It has happened.
The prediction for resistence of insects to GM crops -Bt - (insect resistant) has come about.
Herbicide resistance has already been well documented.
The use of increased herbicides on GM crops is yet again documented.
GM agro-technology benefits only the muli-national companies (economic power) and the rest of us pick up the disadvantages; this is dangerous and no-way sustainable.
Tasmania cannot afford to throw away it’s GM free ststus.
Once given away, it is gone forever and is never re-claimable. It cannot be undone.
Dr Alison Bleaney

PANUPS updates service, 21-2-2008
Bollworms evolve to resist Bt toxin: A decade ago, agricultural biotechnology advocates hailed the introduction of corn, soybeans and cotton genetically modified to produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a bacterial protein that kills insect pests. Now a strain of bollworm has appeared in Mississippi and Arkansas cotton fields that has evolved a resistance to these lab-created crops. The Washington Post reports these are “the first pests known to have become fully resistant to the modified plants.” University of Arizona researcher Bruce Tabashnik, who reported the discovery in the February issue of Nature Biotechnology, declared: “What we’re seeing is evolution in action.” Organic farmers also rely on Bt, a natural toxin used to control pests. They had warned that using Bt in genetically engineered crops might trigger Bt resistance, which could destroy the effectiveness of this essential natural pesticide and prompt calls for the increased use of chemical pesticides.

The beet goes on: This spring, farmers will begin planting “Roundup Ready” sugar beets that have been genetically engineered by Monsanto to allow for more pesticide use. Nearly half the sugar consumed in the U.S. comes from beets (the balance is from cane). On January 23, farmers, food safety advocates, and conservation groups filed suit in federal court challenging the deregulation of these herbicide-tolerant beets by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Center for Food Safety reports that since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant GE crops in 1994, herbicide use in the U.S has increased by 122 million pounds—a 15-fold increase. In 2001, Hershey’s and M&M;Mars assured consumers they would not use GE sugar but, CFS notes, now that genetically engineered sugar beets “are close to being planted commercially, they have made no such assurances.” You can sign a petition to U.S. candymakers here.

I absolutely agree your statements Alison. Those with concern for the future of food production on this island, this country and also the rest of the planet should sit up and take notice NOW.

If you hear of any person or group ie: TFGA advocating the use of GM crops in Tasmania, look into their funding.  The huge companies behind the push are using associations and individuals to further their cause.  They will stop at nothing to convince us that GM crops are the saviour of mankind. This could involve cash incentives, funding for research, free goods and sevices for buying and using their chemicals, the list goes on.  Most of the research into gene technology going on in our universities is probably funded wholly or in part by one or more of these companies.  They will stop at nothing to discredit, even ruin any researcher or food producer who speaks out against it.  In Britain they are even using guilt as a lever by saying that those banning GM crops are committing mass murder by denying the starving masses of food!  How far they will go no one knows. Sir Gus Nossal made statements furthering the cause of GM that are now used by Monsanto in their marketing strategy!

I missed the Committee hearings into Gene Technology, including public submissions. It was held here in Launceston on Wednesday 20th February.  Even though I made a submission I was not notified of the hearing until it was too late.  However, the meeting in Hobart will start the week commencing 17th March at 2.00pm.

I URGE all readers and participants using this site to log on to http://www.gmwatch.org and register for their daily updates.  This will keep you abreast of what is happening here and in the rest of the world.  They have just had an update on GM trees which I am sure readers of this site will be interested in.
See the article below
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0802/S00047.htm

Tasmania is an island that could retain a wonderful reputation and marketing tool by remaining GM free but contamination from Victoria and NSW poses a real challenge. The quarantine measures to keep these “weeds” out of this state should be already in place. I doubt if they have even started to address this.

The takeover of food production by the gene technology companies is just as important as climate change for the future of this planet.

REMEMBER THOSE THAT RULE THE PRODUCTION OF FOOD RULE THE WORLD!!! 

Cathran Bowyer

I intend at this time to keep an open mind towards genetically modified crops ! as, if it can be proven that they can be modified to produce MORE without affecting the quality of the plant then, that is breakthrough ! in a world that is now ! not producing enough to feed itself according to world scientists.
                d.d.

There is not universal agreement on what “genetically modified crops” really means. For some, it may mean the inclusion of genes from a different species, such as another plant species or even an animal. For others, it’s any genetic “tinkering”.

Keep in mind virtually all of our crops/fruits have a long history of genetic modification in the sense of genetic change. Further, wheat (to pick one example) arose from the hybridization of separate grass species - a case where much more than one or a few genes from another species became part of the offspring.

The next time you are in the produce section, consider the genetic changes in apples, potatoes, corn, grapes, strawberries, lettuce, carrots etc. from the wild types (which would hardly be edible).

Few people ever think of the contributions of unheralded plant breeders that make our very existence possible.

#3 Don, the crop quantity is often decreased not increased- farmers in India lost 100% of one crop.(One of the myths ‘sold’ by the pro GM lobby).
And the cost of seed, tied herbicides, and next seed (ie the actual cost of using GM) makes the product more expensive.
Poverty is what causes hunger, not lack of food.
#4 By definition GM means that genetic material from another species has been introduced to that organism eg carrots and eucalypts, bacteria into cotton and canola (Bt). The new genetic material is inherently unstable or it would have trouble getting in there in the first place.
Genetic manipulation - within the species- ‘tweaking the genetic material’ is modifying the living organism by genetics and is used by conventional breeders. It too can have some untoward end results. Nature does hybridise etc naturally but at a much slower rate than the usual gene tweakers who are doing this for an economic gain of some sort.

Alison ! i bow to your greater knowledge on this particular subject and confess to not knowing a great deal regarding it, apart from what i have read however i must add that if the geneticists were creating dangerous hybrids capable of harming and or killing human’s i would find that alarming! and as previously mentioned there is considerable concern as to how the world will feed itself in fifty years (maybe sooner)
 
  We human’s are now living longer than ar any time in history which leads me to suggest that we are doing something’s right ,and we are bound to make some mistakes ! but in the end i would like to believe that the scientists have humanities best chances in mind and that exhaustive testing will win the day.

  Tasmania is a small player and we know that rich farmland is being taken up by gunn,s and in fact farmers are waliking away from their holdings in ever increasing numbers everywhere! and perhaps they can’t be blamed by all accounts as the pittance that they recieve for their produce as against what it is retailed at, is criminal and perhaps this type of behaviour by the multi nationals should be explored by governments, but never is.
                ciao,
                    d.d.

GM is an acronym for genetically modified, which can mean what the user want it to mean within that definition. There is a range of GM from “conservative” to “extreme”

Re: “the new genetic material is inherently unstable or it would have trouble getting in there in the first place” makes little genetic sense.

A ton of “conventional genetic manipulation (GM!” has involved interspecific hybridization. Thank plant breeders and GM for what you ate today. For example, most commercial grasses from the golf course to wheat are artificially modified interspecific hybrids. That said, I’m not arguing for all GM.

The interesting fact for the GM debate is that scientific evidence to show how dangerous GM actually is, is being gagged.  Scientists are being sacked (in most cases) or at least threatened when they voice their concerns when they find out the side-effects of GM. This is a disgrace and very frightening as they are playing with our food and health.

I have an interesting question which I am hoping someone will be able to answer.  If and when GM is shown without doubt how dangerous it is to human health, how are they going to recall it?  Due to contamination, there is no way, so the governments will just throw this in the “too hard basket” (unless someone else has an answer to this) and these governments would let the world’s health go spiraling down and the whole world would go into famine.  Why are we even considering something that could change the health of the world and make everyone in all countries not able to eat food. 

The difference with GM to genomics is that GM modifies across species and bombards the DNA of the plant with a virus or bacteria to break it down, not knowing or wanting to know what the resulting damaged genes do.  Remember that people born with mental instabilities have only got one gene displacement.  We absorb the genes within the plants but as yet we do not have a good enough understanding of what effect that has on our health.  Genomics is within the same species and is a lot safer as the gene is spliced not bombarded (as far as I can tell).

Have a look around and you will find that sugar is now being looked at by the GM companies and currently being tested in Queensland.  Have a look at your groceries and see how much you could buy without any sugar in it if you wanted to avoid GM?

How much of our food will be overrun before there is no turning back and we have no choice but to eat something that can reduce the size of our heart and lungs and increase the size of our liver and kidneys (this is due to trying to get rid of the poisonous GM).  This is fact, the rats fed GM have shown without doubt that these increases and decreases occur but the GM companies say that GM is safe. Pull the other one, it jingles.

The real reason why they are forcing this down our throats is because the GM companies are going to be the new petroleum industries.  As soon as sugar was shown that it could make plastic, they quickly developed a GM sugar.  As soon as canola, rice and wheat where shown that they could be used as petrol they were up and running with GM canola, rice and wheat.  Have a look at their website (Monsanto.com) and see the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on biofuels.  They meanwhile want the whole world to be a level playing field so they are forcing it onto Australia and our clean-green image will be wiped out.

Why do the GM companies think that the results that clearly states these damaging results are insignificant?  Why aren’t these results shown in newspapers?  It takes a lot of internet searching to find as the GM companies own a lot of media and seed companies in Australia and gag and pay out the lot.  CSIRO is a real joke as they get paid millions to do GM research so they are not going to jeopardize that little money spinner.

All in all, GM to me seems very dangerous don’t you think?

Why keep using the phrase “Genetically Modified” which is what humans and the plants themselves have been doing for eons. What we are worried about is “Genetically ENGINEERED” Somewhat different.

The problem it seems to me,is that conspiracy theorist’s and movie maker’s for many years have created angst among the public ,and terms as genetically engineered have become a dirty phrase among many of us, and with respect i find this predominate among those of religous persuasion.
 
    Amazing medical breakthroughs have been achieved with genetic engineering and i feel sure that many mistakes are also made, however i believe that they are heavily outweighed by the eventual breakthrough’s such as xray technology,anti biotics,the irradication of many, many, deadly diseases being but a couple of the many discoveries humans have made since the industrial revolution and now especially over the past 20 or so years ! with the mapping of the gene pool.

    I don,t believe that humans will ever stop searching for answers ,and neither they should ! that’s what makes us unique.
                      d.d.

This is a big subject, but as Bonni correctly states, genetic modifications are part and parcel of all plants. The general public is woefully misinformed about evolution and genetics, and vastly under appreciates the fact our species survival depends on the work of plant breeders who have been doing GM for hundreds of years, certainly making use of interspecific genes.

That said, I agree not everything coming out of Monsanto, etc. should be considered “harmless” by any means.

An interesting article which I agree with, shows why GM is a problem from David M. Kaplan, Ph.D.

The most common concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among environmentalists, doctors, scientists, and public interest advocates have to do with the health risks they might pose, the environmental pollution they might cause, and the biodiversity they might threaten. Although these are all valid concerns, there is not yet any overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered food is dangerous.

We really do not know what the long-term consequences will be for our health, safety, or the environment. Maybe the biotech defenders are right and they are safe to eat and safe to grow. A stronger argument would show that even if GMOs could be made safe to eat and safe to grow there would be still be good reason to oppose them. I believe the key to such an argument is the way that the biotech industry uses intellectual property rights laws and international trade regulations to patent GMOs and to transform the nature of farming from an activity required to sustain life to a profit-driven high-tech industry.

The World Trade Organization (WTO), the largest, most powerful international organization dealing with global rules of trade among nations, has aggressively protected the rights of GMO producers to sell their goods, prevent labeling, and protect their patents. I believe that what is at stake here is the institutional privileging of market imperatives over the needs, interests, and democratic values of peoples and nations around the world to choose what kind of food they would like to produce and consume.

It is a conflict between the basic human right to freedom and food security versus the property rights of private enterprises – and that’s what’s wrong with genetically modified food.

Genetic modification is the alteration to an organism’s genome by any number of methods,
including inserting, transferring, or deleting genes or other DNA sequences.

Genetic engineering is when genetic engineer moves genes from one organism to another. A
gene can be cut precisely from the DNA of an organism, but the insertion into the DNA of the
target organism is basically random. As a consequence, there is a risk that it may disrupt
the functioning of other genes essential to the life of that organism.

There are a number of ways through which genetic engineering is accomplished. Essentially,
the process has four main steps.
1) Isolation of the gene of interest
2) Insertion of the gene into a vector
3) Transformation of cells of organism to be modified
4) Tests to isolate genetically modified

So GE is the process of modifying and GM is the end product ready for sale.

