parent-to-parent about unexpected allergies in your little children over the last 10 years.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
07 Jul 2008 9:45:05am
Actually, you need to go back to my post of July 3, 9.46am in which I said I consult to a range of industries.
Considering that you are a parent, you are unlikely to have spent much time reviewing research in ANY field.
I have a suggestion, Madeleine. You can't paint me as a vested interest or someone who isn't informed, so stop trying and stick to addressing the debate.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 170 van 177
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 11:27:49pm
Tell me about your consultations on issues of health, particularly in regard to the health of young children.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 5:53:56pm
I have consulted to the medical industry but I've so far been unable to break into the pharmaceuticals industry where the real money is (although I'm confidently working on a hot lead right now). This work has largely involved promoting community awareness of various diseases - a few of the more common cancers, diabetes, neurological disorders, MS - and developing strategies for influencing community behavioural change with a view towards preventing more people suffering from such or at least towards early detection of things like breast or prostate cancer.
Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with GM food, of course. I wouldn't necessarily call this morbid interest in my background obsessive, but given that you're a parent and therefore quite possibly married, I'm not at all sure it is appropriate.
Give it a rest, Madaleine, this is pointless nitpicking and it's going way off topic. Accept the fact that someone may be in possession of the same information as you and able to draw a reasonable conclusion from it without that conclusion necessarily being the same as yours.
It's called keeping an open mind.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
07 Jul 2008 11:36:35pm
Your bias against the capacity of a mother to research, is astonishing.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 5:29:26pm
It's not bias, just an acknowledgement of how busy mothers can be. If you say you have the time for research that you accuse me of NOT having, then I'm happy to accept that on face value.
You appear unable to extend the same courtesy.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
03 Jul 2008 3:29:56pm
As a carnivore I don't mind people eating whales so long as they are killed humanely and 'fished' sustainably with proviso of my current knowledge levels (someone inform me). Cows are lovely animals too with big friendly eyes. I see why vegetarians have a fierce objection to whaling.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 171 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
08 Jul 2008 6:00:09pm
Cows are ugly and stupid - if I never see another one again (except maybe in a hamburger, as a piece of leather or through a gun sight) I will certainly die happy.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
09 Jul 2008 5:09:53am
"... Cows are ugly and stupid ..."
Ugly is a matter of opinion.
As for stupid: Homo Sapiens has spent something like 4000 years of selective breeding to produce stupid cows because they are easier to have as domestic animals.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 1:55:14pm
Try working on a dairy farm for three years, yen. You'll learn to hate cows with a passion.
Reply Alert moderator
l Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 11:50:24am
I'm disappointed that Ms McKay has not included information about managing herbicide resistance and the separation protocols required for her GM canola crop.
Maree, if you are reading this, can you answer the following questions for me:
As part of gaining access to the seed, have you been required to implement a specific strategy to manage herbicide resistance, particularly with regard to glyphosate?
How far away does your GM canola crop have to be from other canola crops or indeed, any brassica crop?
Once harvested, will the GM canola be stored on-farm or will you deliver direct to the silo - and if so, do they know it's coming? Are there additional protocols you are required to follow regarding harvest machinery and equipment and/or storage facilities on-farm?
Have you received a threat of legal action from the Network of Concerned Farmers?
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 172 van 177
n Examinator ant :
30 Jun 2008 5:22:07pm
Cricket, I found Maree's piece self serving and biased. How seriously do you take issues like that which concern me? The non GM crop contamination and the experience of the Indian and US farmers who had to destroy their non GM crops because of contamination. The implicatins in the 3rd world could be catastrophic. The feedback from rice farmers in The philipines re the rules about only able to use the seed company's brand of glyophos and the net $ result was approximately the same. He also claimed higher pest attack. I would appreciate a scientific perspective. I object to the marketing domination that is starting to take over. I'm not a greenie but I'm worried about the consequences of this technology not having a suicide gene.
Reply Alert moderator
l Big M :
30 Jun 2008 11:29:45am
Madeleine,
Thanks for your succinct essay on GM crops. These have been a long time coming, in Australia, and, hopefully will provide advantages for farmers in our, mainly, hostile land.
No doubt, the naysayers will criticise farmers for taking advantage of these new varieties, and will find some 'evidence' based on specious argument, or pseudoscience. Others will be looking out from under their bedcovers looking for some frankinstein monster, spawned by ingesting GM.
I look forward to a report of your results, hopefully in 'Unleashed'!
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 10:56:43pm
Why does everyone think I'll be contributing on this topic?
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
02 Jul 2008 1:56:44pm
I dunno. Just a hunch, maybe.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 8:49:10am
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 173 van 177
I didn't write that essay. I would write from the mother's perspective.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 11:12:17pm
"... Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 8:49:10am
I didn't write that essay. I would write from the mother's perspective. ...."
What is a mother's perspective?
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
06 Jul 2008 2:32:15am
Hi Yen, I probably answered this question to you in the thread from The Arch Bishop of Consumerism : 02 Jul 2008 3:43:24pm
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
07 Jul 2008 10:42:33pm
re. ".. What is a mother's perspective? ..." and ".. Hi Yen, I probably answered this question to you in the thread from The Arch Bishop of Consumerism : 02 Jul 2008 3:43:24pm..."