I am not a fundamental religious fanatic, just a consumer who is quite rightly concerned about the implications of GM into our food.

(12)
  Oh dear ! concerned ! please try not to be so precious !  do i detect rightous indignation ? and please reread my statement ! nothing about religious fanatisizm .
   
  My statement said “with respect “I” find this predominate among those of religous persuasion”
                      sigh !  d.d.

dd

I have been attacked on previous forums (not on this site but others) when I voice my concerns when I do not belong to any religion and these are the words they have used to try and put me down.  They do this to keep me away from the issue at hand.  So I apologise if you find that my statements predominate but as my name says, I am just a concerned consumer concerned that my rights to eat non-GM which I believe will affect our health in the long run, are being taken away.

Justaconsumer

The Australian public are told we have one of the most rigorous GM health and environmental testing regimes in the world through the OGTR with references to ABARE.

Have we???  The following is a senate estimates transcript with Sue Meek, OGTR.

- Senator CHERRY, Have you commissioned any research on impact on biodiversity in Australia of GM crops?

Dr Meek, No, we have not.

- Senator CHERRY, What research have you commissioned on the issue of human health effects of GM crops?

Dr Meek, Directly, we have not commissioned research. Obviously, Food Standards Australia New Zealand does a lot of work in assessing food products.

Senator CHERRY, But they have commissioned no research either.

——-

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.

See, this is why I am concerned.  This is why I think it is a disgrace to allow this food in.  There are no health testings done through the food standards association at all.

FYI
from PANUPS
February 28, 2008

Dow GE corn contaminates 53,000 acres: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food & Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency have issued a press release warning that a genetically engineered corn seed has been contaminating Iowa cornfields since 2006. The DowAgroSciences seed, a variety known as Event 32, was illegally sold under the labels Herculex RW and Herculex EXTRA. Dow claims that pollen from stalks of the unapproved GE variant inadvertently “landed on a patch of approved stalks.” The Des Moines Register says the seeds were “genetically engineered to make the plants toxic to insect pests.” The USDA describes Event 32 an “unregistered pesticide product” but claims it poses no harm to plants or humans and, furthermore, “poses no plant pest…concerns.” The Register called the disclosure “the latest in a series of incidents in which unapproved biotech varieties of corn and rice have made their way into seed or grain supplies,” beginning in 2000, when GE StarLink corn wound up in taco shells and other commercial food products, and was later found in corn exported by USAID to Bolivia. Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest cited this as evidence that the biotech industry still “isn’t policing itself adequately.”

If you are involved in meal for your stock you should have a look at the 2008 Monsanto User agreement where it states quite clearly warning farmers not to graze GM Canola stubble because there is insufficient information to prove its safety.  This is a new part of the contract so it should be interpreted that they have reason for concern where they previously did not have.

Keep in mind that FSANZ has no regulatory authority of stock feed (meal).  So what of the oil that I as a consumer eat?  Surprise, surprise no testing is done on the oil!

So why are stock considered more important than consumers in Monsanto’s eyes.  Is it that they are kept in the paddock where consumers cannot pin health problems down to canola oil?

The consumers (buyers) will decide whether they want to take the risk and eat GM foodstuffs. The issue will also be whether the animals we eat have been fed on GM feed, andd whether we can trust the labelling and those that sell-on the produce.

Tighten GM food labelling: Woolies
Grocery giant Woolworths has called for all food containing genetically modified ingredients to be clearly labelled, as Victorian farmers prepare to sow GM canola for the first time.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/tighten-gm-food-labelling-woolies/2008/03/01/1204227055206.html

Dr Alison Bleaney

(14)  Point taken “concerned” I AM on your side for the most part.
   
    I just don,t believe that the jury is in on this issue and reserve my Judgement.
              d.d.

Maybe, just maybe, the power of the mighty consumer will win out.  Retailers showing concern for customer welfare is probably not driving this. They must see a future market where GM foodstuffs will not be acceptable to consumers.  The studies overseas have already been done, the writing is on the wall.  Australia must be one of the last bastions for Monsanto to break into.

State governments have been seduced into thinking this is the way forward.  Monsanto doesn’t wield a stick, it wields a very big crowbar!  They would like to take away our choice, after all, we all have to eat!

Have a look at this article

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/give-genetically-modified-canola-a-chance-experts-urge-as-ban-goes/2008/02/29/1204226991482.html

Sir Gus is trying sooooo hard to persuade us that it will all be good for us!

Cathran Bowyer

Has there as yet, been any documented evidence of anyone being harmed by g.m. crops around the world.
    I ask this because it is a subject iv’e not previously been interested in , and this does not appear to be the case,  even though g.m crops have been with us for many years.
                    d.d.

l-tryptophan epidemic killed about 100 people and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick in the 1980’s. Nicely hidden by the GM companies.

The pro-GM sites say that it was a filter not the GM, but this is wrong as that filter change occurred in January 1989, years after EMS had been first contracted.  All tryptophan products of equal dose produced from different companies should have had the same effect but only the GM produced the EMS. 

There are still no special safeguards for GM-produced supplements.  The epidemic took years to identify.  It was discovered only because the disease was rare, acute, came on quickly and had a unique source.  If one of these four attributes were not present, the epidemic might have remained undiscovered.  Similarly if common GM food ingredients are creating adverse reactions, the problems and their source may go undetected.

Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced (from the US), with reactions including irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, skin complaints including eczema, chronic fatigue, headaches and lethargy.  Blood tests confirmed an antibody reaction to soy.

Farmers report pigs and cows become sterile from GM corn.  I cannot tell if this affects the human population because how many men would say that they have been eating GM?  But it seems to me that as I work in the health industry, more men seem to be reporting to be sterile.  Is this a co-incidence or is there something going on that we cannot identify and are ignoring.

In 2003 approx. 100 people living near a Bt (GM) cornfield in the Philippines developed skin, respiratory, intestinal reactions and other symptoms while the corn was shedding pollen.  This does not normally happen in a non-GM variety.

Because it is in a controlled environment (penned) it was reported that sheep died at four villagers after grazing on the GM cotton stubble within a week. Again this does not normally happen in non-GM varieties so it was reported.

That’s the thing, we don’t know the human problems or diseases that GM could be doing to us as it does not get reported or controlled.  We don’t go into a hospital and say “I have the symptoms of sterility, cancer, liver/spleen problems, and by the way I’ve been eating GM” do we?  It is not reported therefore it’s not likely to be giving off warning lights anywhere.  And don’t the GM companies love that!

We as humans are not in a controlled environments so how do you know that you, your parents or siblings did not get cancer or any diseases that are happening now from GM.  You don’t because it is not known how much GM you are actually eating at the moment. 

So yes, there is more evidence happening all the time, but only after 4 warning signs can they point the GM problems down to being GM.  How much GM do you actually eat at the moment?  Do you know?  Did you know that most soy now in the world is GM?  But you would not go to a doctor and say that you have been eating GM would you?  Have a look and see how much GM from the ingredients of just soy is in your diet starting with chocolate.  You may well be very surprised as much as I was.

have a look at this site and the letter esp pages 2 and 3 re health issues, written by Peter Fenwick to the PM today.

http://www.madge.org.au/

Thank you Alison for pointing me to that excellent letter clearly stating the concerns that Australian consumers, scientists and farmers have for GM.  It will be fantastic if the PM does get these prominent scientists and farmers together to discuss the problems associated with GM.  It should have been done before the moratoriums were lifted but if this government is more sensible than the last one, we may see something done about this atrocity.

(22)
    Point taken ! and thanks for the info “Concerned” ! one is so consumed by the pulp mill thing that making time for other concerns has been eluding me, i will brush up on my reading.       
                  ciao,
                      d.d.

Cathran ,
    on the site that you have entered one has to comment that there are some compelling reasons for its use,(if they can be believed) especially in regards to not having to use some pesticides ,also the added cropping and the fact that canola for instance can be grown in hitherto unusable soils could be a bonus in the future of helping the third world.       
                d.d.

Don, I’m not sure if you mean the link to the Age site, I provided this to show how the proponents of GM will go to any lengths to convince us of it’s safety and economic benefits. Have another look at what Dr Strapper says. Dr Strapper “left” CSIRO after he questioned GM testing. 

The http://www.gmwatch.org  site will give you ALL examples, but its’ main aim is to expose the truth behind the push for GE foods.

There will be a DVD out very soon exposing Monsanto.  It will show that GM or GE crops are the biggest human trials ever undertaken.  These experiments are carried out on us all and without our permission.  Another fantastic DVD is “The Silent Forest”.  Dr David Suzuki narrates the story of GE and how its effects will reach further that you ever thought.  Contact me if you would like to see this.

Thanks so much for your interest in this subject Don, I wish more folks would join you in questioning this science.

Cheers
Cathran

Have a look at this gem on You Tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc&feature=related

Fox blows the whistle on Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone.

Cheers
Cathran

I hope you don’t mind me answering this one Cathran but I have information regarding Don’s questions.  Most people do not realise that the Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray due to the concentration and form of the protein.  Bt in sprays are used intermittently and degrade in the environment whereas the Bt-toxin in crops is thousands of times more concentrated and is continuously produced in every plant cell.  When people eat Bt corn, they consume Bt-toxin in every bite. 

The crop yield is a myth created by a cigarette salesmen not a farmer and when they have used posters of farmers in India (they did not know what it was used for) standing next to a tractor supposedly paid for by the increase in yields, the actual farmer said that he would not even be able to buy two tractor tires from any increase in yield.  If you backtrack all the information of increased crop yield you find that an Indian salesman of GM was the instigator of this supposed research on saying how it increased crop yields not scientific evidence. 

In fact scientific evidence clearly shows that it has a significant decrease in crop yield.  I have also heard from significant sources that they had seen in GM test paddocks, sprinklers set up.  Also bags around the crop with pollen that was next to non-GM varieties so that contamination could not occur and spoil their results (do you wonder why we do not trust GM companies or CSIRO testing). CSIRO receives millions of dollars in scientific research for GM each year and they do not want that jeopardized. Also where farmers do not have access to irrigation, the yields from Bt cotton ended up with financial losses.  The overall average return to Bt cotton farmers in India over three years was 60% less and 71% of farmers who used Bt cotton ended with financial losses.

Scientific evidence (Benbrook and Martinez-Ghersa et al) showed that RR soybean yields averaged 5-10% less than conventional soybeans.  The general absence of a yield benefit discounts the notion that biotech is necessary to “feed the world”. or could somehow do better than conventional plant breeding is already doing.

As Devinder Sharma has said “In its effort to bolster the commercial interests of the biotechnology industry, the international community can’t see the forest for the trees.  In its enthusiasm to promote the expensive technology at the expense of the poor, it overlooks the potential of biotechnology to further deepen the great divide between the have and have nots.  No technology fix can help bridge this monumental gap.  Hunger results not only from the inability of the poor to access food, it is also the result of global policies that further marginalize the poverty-stricken, cumulatively adding on to the problem of hunger…  In 2000, India had a record food surplus of 44 million tons.  By 2002, the surplus had grown to 65 million tons, not due to excess production, but because more and more people are unable to buy the grain that lies stockpiled”.

Concerning the decrease in pesticide use, this is also a myth.  I know there is an article clearly stating that in the first few years pesticide use decreases but then after those 3 years they significantly increase until pesticide use is more substantial than the original year.  If you log onto non-gm-farmers.com you will find the information to support this claim.  Not only does pesticide increase but also the D4T (Agent Orange) pesticide use is increased.  This is to try to keep GM out of crops that are trying to stay non-GM.  The D4T pesticide is a disaster as it has been clearly shown from past tests that it is hazardous to human health and a known carcinogen.

So guess who makes these pesticides?  You guessed it, the original creators of GM.  They don’t want their pesticide use decreasing as the billions of dollar profit margins would go down.

Concerning the supposed GM crops that can be grown in drought resistant soils, this has not been proven in any tests (outside of the GM company).  This is wishful thinking on the GM companies agenda.  Non-GM varieties are being tested at the moment anyway with good results but this does take time to get to the general public.

Scientific evidence of increased pesticide use:-

Herbicide use on RR soybean acres is gradually rising as a result of weed shifts, late-season weed escapes leading to a buildup in weed seed banks, and the loss of susceptibility to glyphosate in some weed species (Hartzler, 1999; HRAC, 2001).

(ERS,1999; Duffy, 1999; Benbrook, 2001a) Slightly more pounds of herbicides are applied on the average acre of Roundup-Ready (RR) soybeans compared to the average acre planted to conventional soybean varieties…

Accordingly, in 2000 the average RR corn acre was treated with about 30% more herbicide than the average non-GM corn acre.  Four years of experience and data show that RR weed management systems require a modest to moderate increase in per-acre herbicide use. Moreover, use rates are trending upward because of shifts in the composition of weeds toward species less responsive to a contact herbicide like glyphosate; loss of susceptibility and/or the emergence of resistance in some weed species; and, greater weed pressure as a result of more frequent late-season weed escapes in RR crops…

Bt-cotton, on the other hand, has reduced insecticide use markedly in several states. Close to half cotton insecticide acre-treatments either solely or partially target the budworm-bollworm (BBW) complex of insects, the target of Bt cotton. The average cotton acre received 2.21 acre treatments with insecticides targeting the BBW complex in 1992. Reliance peaked in 1995 at just over 3 acre treatments and has fallen to just 0.77 in 2000 (Environmental Defense and Union of Concerned Scientists, 2001a).Cotton insecticide use trends must be studied carefully to accurately identify cause-effect relationships. The biggest reductions in bollworm-budworm complex insecticide use have occurred in the use of methyl parathion, profenofos, and thiodicarb. The former two are highly toxic OPs that have triggered resistance problems and regulatory restrictions. As a result, most of the reduction in their use had occurred by the end of the 1996 season, prior to widespread use of Bt-cotton.”

What the GM companies seem to do is take the scientific evidence out of context and say that GM reduces pesticide use but as you can see from the above, it is not the GM that has done this but targeting of problems prior to GM.  There is more evidence available but this is just the quick answer to the increase in pesticide use.

Thanks Concerned, your explanation is spot on.

All the evidence leads to one conclusion, massive profits for the companies concerned. These companies have no ethical standing when it comes to manipulating the facts.  It’s a bit like creative accounting, if you fudge around with the figures you will always come up with the right answer.

I have just read that religious ethical investor groups in the US are lobbying to stop the planting of GM sugar beet.

Here is the quote from gmwatch released today.

“A group of socially con­cer­ned US investors has launched a public campaign calling on food companies not to use a controversial new genetically engineered sugar beet crop that is to be planted for the first time this spring.

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is calling on consumers to write to 63 companies, including Heinz, Campbell’s Soup, General Mills and Kraft, asking them to say they will not use a new sugar beet strain developed by Monsanto.

ICCR is a coalition of more than 300 faith-based institutional investors that has been in the vanguard of successful efforts to make companies more responsive to a range of social and environmental concerns.

Its members have filed shareholder resolutions calling on the McDonald’s and Wendy’s restaurants chains and Safeway supermarkets to label products that contain genetically engineered ingredients”.
New York Financial Times March 5th 2008

Cheers Cathran

As probably the only TT correspondent who has genetically modified an organism (bacteria and mice), the howlers and inaccuracies on show here are extraordinarily funny. Rather than spend my valuable time dealing with the nonsense, all I can say that GM food is here, metaphorically, has not been linked to any problems in health (although the GM-haters are slavering for something - don’t read their conspiracy laden web sites, do some research on PubMed) and will inevitably come to Tassie, if not in the next 20-30 years.

The L-tryptophan ‘epidemic’ is particularly enlightening. I dont dispute that there may have been health issues with a particular lot of the amino acid produced in bacteria - what the anti-GMers can’t appreciate that it likely had nothing to do with genetic engineering itself, but more likely to the lack of GMP standards and cleaning up of metabolites. Issues that relate to any chemical processing. The epidemiologists had a field day with this ‘epidemic’.

Meanwhile, if ye be afraid of GM, here are some drugs that produced by GM using bacteria and other species - insulin, herceptin, hep B vaccine, human growth factor, erythropoietin, granulocyte and macrophage colony stimulating factor etc Genetic engineering has treated and cured millions upon millions.

Thanks for the info ladies ,absolute food for thought (no pun intended) i do have an interest in insecticides as only in the past few years have i found that having been exposed to (saturated often)in deildrun (hope i spelt that right) and D.D.T as a “yoof’ , i only became aware the the former was actually agent orange or a derivation of same, the knowledge came about from unexplained maladies that have persisted in my system over my life time.
    I will look at your comments with renewed interest ,however being only capable of concentrating on one crises at a time           , the mill is , at this time my main objective ,
                      ciao,
                        d.d.

Below is from an epidemiologist and nutritional biochemist that knows what they are talking about rather than something that you “can’t be bothered” looking up. 

“THE SAFETY TESTING THAT HAS BEEN DONE

In science, results of new work are published in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals, so that others can repeat and extend the experiments hence build-up a picture-in-progress of the area. Yet, rather incredibly, a recent literature search of the safety assessments of GM foods currently available in Australia yielded safety assessments of only one food: Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy.

Furthermore, it was written by Monsanto-paid scientists. So how can we be satisfied that GM foods are safe when independent scientists cannot easily verify the accuracy and veracity of the results of existing safety assessments? The only effective way to assess data is to review documents written by FSANZ when it is asked by an applicant company to approve a GM food for consumption. This government watchdog agency does none of its own safety testing, instead relying on the company data. It has, produced a document describing its guidelines for assessing safety of GM foods,26 which are best described as safe until proven harmful, the opposite of a precautionary approach…

Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat, sample sizes were often very low - for example, five to six cows per group for Roundup Ready soy27 and they were fed for only four weeks. Some of these experiments used some very unusual animal models for human health, such as chickens, cows and trout. Some of the measurements taken from these animals are also unusual measures of human health, such as abdominal fat pad weight, total de-boned breast meat yield, and milk production.

It would appear that many of these tests have not been designed to measure human health at all, but rather to reassure primary producers that GM feed will permit farm animals to grow sufficiently to get a reasonable price at market. In its safety assessments, FSANZ uses these kinds of experiments as evidence that these foods are safe for human consumption.

Even worse is that often the only results given from these experiments were the death of experimental animals. If other information was given, it was usually only body weights, with possibly some organ weights. If gross pathology was examined, there was no description of what was involved. Certainly, biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut, liver and kidney function and microscopy results were not given, and were therefore probably not done when they should have been done and the results disseminated.

In addition, animals were not fed for long enough for cancer studies, or studies into the effect of offspring, ... Even more disturbing is that, even with these existing experiments, which are limited in their ability to pick up health problems, some adverse effects were found. i.e. rats fed canola meal from GM canola GT73 had liver weights increased by twelve to sixteen per cent.28

Rather than being investigated further, these results were attributed to a higher level of glucosinolates (a known toxin in canola) in the GM canola compared to controls. Yet the level of glucosinolates was only about a third of the official level of concern as measured by the Codex Alimentarius Commission,29 a global United Nations agency for setting food standards. This indicates that this substance may be innocent of these adverse effects. Consequently, a different substance may have caused the adverse effects, and, if it is oil-soluble, it may be in the oil fraction that people eat. However, there appear to be no feeding studies on canola oil to check this potential.

Another example, additional to their normal diet, one group of rats was fed control potatoes while another was fed a Bt GM potato line. After a month, a ‘number’ of abnormal findings were noted, such as enlarged lymph nodes, hydronephrosis, and enlarged adrenal glands.30 It was reasoned that, because at least some of these results were also found in the control rats, no statistical difference was found between the two groups, and so FSANZ decided that the GM potatoes were safe for eating. Control rats are supposed to remain healthy; that they did not indicates either that rats are an inappropriate animal model for safety testing of potatoes, or that something unusual was happening with all the rats. A virus, for example, may have infected the rats, masking any effect of the GM food, or the controls may have been inadvertently fed the GM food. Put simply, the experiment should have been repeated and expanded to determine what was occurring and why, followed by extensive human experiments, before the food was considered safe”.

Sorry this is so long-winded but it does prove a point that there are no safety assessments for GM food so how can we know if we are being poisoned?

The L-tryptophan epidemic was caused by a GM organism that produced unexpected substances that killed people.  Why don’t you understand about that?  Shouldn’t this have been purified anyway before going into the supplement?  Remembering that GM corn, soy etc come into the human food supply without ANY purification. 

Yes, medical research has produced some good drugs using GM.  But they came into human use after human clinical trials.  I would be happy to eat GM foods if they had also gone through human clinical trials.  No GM food or crop has undergone any human testing and some have not undergone any animal testing either see above post. Also a person who takes that sort of drug does so to obtain a benefit, and if there is a risk, the person in essence has done a cost/benefit analysis and decided to take the risk to get the benefit.  But as a consumer I don’t want that risk and yet GM is forcing the issue.

The risks and benefits have been measured in clinical trials with the pharmaceutical testing.  Someone eating GM foods takes an unmeasured risk and there are no benefits to offset this.  Also, people have stated in survey after survey that they do not want to take this risk - they want to avoid eating GM foods if they can.  But with the lack of labelling laws and non-policing of those laws, they are being exposed against their will.

Therefore the GM industry is imposing a risk upon the population against its will.  As one high court judge once said - the right to swing your arm ends where it may connect with someone else’s nose.  In other words, the right for one person to take a risk ends where someone else can get hurt.

Regarding no-one getting ill from GM, you tell me which surveillance system you are referring to?  Can you give me references to studies where someone has done an investigation into exposure to GM foods and health in humans. I want evidence from scientific studies that the health effects of GM foods on people has been investigated and found to be nil.  As someone has said before, I believe GM is a biohazard that should be avoided at all costs.

Ladies ! has Tomas has made some valid points here ? however as before ! my limited knowledge does not allow me to comment with any conviction.
                      d.d.

Ha i always said you were a lab rat Tommy i hit the nail right on the head .So this is how you make a living .I bet you are working on G.M blue gums and that tells us who your boss is.It also explains your attitude to poisoned water supplies ect.I thought shit house rats were cunning but you let the cat out of the bag this time LAB RAT..Ps i do not wish to eat anything G.M so keep your grubby little paws out of natures food chain..

There are compelling reasons not to trust anything we are told by the biotech spin machine. We are looking at massive corporations here - corporations with very close links to the US administration - and the Pentagon.
Yes, the Pentagon!
There are compelling reasons why you should treat biotech corporate science with intense suspicion. I have aired my views about the tragedy of corporate science on previous occasions. Unfolding events serve only to prove my point.
Anyone who buys biotech mantras needs to do a serious rethink.
Their mantras are created to conceal the truth - to hide their real agendas.
Anyone who seeks to be well informed on the biotech industry and their creations should do some reading.
SEEDS OF DECEPTION - Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith (published 2003 in Australia by Scribe)
GENETIC ROULETTE - The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith (published 2007 in Australia by Gene Ethics)
In Genetic Roulette, the author throws down the gauntlet, challenging anyone to demonstrate on a scientific basis where any of the independent scientific grounds defined in the book, are in error,  The response to date is to attack the author. In the usual way, the industry does not respond to his challenge. Shooting the messenger is the best they can do - for to respond to his challenge would expose their own fraudulent science.
And guess what folks! Our regulatory and food safety authorities take at face value the fraudulent science provided by the corporations!
Think about that for a moment!

Another book - just published is
Seeds of Destruction - The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl
http://www.globalresearch.ca/SHOPCART.html

The Tasmanian government had first-hand experience in 2000 of the duplicity of Aventis Crop Science (now Bayer) with so called ‘trial’ plots of canola. We as taxpayers are still footing the bill for trying to deal with the contamination created from that experience. The government here learned the reality - that contamination was then, and still is today, a key industry objective. Back then, they tried to deny that it was possible. Now they shrug and say oh well, you will just have to accept contamination! Today, 1%, tomorrow 5%, then 10%!
Game set and match!

At this point I pray that the Tasmanian government will not bow to pressure from Canberra, the TFGA and others who have sold their souls to the global corporations - and keep our island GE free!