You wrote: "... The image I wanted him to understand with the word 'mother' was more related to a fierce instinct to care, protect, and teach and demand accountability. ..."
-which should not be limited to a mother. ...
-and which - per se - does not argue for or against GM.
Reply Alert moderator
l George :
30 Jun 2008 11:09:42am
As business operators, the option is always there to pack up shop and move on if you are no longer competitive and/or sustainable in a market. Rather than change the landscape for your (comparatively) small benefit, at the potential health cost of millions, you should do so. Sublimating the absolute of 'growth at any cost' is morally reprehensible and a real indicator of just how herd-like this society has become. Shame on you.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 174 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
01 Jul 2008 1:24:42am
you wrote: "... As business operators, the option is always there to pack up shop and move on if you are no longer competitive and/or sustainable in a market. ..."
Tell that to the car industry in Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
l The Arch Bishop of Consumerism :
30 Jun 2008 10:48:42am
Oh oh. Madeleine crys havoc, and Unleashes her dogs of war..
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
30 Jun 2008 11:44:00am
My thoughts exactly, ABofC.
Regardless, the yield and quality data from the first commercial GM canola crops in Australia are eagerly anticipated by the grains industry.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
01 Jul 2008 6:51:44pm
They'll be fudged as before Cricket. Did you know, that in earlier trials, on a very windy day not long after the crops were sown, there was an emergency call to soak the GM trials with water to stop anything escaping.
When they evaluated the results, no account was made for that free watering.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
03 Jul 2008 2:00:27pm
"They'll be fudged as before..."
Yes yes, Madeleine, everyone knows Monsanto and all the others never tell the truth about anything, while the anti-GM lobby says absolutely nothing but the truth. Your naivety is literally stunning.
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 175 van 177
n Madeleine :
04 Jul 2008 11:01:26am
Read a few 'scientific studies' done by Monsanto staff and you'll understand my position Cricket.
Reply Alert moderator
n Cricket :
09 Jul 2008 4:37:41pm
I suggest you read some of the baseless fear-mongering that's here and then consider just how truthful the anti-GM lobby has been.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
01 Jul 2008 7:13:38pm
What advantage are you expecting Madeleine? If you grow Roundup Ready canola, it only has one gene added to it to give it resistance to glyphosate, not to increase its yield. You have no residual herbicide action which is required for grass control on emergence so you must incorporate the residual trifluralin to control grasses. Because glyphosate can not be applied after the 6 leaf stage (massive yield penalties if sprayed in budding stage) that means you might get one appplication of glyphosate in to control broadleaves (grasses are already under control). As a result you must remove glyphosate from your following rotations and use alternative chemicals to kill the glyphosate tolerant volunteers. You pay $1,000 bookwork fee (discounted to $500 this year), 200 - 250% more for seed, $10.20/tonne end point royalty and accept market loss. Many farmers don't care if you make a loss for paying more for less result but we do mind that you cause us a loss by restricting our markets because it is presumed we are GM unless we prove we are not and that is too difficult and too expensive. For that reason, you can expect a legal action if you cause any non-GM farmers loss by your wrecklessness and uncaring attitude. Nothing personal, its just that non-GM farmers will not accept the loss and we shouldn't be expected to.
Reply Alert moderator
n Madeleine :
02 Jul 2008 8:59:09am
Your points make a great deal of sense Julie, and I'm convinced.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
02 Jul 2008 2:04:13pm
Julie Newman, why are you addressing this to Madeleine ?
Unleashed regulars are well aware that Madeleine is a very strong detractor from GM food.
It would make more sense if it was directed to the author - Maree McKay
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 176 van 177
Reply Alert moderator
n David L :
02 Jul 2008 3:30:44pm
Sarts with an M and saves reading everything.
Reply Alert moderator
n Julie Newman :
02 Jul 2008 4:14:37pm
Sorry, apologies Madeleine, I did mean Maree McKay. It is a shame the Federal government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. How can it be claimed that GM canola is proven safe for human consumption when the oil consumers eat is not tested and the remaining meal is not regulated. Yes, they found an increase in liver weight of 17% in animals fed GM Roundup Ready meal but because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed, it was ignored. If the independent testing was done that consumers need to allay fears, it would help farmers with the market and segregation issue but the GM proponents are doing everything they can to stop these tests. What are they so frightened of?
Reply Alert moderator
n aka :
02 Jul 2008 5:16:56pm
Ask any Pig farmer in the US what happens to their stock when fed GM corn or other feed, they become sterile. I saw doco on it.
Reply Alert moderator
n yen :
04 Jul 2008 11:16:33pm
"... aka :
02 Jul 2008 5:16:56pm
Ask any Pig farmer in the US what happens to their stock when fed GM corn or other feed, they become sterile. I saw doco on it. ...."
That could be the solution to the wild pig problem.
Feed them GM corn.
Reply Alert moderator
n Emmjay :
07 Jul 2008 11:23:32pm
Phew, for a minute there I thought you were going to say the solution was to import US pig farmers. Imagine that, our own versions of the Dukes of Hazzard !
Reply Alert moderator
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008 Unleashed: A bright GM farming future pagina 177 van 177
Unleashed Home | Contributors | Video | Archive | Poll | Contact Us
©2007 ABC | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm 24-9-2008