GM drugs are regulated through the TGA - drug regulators in Aus - and their standards for assessment of safety(and harm) are v much higher than for foods. Even so, there are problems - Vioxx - comes to mind. With foods, there are no human studies, or long term animal studies and the reasoning of ‘substantial equivalent’ is used by FDA. But GM crops produce different proteins, amino acids even toxins as well as the actual substance under debate, which even then is not the same, as it now has a different genetic make up. So, the ‘substantial equivalent’ argument is based on false statements and cannot therefore be upheld. The devil is in the detail and an example needs to be explained.
The Aus pea fiasco - approx 10 years research and $10M went down the drain - as they were found to cause severe allergies. But, and this is a huge but, this was only discovered because someone tested the peas as if they were a drug. If they had been tested as food, the problem would not have been identified and the peas would be on sale. The same would hold true today.Same with L-trytophan; it is classed as a food supplement, the GM bacteria making it caused the problem and the same problem could happen today-there has been no change in the regulatory approach. Allergy problems have increased dramatically in the last 5-10 years, but what is - are - the cause(s)?? and how are we going to try and determine this??  as Judy Carmen states, if you don’t look, and the effects are common, caused by many other factors indirect and occur at some distance from the event, how on earth can the association of harm be certainly made?
This is not to say that there is no harm produced by GM foods.

Additional clarification to my last post:
‘substantial equivalence’ basically allows GM foods to be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food with respect to safety, if a new food or food component is found to be ‘substantially equivalent’ to an existing food.
That this process is considered to be the back-bone of a rigorous risk assessmnet can only be described as risible.

I had no doubt that the anti-GM cherry-picking lobby would trot out the usual grab-bag of sources to portray their faith-based fear of the modern, and I was not disappointed.

You may not know it, but if you have ever eaten in the US or Europe or eaten products from overseas, or have taken dietary supplements in these countries, there is a good chance of having already consumed a GM-related product. The inhumanity! If you have had your fair share of immunizations and medicines, then you have also been exposed! The horror!

The comments around L-tryptophan in #35 are also enlightening for their lack of intellectual, if not scientific, rigor. There doesn’t seem to be an understanding of what the GM component is about and how a lack of good laboratory practice led to the potential metabolites not being cleaned up. The latter is important no matter how a biological product (such as an amino acid, peptide or polypeptide) is created. It applies either if the product is produced by genetic engineering or by chemical synthesis. That the poster does not understand the difference does not undermined their right to post what they believe, although it would be nice to have some acknowledgment of a distinction between faith-based fear versus credible science. Otherwise, it’s back to the Dark Ages.

In any case, I’m not concerned, genetic engineering is a tool that will continue to penetrate all aspects of human life. This present State Government, which appears ignorant of science and technological innovation, may feel there are some votes in the pretense of being ‘GE-free’, but that won’t last forever.

Disclaimer: Thomas makes his money from royalties on a patent for a human protein expressed in yeast, and yet more money from advising companies on biotech including GE. His advice on the latter in terms of engagement in Tasmanian agriculture has been ‘not to bother’.

(41)
    Tomas !  serious question !  You say “not to bother” should we take that as your peers not being in agreement with you ? or in other words do you feel inclined to expand on your expertise in this field .
            d.d.

#42 - Don - a number of companies have approached State Gov about expanding GM here. Door was shut tight some time ago by the least cerebrally endowed of the State ministers, a line parroted by his successor. I consult to a couple of mid-range biotechs who have interests in this area, told them not to bother with Tas. I believe the Uni here has also closed the door on commercial trials of GM plants.

You are diverting from the issue.  You are arguing that the metabolites were not cleaned up - ie poor lab practice.  But this is the second step.  The key thing is that these metabolites were MADE by the GM bacterium in the first place (and not by the non-GM bacterium) and THEN the product was purified to be 99.6% pure, which is really quite pure by anyone’s standards.

The impurities were only there to 0.4%.  Of all the impurities that were there, only one or two of them caused the problem, which means that the causal substance(s) were there in REALLY TINY amounts, but were so toxic that even tiny amounts were enough to kill people and permanently incapacitate thousands of others.  The toxic substances were there in such tiny amounts that it took researchers years to try and work out what they were - it was too hard to isolate enough of the impurities to run tests on them to try to determine what they were - what their structure was. 
Reference: Mayeno, A. & Gleich, G. 1994. Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: A cautionary tale, TIBTECH, 12: 346-52

So imagine what would happen if a GM corn or soy plant did the same thing as the bacterium and this was fed to millions of people.  The corn or soy would not be purified at all.  Any “bad” substance the plant made would not be filtered out in a lab - the whole corn kernal and/or soy bean would be eaten.  Quite a disgrace really.

And you say you want the whole world to be GM, and want this to be pushed down our throats.  Really, you have no idea about consumer choice do you?

Tomas is revealing himself to be a shining example of the problem with all too many scientists today.
Like a boy with a new toy, anything is possible, and to hell with the consequences.
Where is morality here?
Where is precaution?

Keep it up Tomas - you are making my case for me!

When is someone, somewhere, going to take up the Jeffrey Smith challenge? (see my item 38 above)
How about you Tomas? You seem to have some scientific knowledge. Shoot the messenger type responses won’t wash!

“China Clean Up Boosts chemical costs”. 

“Australia has applied a lot more glyphosate based herbicides than producers estimated” NSW Farmers Association.

Please read about this and more in the article in today’s Weekend Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23338067-643,00.html

There are vast areas in the US that already have emerging Roundup resistant super weeds.  I expect Monsanto already has a “super herbicide” for these weeds for which it will have a patent. It will therefore be back in full control of the herbicide market before you know it.  Of course they will have “super herbicide ready” GM crops to go with it!

Cheers
Cathran

If you have the download capacity listen to the interview with Jeffrey Smith. 

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/audio/by/title/the_documented_health_risks_of_genetically_engineered_foods

Anyone doubting the reasons for keeping our moratorium should listen to this and read the book
It makes me want to cry and scream with frustration at the same time. 

Cathran

Hi, Guy’s !
          yeah!  just listened to and burnt a disc of geoffrey smih’s claims, pretty damned awful if it can all be believed , the only thing that concerns me is that every man and his dog is trying to peddle a book which always gets me suspicous of the motives. 
                  d.d.

Tried googling “Smith” trouble is theres alot of them and what is surprising is that from nov. 2007 here have been only 373 reads, 64 dowloads, and 16 play’s.
    Has anyone tested his cred, He certainly sounds convincing !

              d.d.

Before today did anyone really know that the download of Jeffrey was there?  Not much publicity for someone that can clearly demonstrate that GMO’s are dangerous.  If everyone sent this on to other people, maybe the truth will be revealed more to people that are unaware of the dangers.

Mr. Jeffrey Smith directs the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America from the Institute for Responsible Technology, where he is executive director. He is also the producer of the docu-video series, The GMO Trilogy and writes an internationally syndicated monthly column, Spilling the Beans.

The Institute for Responsible Technology, http://www.responsibletechnology.org, is a public education nonprofit organization that works on major public initiatives with scientists and concerned citizens from around the world, to shine a spotlight on the dangers of GMOs. Prior to founding the Institute, Mr. Smith was the vice president of marketing communications for a GMO detection laboratory and a consultant to leading industry groups and organizations. Mr. Smith has written extensively on the GMO issue for more than a decade. He lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by genetically modified soybeans and corn.

I have actually met Jeffrey and he is an amazing guy.  He tirelessly tries to show the world about the dangers of GM and the amount of years he has spent with scientists, you would think that he was a scientist himself.  Although he does write books and does peddle these books about GM, the basic fact is that he is not making profit from the books but building an awareness to the world about GM. 

He has even given every politician in Canberra a free copy which to me doesn’t sound like someone wanting to make a profit more like someone that is really concerned about the implication of GMO’s and is doing something about it.

Don,

You would be very wise to start taking heed of informed folks who oppose GM food crops.
Just by listening to what Jeffrey Smith had to say on that IndyMedia audio, your alarm bells should be jangling.
Leaving the question of credibility aside, it fascinates me that you can attach ANY credibility to the self-serving spin of massive global biotech corporations. Surely it makes sense to take heed of the warnings? Surely you should, at this point, be demanding to have the truth.
You should surely be demanding to have your governments, state a federal, to have exhaustive INDEPENDENT scientific studies conducted - SO THAT WE THE PEOPLE KNOW!
There is NO WAY we should accept what corporations tell us.
Nor should we accept our regulatory relying on what the corporations feed to them.
At this point Don, I advise you to get a copy of Genetic Roulette and read it (as Smith suggests, you can skim it to get the guts of it - it is brilliantly presented).
On the matter of credibility, you could have googled Genetic Roulette. Take a good look at what is there, including Smith’s bio and track record.
Take note of the fact that Smith’s book is backed by the work of a team of independent scientists. Consider his challenge to the biotech industry and their scientists: if there is any claim in the book that is not scientifically correct - he wants to hear about it!
Why does the industry ignore that challenge?
What does it tell you!

You might also ask why his book was not front page all through our mainstream media. For the usual reasons Don. The MSM is far more ready to promote the biotech agenda than it is to draw attention to an authoritative challenger like Jeffrey M Smith!

http://www.geneticroulette.com/
You can order the book from Gene Ethics in Melbourne (or they may tell you if any Tasmanian retailers have it. A bargain at about $25!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Finally, this is not an issue that is about opinion or points of view. It is about hard facts. It SHOULD be about rigorous peer reviewed science. The shocking reality is that it is not!
For so long as this is allowed to continue, WE the people of the planet are the biotech industry guinea-pigs!

I agree 100% with Concerned and Paul.

If every person who reads the comments on this site sent the link for the interview to just one other person (more would be preferable) it would start a chain of information that would bypass the usual media coyness on the issue. 

Why isn’t Four Corners onto this??  If they were would we get a weak version as we did with the pulp mill issue?  Let’s all send the link to Tim Cox, he wouldn’t be able to ignore us would he?  Let’s see if we can get it on his “agenda”.  The hearings for the Public Submissions on Gene Technology will start in Hobart on 17th March.  Surely this will be “news”. 

My only worry about Llewellyn getting thrown out over the chooks is that he will be replaced by a pro GM minister!

I will see if I can find a transcript of the interview for folks with a limited download.

Cheers
Cathran

As Greenpeace says about GM:-

“GE is crude technology, because:
• it deliberately interrupts and violates the tightly controlled network of DNA
• it alters genetic information and the expression of genes
• it eliminates cell’s ability to self-regulate its function
• it is not possible to control the place where the gene is incorporated, the number of copies that are incorporated,or the effects of its interaction with other genes.
• the often forcible insertion of DNA into a tightly controlled genetic regulatory network is likely to produce unintended effects.

The following give examples of the many documented unexpected effects produced by the genetic engineering of organisms. Some of these GE organisms are grown commercially, e.g. in the USA.  Unexpected effects occur with all GE technologies, including the gene gun technology.

GE Yeast for alcohol fermentation = increased amounts of toxin

GE Fish - GM Growth hormone gene = tumours, changes in behaviour, change in fins, deformation of skull

GE Soybean - Gene for herbicide resistance = fewer phytohormones, greater proportion of lignin (woody stems)

GE Potato - Gene promoter = change in size and weight of tubers, change in number of tubers

GE Poplar trees - Gene for insect resistance = yellow leaves, growth change, no resistance, some resistance, growth altered and improved, but now prone to other insects.

GE plants for vitamin A - Gene for provitamin A metabolism = (Oilseed rape) less chlorophyll & less vitamin E (rice) colour yellow - instead of red (changed name to Golden Rice as a feature) but need 44kg per day to get daily intake of vitamin A”.

GE plants for human consumption??? Unknown as there are no scientific evaluations done on human health.

“... Unexpected effects – possible consequences GE can produce new toxic substances by:

–interrupting detoxifying processes,
–activating new toxic processes,
–interfering in the complex secondary metabolism of plants.
? food safety is unknown.
? ecological risk is unknown.

It is not known how such substances interact with other organisms, e.g. plants become particularly prone to pests or become toxic to beneficial insects”.

The world is worse off with GM.  Why are we even contemplating such a biohazard? (I love that word for GM).  In actuality the pro-GM sector are victims of inaccurate science governed by money.

Please read this article- was in The Age 15/3/2008
-a national approach to GM foods? Now that would be something, a really practical common-sense approach!
Rudd faces joint anti-GM campaign

Federal Government faces concerted campaign from new coalition of health, environment and farm groups to ban genetically modified crops and foods until they are proved safe beyond reasonable doubt.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-faces-joint-antigm-campaign/2008/03/14/1205472085395.html

Excellent!  About time the politicians did something about this biohazard and checked the facts not the fiction of the pro-GM lobby.

If ever there was a case for a national approach this is it.  If any one state thinks it can remain GM free whilst it’s neighbouring state is growing these crops then their governments are delusional.  Organic gowers prepare to lose your certification, GM free growers be prepared to be challenged!  This is the biggest threat to our clean green image since it has been used for marketing produce from this island.

Meetings of the Joint Select Committee, Gene Technology in Primary Industries, Public Hearings, are taking place in Hobart this week starting today.

Speakers today include

1. David Ford, CEO Impact Fertilisers Pty Ltd,
2. Bob Phelps, Executive Director GeneEthics, 
3. Percy Schmeiser,
4. Julliette McFarlane Canola Grower from the Network of Concerned Farmers.

Unfortunately I could not attend these hearings due to prior commitments.  Hopefully we can post the transcripts of these hearings on TT.

Cheers
Cathran

Folks out there in TT land concerned about the use of herbicides and pesticides please read the article below posted on GM Watch 14/3/2008.

“Superweeds on the march
Tom Philpott
GRIST, 14 March 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/14/14957/6362

In Arkansas, state ag officials turn to Syngenta to solve problems caused by Monsanto

In the late 1990s, farmers in the Southeast began planting Roundup Ready cotton—genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand heavy doses of Roundup, the seed giant’s own blockbuster herbicide. As a result, use of Roundup exploded—and the farmers enjoyed “clean” (i.e., weedless) fields of monocropped cotton. But after a point, something funny happened—certain weeds began to survive the Roundup dousings.

These “superweeds” had somehow gained Roundup resistance themselves, much to the vexation of the farmers. Things have gotten so grim that the Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service called in a scientist from the U.K. to study the matter, according to Delta Farm Press. He brought grave tidings: “We may expect the current weed resistance problems could be the tip of the iceberg,” he declared.

The problem stems from planting the same crops year after year in the same field, and dousing those fields several times each year with the same herbicide. As Delta Farm Press reports:

In the state—and across much of the South—most of the cotton is monoculture with producers growing cotton in the same fields year after year.

Maddeningly, rather than helping farmers diversify fields and move to more creative weed-control strategy, the Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service is teaming up with one of Monsanto’s rivals, Syngenta, to push farmers to add the latter company’s herbicide, Reflex, to their arsenal. They raise the possibility that by bombing their fields with Reflex before planting their cotton, farmers have a chance to avert a possible “explosion” of superweeds this summer.

Chillingly, the U.K. scientist seemed to suggest that such broad-spectrum herbicides might need to be applied year-round to avoid a resistance outbreak—even when fields are resting between plantings: “We need almost a season-long program of controlling [superweeds]. Any gap in the season could increase the likelihood of resistance evolution.”

Brilliant. Rather than diversify crops, we get a push to diversify agrichemicals—and increase their application rates. Maybe the Arkansas Agriculture Extension Service should consider consulting “experts” besides those associated with agribusiness giants?”

Super weeds, super bugs, stronger and stronger pesticides and herbicides! Welcome to the GM reality!

Cathran Bowyer

PS. Please note that all the major companies selling herbicides and pesticides offer loyaly programs to their users, these are similar to fly buys and offer all range of products from white goods to childrens toys!  What a boon to the farmers wife, does she say to her husband “Darling please make sure you use plenty of herbicide this month, we need a new TV!”?

I know this is from November last year but is quite relevant as sugar is now at threat.  So beware of all Kelloggs and Mars products as from this year they may have GM sugar in them.  You will not have a choice with trying to avoid GM as 90% of items in the supermarket have sugar in them in some form.  At the moment there are trials being done in Queensland on GM sugar.  Be brave, talk to people if you don’t want this to happen.:-
New York Times
Andrew Pollack
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/business/27sugar.html
Robert Green, who plants about 900 acres in sugar beets in St. Thomas, N.D., was cited as saying that next spring, for the first time, Mr. Green intends to plant beets genetically engineered to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The story says that for Mr. Green and many other beet farmers, it is technology too long delayed. And the engineered beets could pave the way for the eventual planting of other biotech crops like wheat, rice and potatoes, which were also stalled on the launching pad.

Seven years ago, beet breeders were on the verge of introducing Roundup-resistant seeds. But they had to pull back after sugar-using food companies like Hershey and Mars, fearing consumer resistance, balked at the idea of biotech beets. Now, though, sensing that those concerns have subsided, many processors have cleared their growers to plant the Roundup-resistant beets next spring.

It would be the first new type of genetically engineered food crop widely grown since the 1990s, when biotech soybeans, corn and a few other crops entered the market.

David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar, the nation’s largest sugar beet processor, was quoted as saying, “Basically, we have not run into resistance. We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.”

A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Charles, was quoted as saying her company “would not have any issues” buying such sugar for products sold in the United States, where she said “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.”

If some other big food companies are now open to genetically modified sugar, though, they are not talking about it. Both Hershey and Mars declined to comment. “There’s just nothing we have to say on the topic,” a Mars spokeswoman said.

Many sugar refiners and seed developers also refused to comment, hewing to an industry-wide plan to coordinate the introduction of the genetically engineered beets and carefully control what is said about them.

When it comes to genetically modified crops, there is a reason to keep one’s corporate head low — to avoid protests. Some opponents of biotechnology are only now getting wind that the sugar beets have been resurrected.

“When I first saw this I said, ‘No, it can’t be,’” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. “I thought we had already dealt with this.”

His organization issued a call to arms and thousands of identical e-mail messages were sent to Mr. Berg at American Crystal Sugar warning that “profit margins of your company and its supporting farmers” would be hurt by consumer resistance.

Mr. Berg said he received 681 messages in a 24-hour period before having the e-mail blocked. He said he still believed that most consumers would accept biotech crops. Mr. Cummins, however, said he would next try to persuade consumers to pressure food companies to boycott the sugar. “I don’t think companies like Hershey are going to want any more hassles than they already have,” he said, referring to recent earnings pressure and management turmoil at the chocolate company.

The story explains that about 10,000 American farmers grow sugar beets on about 1.3 million acres, mainly in Northern states from Oregon to Michigan. That makes the beets a minor crop compared with corn, at about 90 million acres, and soybeans, at almost 70 million.

And yet beets account for about half the nation’s sugar supply, with the rest coming from sugar cane. The sugar from beets and cane, generally considered interchangeable, is used in candies, cereals, cakes and numerous other products, although some food manufacturers have switched to high-fructose corn syrup, which is cheaper.

Tonights four corners was extremely worrying as farmers are just walking off unable to keep up interest payments on their loans especially after the last 11 years of drought conditions.

    Those richer farmers ! that are insulated with finance and or the ability to buy up cheap farms for multi national companies who know that grain prices will eventually go through the roof, also know that to combat this very real problem! that the g.m technology in creating seed that can withstand the worsening conditions and poor soils will need to be a reality !and in fact are counting on it !

    Appears to be a catch 22 situation, as whilst waiting perhaps years for a yes/no to the technology , something drastic needs to be done now !
                      d.d.

dd,
GM technology has been developed for over 30 years for drought tolerance and yet the only results are chemical resistance not drought resistance.  The farmers are only being offered promises, higher costs, lower commodity prices and market rejection which does not equate to a profit for farmers. 

GM is not the answer, rain is.  Corporate control of GM crops where the GM company owns the crops is total control and farmers become contract growers without rights is total corporate control and even those farmers not in drought, lose independence and rights.

(59)
    concerned! with respect ! of course Rain is needed ! but unless anyone has an answer to global warming let us be practical.

    you have stated that g.m crops have been a fact for thirty years and my studies have also confirmed that ! and i would have thought by now that here would have been more of a public outcry by this time , had there been the huge repercussions as some are predicting.

    The case of the world not producing enough food to feed itself “RIGHT NOW” may well become the next tragedy to become the human race and for my money the jury is not yet in on the case against, in the meantime science is having huge success in say ,the medical aspects of g.m. investigation .
 
      I have great faith in the scientific community as i believe we all should ! until at least it is proven beyond any doubt that we are at risk from their deliberations.
                    d.d.

Rejection of Water Fluoridation

Since 1990

Sorted By Date
Place
 
Date
 
What’s
happened
Santa Barbara, California   23-Nov-99   Rejected
Johnstown, New York   19-Nov-99   Rejected
Tooele, Utah   2-Nov-99   Rejected
Wichita, Kansas   26-Oct-99   Rejected
Boca Raton, Florida   25-Oct-99   Rejected
E! Cajon, California   27-Apr-99   Rejected
Escondido, California   7-Apr-99   Rejected
Helix Water District, California   7-Apr-99   Rejected
Lakeside Water District, California   6-Apr-99   Rejected
Riverview Water District, California   24-Mar-99   Rejected
La Mesa, California   9-Mar-99   Rejected
Santa Cruz, California   4-Mar-99   Banned
Bremerton, Washington   2-Feb-99   Rejected
Olympia, Washington   15-Dec-98   Rejected
Seward, Nebraska   3-Nov-98   Rejected
Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,
Canada   28-Jul-98   Quit after 30 years
Ste. Genevieve, Missouri   1-Jul-98   Quit after 13 years
Salt Lake City, Utah   10-Jun-98   Rejected
Grand Island, Nebraska   13-May-98   Quit after 1 year
Norfolk, Nebraska   13-May-98   Rejected
Scottsbluff, Nebraska   13-May-98   Rejected
Aurora, Nebraska   13-May-98   Rejected
Stromsburg, Nebraska   13-May-98   Rejected
North Platte, Nebraska   13-May-98   Rejected
Washington, Missouri   7-Apr-98   Rejected
Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada   Mar-98   Quit
Hot Springs, Arkansas   Feb-98   Rejected
Ridgefield, Oregon   22-Dec-97   Rejected
Methuen, Massachusetts   4-Nov-97   Rejected
Brisbane, Australia   1-Oct-97   Rejected
Spokane, Washington   25-Aug-97   Rejected
Largo, Florida   15-Jul-97   Rejected
Clearwater, Florida   15-Jul-97   Rejected
North Redington Beach, Florida   15-Jul-97   Rejected
Amsterdam, New York   21-May-97   Rejected
Suisun City, California   1-May-97   Rejected
Yardly, Pennsylvania   16-Apr-97   Rejected
Erie, Pennsylvania   21-Mar-97   Rejected
Western Nassau County, New York   21-Nov-96   Quit after 23 years
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada   16-Nov-96   Quit after 42 years
Worcester, Massachusetts   6-Nov-96   Rejected
Bloomer, Wisconsin   6-Nov-96   Rejected
Gothenburg, Nebraska   Nov-96   Rejected
Kodiak, Alaska   12-Jul-96   Rejected
Carle Place, New York   1-Feb-96   Quit
Winter Springs, Florida   10-Jan-96   Rejected
Pasco, Florida   14-Dec-95   Rejected
York, Pennsylvania   29-Jul-95   Rejected
Albany, New York   8-Dec-94   Rejected
Thurmont, Maryland   3-Feb-94   Rejected
Barnstable, (Cape Cod)
Massachusetts   4-Nov-93   Rejected
Middletown, Maryland   Nov-93   Quit
Port Hardy, British Columbia,
Canada   Nov-93   Quit after 19 years
Squamish, British Columbia,
Canada   Nov-93   Quit after 20 years
Wagoner, Oklahoma   17-Jun-93   Rejected
Campbell River,
British Columbia, Canada   Apr-93   Quit after 33 years
Redwood Valley, California   6-Feb-93   Rejected
Sarnia, Ontario, Canada   30-Jan-93   Rejected
Milltown, Wisconsin   17-Oct-92   Rejected
Washoe County, Nevada   15-Jul-92   Rejected
Bellingham, Washington   19-May-92   Rejected
Comox/Courtenay,
British Columbia, Canada   Feb-92   Rejected
Palm Beach County, Florida   22-Oct-91   Rejected
Ketchikan, Alaska   2-Oct-91   Rejected
Suffolk County, New York   15-Aug-91   Rejected
Davis, California   14-Dec-90   5th rejection
Cumberland, Maryland   17-May-90   Quit after 2 years
Morgan Hill, California   7-Mar-90   Quit
Los Altos Hills, (Purissima)
California   1993   Rejected

Fluoridation in Other Countries
Water fluoridation was stopped in the following World Health Organization (WHO) Countries:

  * Federal Republic of Germany (introduced 1952, stopped 1971)
  * Sweden (introduced 1952, stopped 1971)
  * Netherlands (introduced 1953, stopped 1976)
  * Czechslovakia (introduced 1958, stopped 1988/90)
  * German Democratic Republic (introduced 1959, stopped 1990/93)
  * Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (introduced 1960, stopped 1990)
  * Finland (introduced 1959, stopped 1993)
  * Japan (introduced 1952, stopped 1972)

“The reason for these cessation’s of water fluoridation was not a political one, but the consequence of scientific discussion of its effectiveness and side effects.”

“Dentists and WHO experts have predicted a very large caries increase (“a tide of caries”) after termination of fluoridation. Analyses of the data, however, reveal a significant decrease in dental caries (caries decline) after suspension of water fluoridation in Japan, in the Netherlands, in Prague, in the German Democratic Republic, and elsewhere. Never has any real increase in dental caries been observed after water fluoridation was discontinued.”

                  d.d.

In regards to the chart i have submitted re fluoridation of our water, after reading much of the info, also on other sites ! i urge others to also do so ! as after reading the information available and the backpeddling of many who foisted this upon us, leaves me in no doubt that they have much to answer for ! the bastards !

                        d.d.

I think you mean blind faith Don.  Before you believe any scientist, ask them who funds them.  They all have a price.  Those that refused the price have been sidelined or sacked.  Most university projects are privately funded by associated industries.  This is how they operate.  Most of the climate change denial scientists are funded by companies with interests in fossil fuels.  Look into their funding deep enough and they will be there. 

The scientific world is greatly divided on the GM subject.  Ask youself, what have the scientists to gain who are against it?  What have the scientists to gain who are for it?  David Suzuki is a genetisist, do you believe him?

The Mallee is a desert, a dustbowl that has evolved through ingnorant greedy farming practices.  I was there in 2002 and was shocked at the state of the landscape and that is coming from someone who has lived in country WA for many years.  All livestock had been removed and we drove through dust storm after dust storm and this was in October!  The only hope they have is to replant mallee species as they are doing in dryland parts of NSW.  The corridor farming method is then used to provide shade and shelter and to prevent the top soil from blowing away.  These “strips” are then sold or leased to carbon trading companies.  Landline had a feature on this not long ago.

Even GM crops developed for drier country will still need some rain.  Even if these crops fail the big GM companies will still make money because the farmers will have indebted themselves to pay for them.  I also watched the program and as soon as that farmer opened his mouth I knew he was the “plant”.  They always have the one who convinces the rest of the “sheep” and they pay him/her very well. Corruption is not exclusive to the timber industry!

The reason there is no public outcry is because most people are not even aware that they are part of this experiment. 

How many products do you see labelled “FANTASTIC GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS WONDER BUGS AND HAS BEEN SPRAYED AT LEAST 5 TIMES WITH THE VERY BEST HERBICIDES”?  If GM or GE was a great marketing tool they would have used it.  Why are the major GM companies in the US trying to stop the labelling of products that have GM components with a symbol showing this?  Their lawyers are hard at work against the dairy companies in the states that want to use the “GM Free” label.

Now the Pope has seen the light maybe people will take notice.  I have no objection to gene therapy research for use in medicine, that is a completely different ball game.

Cheers
Cathran

Have a look at the link below.This will tell you why people are not up in arms about GM crops.  They are not told.  This article is about the reasons why Americans will never be shown the movie about Monsanto.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26304.shtml

The movie is now available for purchase and download at

http://www.arte-boutique.fr/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754

Cheers
Cathran

You are missing the point dd.  You are expecting GM to be the answer and give us more crops and less pesticide but in reality it produces 30% less yield on their best results and less pesticide for the first 2 years and then continues to use more each year from then on.

This is reality.  There has been public outcry all along but no-one has been listening because they think that it will not affect them but they are now realising that it will with food.  There have been scientific data clearly showing the health issues but that scientific data that has taken years to complete is destroyed and the scientist concerned is kicked out of their universities due to GM companies in bribes and government pressure so they have to start again but with limited funding.  If you want, I can give you names but surf the net for scientists sacked regarding GM and you come up with thousands of results. 

Research is expensive and time consuming and only in the last 5 years have they had enough money from Greenpeace etc. to actually produce independent scientific data clearly showing the problems associated with GM crops.  I am not talking about GM in medical research as that’s not what I am concerned about as people have choice to receive GM in drugs or injection, but crops is different.  We will not have a choice to say “No, I do not want GM in my food”.  You are taking away the choice of the consumer as all food will be contaminated,  This is my concern.  Have you not read what I have posted on the independent scientific tests clearly stating serious health issues?  These are real scientists, these are real results, not some fly on the wall that is trying to make a name for themselves. They are worried, so am I.

Some of the scientists were all for GM, but when the results came in, they were astounded and became anti-GM.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com is about the farmers that are not wanting GM, genethics is about the people and consumers not wanting GM.  These and others have been going for years, trying to voice their concerns.  I can give you a lot more if you want but this is just a few due to space constraints.  These organisations are usually voluntary and Greenpeace is the only one that is not but has limited money due to donations being spent on various other “things to do now” projects.

I am all for science when it is not manipulated.  Monsanto, Bayer and now Nufarm (as they have now been purchased by a Chinese GM company) manipulate results.  It is clear evidence they do.  Get any research on GM and read it properly.  They are always about 40 pages long with long scientific jargon but if you read it (make sure you have 2-3 dictionaries with you), the results are manipulated.  Have a look at http://www.econexus.info and you find reports showing the huge gaps in GM crop science.  Other reports (The independent) shows suppressed reports showing cancer links to GM potatoes (Feb, 2007).

You have just posted about fluoride but this is what I am saying, research is all the time happening showing us the good and the bad.  We do not have enough information to clearly show the dangers of GM as it is DNA protein that is affected and it is not an easy thing to test.  Cancer is caused by its environment not the nucleus of a cell (new research this year).  That means that the protein levels are what creates cancer. GM clearly manipulates the protein levels.

I don’t want to eat something that will be proved beyond doubt a couple of years in the future that it is clearly carcinogenic.  Science is not about “no mistakes”, it is about learning.  You find new results and bring them to the fore and disband the old ways of thinking on the subject.  But with GM this is being manipulated by the GM companies.

Their old science clearly shows a problem but they shut everyone up with money and bribes. They want to be the new oil companies and no-one is going to step in their way.

Well guy’s !
            I have to admait that i have not had the time to read all available info although i have tried to read a balanced veiw ,and you both being so adamant as to your beliefs that there may be more to what you are saying than what has been available to me at this time.

            As i stated in an earlier piece, i don,t seem able to put my entire concentration into more than one thing at atime , and of course you are aware that my first consideration is “the mill” and its demise.

            If what you are expounding has indeed any basis in fact ! then what of the planet?  if those who control our future in this way are allowed to continue, and as for greenpeace ! i was once a member until their constant demands for further donations became evident, chasing and saving whales is all very well and i feel sure is   admirable ,but if what you are saying is absolute fact then this is THE issue which should be on the very top of their agenda ,“above all else”.

              David Susuki is indeed a brilliant scientist and i have always followed his words !  but what has happened to him ? one hardly hears anything new from him, i would not like to think that his expertise for book writing and film making was a means to an end ! (monetary gain) as had been suggested by some.
             
              Oh ! for enough dinero , for an island where fish abound ! and unspoilt soil for vegie growing !  then , how long before boredom sets in ,and plans for a MOTEL entered ones mind ! such is the human animal, and there it starts ! all over again.

                d.d.

I make no such claims this place , however
there is a school of thought that deeply religous individuals are adamantly opposed to g.m insofar that some Christians object in principle to genetically modified food, as an unacceptable intervention in God’s creation violating barriers in the natural world.
 
  Others see the potential for using their God’s gift of our technical skills, but with strong provisos, on matters of food safety and environmental risk. 
 
  Christians believe that all of God’s creatures are much more than their genes.
 
  To change one or two genes wouldn’t make an organism less than itself, unless the change itself caused a major disruption.
   
  Ethical problems may arise for certain types of gene, for example animal genes for a vegetarian or pig genes for a Jew or Muslim.
 
    such products are not envisaged, out of respect for these questions.
 
    Before a gene is transferred from one organism to another it is copied millions of times, so the chances of eating the same gene are tiny, but a pig gene doesn’t cease to be pig by copying it.
 
    What matters to most is where it originally came from, and the genetic information, which is still the same.

    I personally am not a religous individual and will take on board and evaluate everything i do acccording to the merits of the issue.
                d.d.

InterCourts® Announces: Axis of Logic Indicted In OpinionCourt
PR: The People v Axis of Logic , OPINION COURT (2004:7-8) alleged as follows a violation of an Anti-American false publication. (PRWEB) July 20, 2004—For ...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb142388.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages.

    After reading excerpts from “Axis of logic” which appears to have its roots in South America, of which most countries residents live in abject poverty and or under repressive regimes i came across this site which to be fair, gives a different point of view and i send this not to be argumentative but in the spirit of fair debate.

    For every statement there is a counter statement ! and for every web site this is also true ! but, which one to believe is up to the individual with what info he has at a given time to evaluate.

                  d.d.

Further to my last post, i have just read of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson’s expose of the Contamination of the Florida milk supply by “Monsanto” by secretly injecting cattle with a substance that caused cancer in some rats and was untried on humans ! and heartily agree that ,that particular event was absolutely criminal, however it must also be noted that the outside scientific community was also offside with “Monsanto” and their deception.
 
  An extremely interesting read for anyone interestd in the topic ! just google their names along with florida milk for the story.
                    d.d.

Well dd this is a long shot by you.  No I am not objecting to GM because I am Christian (in fact I don’t go to church but that is none of your business).  I am objecting to the fact that GM is dangerous beyond doubt and the GM companies are manipulating farmers to grow it because they don’t realise that they will be controlled by the GM companies once they have signed the dotted line.

I am also objecting to the blatant lies that the GM companies are giving to the farmers and general public so they can control the world’s food supply.  They are literally taking the saying “control the people and you control the country, control the food supply and you control the world”. They manipulate evidence, they control the FDA and the politicians with bribes (see the Clinton’s for one example) and yet they have a faulty product which is showing in health issues now in America (more so with the amount of increase of cancers) and around the world.

They have a large amount of lawyers, marketing people and scientists manipulating results for them and suing people and attacking people that don’t agree with them and even threatening them all around the world.  This is manipulation in the highest degree which is wrong.  Don’t you think?  Or are you so blinded by the lights of the GM companies that you cannot see this?

Axis of Logic voiced their opinion which in a democratic society they are allowed to aren’t they?  Could you imagine if any of our prime ministers attacked anyone that voiced their opinion of what they believed against them?  Good grief the thought makes me laugh!

But back to GM not politics, we as consumers do not have an ounce of evidence against the GM product because the general public cannot prove that it is unsafe mainly because there are no measures out there to prove that it is GM that is causing the problems.  But eventually there will be but at the moment we are stuck between a rock and a hard place don’t you think and don’t the GM companies love that.

Oh dear me Don, what nonsense are you going to come up with next?
About Axis of Logic, I make the following points . .
1.  It is NOT a South American operation.
2.  I does, as should every serious alternative news source based in the USA, pay close attention to South America - particularly Venezuala. But look again at their site and you will see that their coverage is global. Like many other alternative news sources available on the net, some are better than others. Some are false flag operation directed to muddying the waters. But the reliable ones I trust way beyond ANY mainstream source. Axis of Logic is not at the top of my list - but I consider them to be a good source.
Most of the appalling things we see these days have only been possible thanks to the direct complicity of the MSM. There role being to hide the truth and spin the webs of deceit.
3.  Yes, there are vast numbers of poor people in South America.
Do you know why Don? Let me tell you - it is thanks to the USA and organisations like the World Bank and the IMF that do its bidding. You should read John Perkin’s Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  The USA has been the primary tool of the global bankers and corporations to suppress, to bleed to death small nations around the planet. It has destroyed countless millions of people and left all but a wealthy elite dominating the poor. This is now changing - inspired by Hugo Chavez in Venezuala. No doubt your ‘knowledge’ of what goes on there is what you get from the mainstream media.
4.  the PR Web link you gave is a mainstream news media tool. What does that tell you Don?  It tells me that their opinions are derisory. Who today can seriously question that the USA - as supposedly represented by the ugly GWB, is the major global terrorist. You want to be suckered by the streams of mindless crap spewed out by mainstream media on the fraudulent Global War on Terror - go for it Don. I won’t even feel sorry for you.
5.  Axis of Logic have a vast resource of information on one of the most ghastly WMDs ever deployed - Depleted Uranium - a serious misnomer, it is in no way depleted! It has been massively utilised in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are in reality - nuclear wars - without the mushroom clouds.
You can check out their files via Google
http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=axisoflogic.com&q=uranium

It is easy to brand the USA as The Evil Empire. The reality is that the USA has been the tool of the Evil Powers That Be who are running the planet. It is ironic that right now, before our eyes, the USA is being downsized - imploded from within through the collapse of the US$ and the demolition of its financial temples.
For that reason Don, the world is facing a recession of at least the magnitude of 1929. That is why I doubt that John Gay will ever get to build his Pulp Mill.

That is not to say you should pack away your protest banners. Not until a stake has been driven through the heart of the beast!

Let’s talk about illegal contamination and show you how the GM companies work.  In the US genetically modified long grain rice was contaminated with the non-GM variety in July 2006.

The deregulation, or regulatory approval, comes after the rice variety was revealed to have contaminated commercial long-grain rice.

But although the USDA announced in August that a scientific review of available data revealed no human health, food safety or environmental concerns were associated with this rice, the GM contamination sparked a flow of reactions against Bayer and the US rice export market.

The European Commission adopted a decision requiring imports of long grain rice from the US to be certified as free from the unauthorised strain. The Food safety Authority of Ireland implemented a ban on uncertified US long grain rice products, and the UK’s Food Standard’s Agency also put into effect tough measures to ensure that the UK’s food chain remained free from unauthorised GMOs.

Such limits on rice imports had an immediate impact on US farmers. Attorneys for some rice farmers sued Bayer CropScience, alleging its GM rice has contaminated the crop.

In September, Bayer petitioned the USDA to approve the variety, and the petition was open for public comment until October 10.

LLRICE601 is one of a number of GM rice lines developed by Bayer. Marketed under the brand name LibertyLink, these were engineered to tolerate the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. They include two lines of genetically engineered (GE) rice with the same herbicide-tolerant protein, which were approved in 1999.

The USDA now says it is extending its deregulation from the original two lines to include LLRICE601, adding that “this protein has been scientifically reviewed and approved for use in a dozen countries around the world”.

Another stupid move by the FDA in 2004 the US was set to approve contamination of food supply with unauthorised test crops. Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher report.  I have not found out yet (due to limited time only) if this was actually done.  If this is not corruption, I don’t know what is!  The FDA was set up to protect the people against this contamination but they are working with the GM companies and not listening to the concerns of the citizens and not looking at doing independent research at all.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a proposal on 24 November 2004 to allow experimental GM crops grown on “test” sites to legally enter the food chain.

The FDA proposal came in response to a 2002 Bush administration initiative in the wake of widespread contamination of US food supplies and exports in 2000 with unauthorised Starlink GM corn, which continued to be detected in the US grain supply and in food shipments to Bolivia, Japan and South Korea as recently as autumn 2003.

FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford described the proposed policy as “a high priority for the Administration and the industry, to enhance public confidence, avoid product recalls, and provide an international model” for similar policies around the world.”

Now let’s talk about rising costs in food, they relate to the biofuels sector or let’s just call it the GM companies.  Much of the rising cost of soybeans has been due to demand for biofuels, since soybean oil is a potential ingredient in biodiesel, sales of which have grown dramatically in the last year.

Soybean oil prices have risen by more than 100 per cent over the last year, according to Solae.

Identity Theft Deleted

I detect a certain amount of angst and impatience towards me regarding this issue and my opening sentence (68) obviously had no impact as to what i was referring to, and most certainly! dear lady ! whether you are religous or not is most certainly none of my business !

  I believe my attempt at debating this issue was lost before it started ! having tried very hard to be fair concerning my lack of knowledge regarding this issue and have also presented articles from your side of the (so called debate) without the need to have my feathers ruffled because of differing views.

  Paul ! my comments regarding Axis of Logic came about by one of he ladies asking me to read a site regarding same , however i went a little further than reading just that ! and delved further into the issue, which it seems by the comments recieved ! broke the rules.
 
  Extremist views and or opinions are rampant on many subjects without thorough investigation and is something i do not feel to be condusive to good debate therefore i take my leave of you good people to agree with one another in the hope that you are indeed wrong in regards to our scientific community (for the sake of the world ) and for now will concentrate upon the reason i came to T.T.
                  Ciao for now
                        d.d.

#71 - Not that it is my wont to feed the conspiracy theorists, but I would be interested in knowing who are “the Evil Powers That Be” and how it came to pass that you received this secret of international controlling forces? As if I didn’t know where all of this is leading…

The problem was dd that you did not bother to fully read the case that we had put forward with relevant posts to show you that GM is actually a biohazard.  Yes, you quoted a few non-GM articles and I appreciate that but the GM industry has worked that angle before to me and also blatantly going for the religious side. 

I don’t mean to be venomous but the case clearly states that we should sit up and take notice now, but the machines of the GM industry have a lot of money and manipulate people to the highest degree.

As you said “To change one or two genes wouldn’t make an organism less than itself, unless the change itself caused a major disruption” and this is the basis why I argue against GM.  Because it IS changing the DNA structure and IS causing major disruption. 

All the lab results of GM produced death in the lab rats within a short space of time (30 days usually - just after the chop off point of 28 days reporting point).  All the lab tests showed significant differences than the control rats but in the final summary, because of GM company manipulation, it does not say this.  And this is the problem. 

All the lab rats had to be force fed the GM.  The test animals were quite happy munching away on the non-GM variety. 

That’s what I want to do!  Munch away on non-GM variety.  So give me a choice to do this.  Even organic will be contaminated as fences don’t stop pollen.

GM does not give me a choice and I am really upset about this.  They contaminate on purpose, easily pay the fine of $10K (oh look they just made another 7 billion dollars in profit last year) and continue to do the same so that we don’t have a choice.  We will be controlled by the GM industry whether we like it or not.  They set the prices, they control the grain (oh look, we don’t seem to be able to supply a country that we don’t like), they manipulate governments and laws to their purpose only. 

You wonder why I’m upset?  Because the future of us as consumers and our health of ourselves and children are in danger.  This GM substance that has not been reviewed properly and over long test trials by the supposed scientific industry as they have been paid out and the ones that found problems have been sacked.  Search the net and find the hundreds that have been.  This is not science, this is manipulation of scientists, governments, farmers and consumers.  We have to stop this now!

Don, I am so sorry to hear you will be leaving the debate.  I have been really interested and have taken on board your views.  I can see you have an open mind on the subject. 

I did not mean anything personal when I mendioned “blind faith”.  For years people have believed doctors and scientists just because of the position they hold.  I think we are now beginning to question doctors regarding their medical qualifications and ethics.  The same should apply to scientists. 

Do you believe all the scientific data regarding the pulp mill because it has been provided by “scientists”? Somehow I think not. Our views are always coloured by our beliefs.  I happen to believe that the GM companies will be exposed to the broader public very soon. It took years for tobacco companies to be exposed.  We still give people the choice to smoke or not to smoke but now they do it with the knowledge of what it can do to them. If we give people the choice when making decisions about which foods to eat please inform them what they are buying. If there is nothing wrong with GM why are these companies baulking at labelling products that contain them? Why are they trying to stop companies labelling their products “GM Free”.

Any thinking person would wonder about that - that is if they knew of course.

Most of the posts on this site have been from people who are passionate regarding this issue.  Don’t knock them for that, we need people with this kind of tenacity.  These are the kinds of people who have uncovered the evil activities of the past and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. 

Percy Schmeiser the great Canadian folk hero that took on Monsanto has been in our state this week.  He has been speaking at the public hearings on Gene Technology in Hobart and Launceston.  I think he is a down to earth regular guy that took on the big boys.  Look him up on google and see what you think.

I will look forward as always to your views on the other threads on this great site.

Regards
Cathran

(76/77)
      thanks for the vote of confidence ladies! however i suspect by a particular turn of phrase that “Paul De Burgh is someone other than to which he claims, who also makes habit of trashing
threads !  and having said before , unless i can find the time to adequately process the information available ,i feel unable to add more to this debate at this time ! but will ! when i have done so.
          ciao,
              d.d.

All the best dd, and I do hope that you do get the time to read the websites we have shown.  The background information that is hidden by the GM companies is hard to find but is eyeopening.  They do have a lot of dirty tricks that they use to the full extent and I only wish that the research being done at the moment on safety would hurry up and finish.  This clearly shows how dangerous GM is so we may have time to back out of the GM fiasco.

(76)
    concerned !
        i also am concerned ! inasmuch as those who have little knowledge of a subject need the input of others in order to learn ! not to be talked down to and treated like some naughty pupil for not taking at face value that which he is told by a stranger professing to be expert on a particular subject.
   
    Beating someone over the head with your views is no way to win friends and influence people and yes you are right ! i have not yet had the time to read ALL the information you and others have sent
as i do have another life outside T.T. as do others.
   
    Let me suggest , lighten up a little ! and give others time to digest and formulate an opinion ! that sounds fair to me !

    I believe David Susuki to be the worlds foremost authority on subjects of this magnitude and have recently been reading much of his works on the subject which seem to bear out out much of what you and others are espousing.
                 
                Ciao for now,
                    d.d.

Fair enough.  I apologise for jumping too much on my soapbox.

A Weekly News Update on Pesticides, Health and Alternatives, PANUPS updates service. March 27, 2008
Alachlor, aldicarb on PIC list; More paraquat deaths; DDT in China’s rivers; Brazilians battle GE crops; and more…

Brazilians battle GM crops: On International Women’s Day, March 7, dozens of Brazilian women occupied a Monsanto research site in the state of São Paulo, According to the Center for International Policy, the women destroyed a greenhouse containing experimental plots of genetically-modified (GM) corn. La Vía Campesina, the international farmers’ organization, said the action was in response to the government’s decision to legalize Monsanto’s GM Guardian® corn. Widespread contamination of world food crops by GM varieties poses a threat to biodiversity and the organic foods industry. Greenpeace International reported 39 cases of GE crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007. In California, organic dairy farmer Albert Straus has found about one-third of the corn he’d been feeding to his cows had been contaminated. Since 2007, Straus tests every lot of grain he buys. In January, Brazilian officials admitted that GM soybeans and cotton had been smuggled into the country and illegally planted by large farmers. The decision to approve Guardian® came just weeks after France banned the corn due to environmental and human health risks and four months after a Vía Campesina member was assassinated during the occupation of Syngenta Seeds’ research station in Paraná. The site was occupied after the company was found to be illegally testing GM soybeans inside the Iguaçu National Park. (Syngenta was fined about half-a-million dollars for the crime, but the company has refused to pay.) In November 2006, the governor of Paraná signed a decree to expropriate the Syngenta site and convert it into a research center for agroecology but Syngenta lawyers were able to overturn the decree in the state and federal courts.

I urge all readers who are interested in the GM issue, the environment and climate change to read the transcript of the 2008 Commonwealth Lecture in London, “The Challenge of the 21st Century: The Real Bottom Line”.
The lecture was given by Genetisist David Suzuki.

http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=867

Quote from the lecture:

‘Any scientist who tells you they know that GMOs are safe and not to worry about it, is either ignorant of the history of science or is deliberately lying. Nobody knows what the long-term effect will be.’ - Geneticist, David Suzuki,

Cathran Bowyer

And that’s the thing!  No-one knows what the long term effects of GM are do they?  The maximum time of study on rats has been 28 days.  Even then they found significant differences between the control group and the GM rats (which by the way they had to force feed) with the major organs.  We are being the rats in the laboratory with GM.  Except it is a world-wide experiment with a large possibility that it could destroy people’s health and make them sterile.  Wake up Governments, this is a biohazard.  We the consumers do not want GM.  Why the heck are you forcing it onto us?

Because we do not have an ICAC in this state we could not take the action outlined below.

“GE canola approval process corrupt
Greenpeace, April 4

Australia - Greenpeace is calling on the Independent Commission Against Corruption to conduct an inquiry into the process behind the approval of growing genetically engineered (GE) canola in NSW.

The call comes after we found that the committee set up to investigate whether GE canola should be grown in NSW was stacked with pro-GE advocates.

According to two of the committee members, dissenting members’ concerns were down-played, marginalised and not reflected in the minutes of the meeting. Furthermore, it was not publicly revealed that the committee was split on the recommendation to approve planting GE canola.

Environmental scientist Jo Immig and canola grower Juliet McFarlane, who both sat on the committee, said the go-ahead to plant GE canola should not have been given. They argue that the segregation of GE and non-GE canola cannot be guaranteed and non-GE farmers have no legal protection if their crops are contaminated by GE.

Appallingly, Primary Industries Minister Ian McDonald’s decision to introduce GE canola into the state is effectively beyond reproach, since he introduced legislation to ensure that his decision to approve the crop could not be challenged in court. This is unprecedented for legislation of this nature and Greens MP Ian Cohen has accused the minister of “treating the parliament as his own fiefdom.”

The NSW government established the committee to “assess whether industry is prepared and capable of segregating genetically modified (GM) and non-GM food crops”. However, the committee is cloaked in secrecy - with the identity of committee members not being publicly revealed. Committee members can face prison sentences of up to three months for divulging committee discussions. Having such a gag order on a public committee is also unprecedented.

The government was required by law to record the pecuniary (vested) interests of the committee in a book that could be viewed by the public, however, this is stored in Tamworth.

On two occasions Mr Cohen unsuccessfully asked minister McDonald to provide the names of the committee and declarations of pecuniary interest. It is clear why the minister did not want to reveal them - the book shows that the majority of committee members have vested interests in GE crops. This is tantamount to letting the fox look after the chickens.

Immig said that the representatives on the committee were quite clearly very pro-GE people. “It’s hard to imagine that the committee would come up with any other outcome other than to eventually approve, or suggest to the minister that he approve the genetically modified canola,” she said.

Committee members include:

*Prof Tim Reeves – the panel chair, former executive director of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico (CIMMYT) which invests in GE crops and receives funding from the biotechnology companies Syngenta, BASF and Pioneer Hi-Bred. Prof. Reeves is also on the board of the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC). The GRDC not only invests in GE research itself but also lists the biotechnology companies Bayer, Syngenta and Dow among its research partners and sponsors.
*Dr Zoltan Lukacs – also works for the GRDC
*Phillip Clamp - works for and has shares in GrainCorp, which will benefit from the introduction of GE crops through its NuGrain biotechnology venture, whose services include seed sales, grain testing and royalty collection.
*Hugh Roberts - a prominent advocate of GE crops, Mr Roberts is part of the NSW Farmers Association Biotechnology Taskforce and also owns shares in GrainCorp. He is a seed producer and therefore stands to directly benefit from the introduction of GE crops - since farmers will be forced to buy new seed every year.
*Dr T J Higgins, a GE scientist from the CSIRO, which has strategic partnerships with biotechnology companies Bayer and Monsanto. Dr Higgins invented GE peas, which caused allergic reactions in mice and had to be withdrawn. Had these peas gone through the normal Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) screening process they would have been approved for human consumption. Yet Dr Higgins still has the audacity to claim that our regulatory system for GE food is adequate and that there is no evidence that GE food is harmful.
*Geoffry Annison - represents the Australian Food and Grocery Council of which Monsanto is a member.
*Nicholas Woods - employee of CropLife Australia which represents the biotechnology industry.”

Cathran

This is a disgrace.  This really does show that the corruption of the GM industry has spread its cancer into the politicians and policy makers of this country.  This should be stopped.  I am only hoping that if this call is done, that the commission is not made up of corrupt people and look at the facts associated with this shame on our country and show the true nature of these corrupt people.

I must say that I am rather pleased to find that finally, I am not a lonely voice on this.
This all boils down to the fact that around the world, governments (mostly) do the bidding of corporations. And regulators swiftly become tools of the industry.
Sometimes the truth is revealed - as in NSW.
What I find a bit sad is that most folks are shocked at such revelations.

While I find plenty to take the Tasmanian government to task over, on the issue of GM, we should count ourselves fortunate that the minister is firmly against lifting the moratorium - and I am optimistic that the committee will come down against GM here. I anticipate a good result.
We should hear something fairly soon - and if the outcome is as I expect - we who stand against GMOs must give praise where praise is due!
By any assessment, for the island of Tasmania to go GE would be lunacy.  But the biotechs will not give up - they intend to conquer the world. Fortunately, there are quite a few governments around the world who refuse to bow down before them - which means they must watch carefully for sabotage.
I pray that I am correct!

<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html>Exposed:

the great GM crops myth. Genetic modification actually cuts the
productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining
repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to
solve the growing world food crisis.
<http://argument.independent.co.uk>London Independent, England.

Quote:
‘Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.

Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: “The simple answer is no.”’

Good one (88) Alison!
You just beat me to the draw.

Watch the biotech attack dogs fly into action!

So much for today’s New York Times report . . .

In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo
By ANDREW POLLACK
Food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new
pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to
relax their resistance to genetically engineered crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/21crop.html?th&emc=th

You can always rely upon the biotechs not to miss an opportunity in the face of what are without doubt valid reports of soaring food costs and serious shortages.
But, you have to look at why these shortages have suddenly materialised.

The fact that this has suddenly blown into a crisis is no accident.
I accept the view of authorities who are adamant that even today, more than enough food is being produced.
So why are hundreds of millions going hungry - starving to death even.

This is deliberate policy on the part of the powers that be - the global bankers, the corporations, governments.
Behind all this, we have the Rockefellers, Kissingers and others who are bent on a drastic global population reduction.
We are well past 6.5bn people. Their aim is about 2bn ‘survivors’!
Boggles the mind, does it not?

At this point, many food producers are converting corn and grain into ethanol. I saw a figure of 17% of US food grains being converted to ethanol.
Further, look around the world, particularly to the affluent nations, and you find staggering waste.
Look at the EU, where farmers are subsidised to grow crops - which are then plowed back into the soil!

Poor people don’t get enough to eat because they are poor. They cannot pay, so they get nothing.  The sudden wild escalation of basic food prices is forcing hundreds of millions more onto the starvation lists. Is this ‘the market’? I think not - the giant agribiz corporations which control these markets is behind this. I have no doubt that the PTB (puppeteers) have shifted into high gear in their drive to get rid of billions of ‘useless eaters’.

Yes, food production is coming under pressure from expanding long-term drought - a consequence of global warming. Ever more frequent and severe extreme weather events are destroying food crops.

Beware the mounting chorus of claims from the biotechs - particularly the giant Monsanto - that their technology is the answer.
“We must grow GMO crops to feed the starving millions” is a barefaced lie. Charitable instincts are not manifested by these people. They are driven by profit. If existing food production doesn’t get to those in desperate need, why would genetically engineered food get there? This ‘feed the starving millions’ mantra is like all the industry mantras - diametrically opposed to reality. Designed to obscure the truth. The real biotech agenda is total control over the global food supply.
Which is why the Pentagon has contributed vast sums to the industry.

You don’t need to be Einstein to figure out how to target certain countries, certain regions - to turn off the food. This is happening, right now! And the humanitarian organisations that use a lot of money to feed hungry people - they are facing a crisis. Soaring prices mean they are able to buy much less food.

This whole dreadful situation is the inevitable end game of a process begun when global corporations and compliant governments set about converting agriculture from a biodiverse family affair, into vast broad acre chemically dependent monocultures. Hundreds of millions family farmers since WWII have been dispossessed. The ‘Green Revolution’ was a most appalling fraud on our planet! As is today’s biotech ‘revolution’.

I have long held the view that cities are going to become catastrophes. The bigger the city, the worse the catastrophe.
I have long said that if you are where you can grow your own food - this must be in a community situation where everyone grows food - and it is shared around as a part of community life. If you don’t know how to grow food - then learn! Fast!

Those who can grow healthy food are going to be the most important people of all - one day, very soon!

Paul

So let’s look at the lies they tell:-

GM will feed the world and no-one will go hungry (as above clearly shows that this is false)

GM can co-exist with non-GM (see Canada for that problem).  Canadians had to end up being GM due to contamination and I would also like the GM companies to demonstrate this with one truck of canola seed, count out 1 tonne of canola, drive the truck only 1km and then give back exactly the amount of canola seed that was put into the truck.  They won’t be able to because the canola escapes the truck via crevices.  As is said, “If your truck does not hold water, you cannot hold canola seed.”  I don’t know of any truck that holds water unless it’s a tanker which farmers do not use.

GM is safe to eat for consumers (outright lie as no independent study has been done that has not been manipulated by the GM companies).  Also see all of their tests and the category “insignificant change” even though major organs seem to be different size and weight.  Their own tests prove this statement to be false.

“GM tastes the same as non-GM” This is like saying that smoking is no different than non-smoking.  No long term tests have been done and besides the dangers associated with it, this statement was made by a pro-GM activist scientist paid by Monsanto and he definately would not say otherwise.

Millions of dollars are lost by Australia because we are not following this trend.  Umm, excuse me!  We are making more money than Canada or America due to our clean green image.  This statement was done by a pro-GM activist at the University of Melbourne and when asked how they came up these figures, they could and would not produce them.

GM will feed the poor with Vitamin A and other fantastic vitamins and minerals that are not normally available.  More lies.  “Golden Rice” which they are basing this on requires 3kg a day for children and 5kg a day for adults to get the daily amount of Vitamin A.  I don’t think that I could even eat that much never mind someone that only has about 150grams of rice a day due to poverty. Besides, there is an increased price with these products which then, like demonstrated in India makes the farmers commit suicide which then makes things worse as the family has no-one to feed them.  They are much worse off.

Have I missed anything?  Every statement that they make is based on their wanting the world’s food supply to be under their command and power.  When they have the whole world eating GM food, what is to stop them controlling which country can no longer afford the seed and starve?  They have clearly demonstrated that they don’t care about farmers (contamination and court cases) or consumers (health implications and labeling) of their product, they only want to make profit. 

Tasmania has a golden opportunity to keep itself GM free and fine anyone who sends over GM with a hefty fine of millions to stay green.  Don’t let Victoria contaminate Tasmania with their GM problem.  Import from SA or WA.  Talk to the farmers in Tasmania that seem to be pro-GM about the problems.  Sit them down and have a talk without getting aggressive.  They don’t have a right to contaminate everyone else and they will.  All large field trials in Tasmania should be burnt.  They are not field trials (have you ever seen any results of these?).  They are there to contaminate and use the seed to sell overseas.

Bendigo says “NO” to GM crops! 

No GM, says Bendigo - State Government defied
The Advertiser, 18 April 2008

“THE City of Greater Bendigo will defy [the Victorian] State Government policy in an effort to keep the municipality free of genetically modified crops and declare Bendigo a GM-free zone.

The council will request a GM-free zone under Section 21 of the Victorian Gene Technology Act and seek to counteract the State Government’s lifting of a moratorium on GM canola in February.

It is not known if any growers plan to sow genetically modified crops within the municipality this season.

Mayor David Jones said reinforcing the strength of the council’s position against GM crops was vital when they held such serious implications for farmers’ ability to market produce as GM free when contamination could not be contained.

He said the council would also request that the Federal Government investigate the impacts of GM products on local flora and fauna under the 1999 Environment Protection Act.

He said the council’s approach in opposing the introduction had been to take a conservative stance and protect the livelihood of organic producers and their right to farm free from products untested over the long term.

“History is littered with magic-bullet solutions to crops that have developed unforseen and un-envisaged problems,” he said.

“The point is we are just not sure.”

Cr Julie Rivendell said lifting the moratorium would lead to the contamination of eastern Australia and once it happened it would be irreversible.

Cr Keith Reynard said he feared the ownership of patents on GM crops by several large multinational companies posed serious dangers for the future viability and freedom of farmers”.

I applaud the City of Bendigo for taking a stand against GM crop contamination.  How the hell will we keep it out of this island!  Contamination could be the back door used by pro GM people in this state to say “it’s already here so we will have to live with it”. It’s called “approval by stealth!”.

Cathran

Lets hope we follow the example set in SA!

GM crop ban extended indefinitely in SA

Stock and Land, 18 April 2008

“The South Australian Government has moved to indefinitely extend its ban on GM crops in that State following Cabinet approval to extend existing regulations under the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004.

The current legislation banning GM crops was due to expire on April 29.

But SA Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen said that under the terms of the Act, the Government was required to undertake a further six week period of public consultation, which included a series of public meetings around the State in March.

“This provided individuals, community organisation and the grains industry with a further opportunity to have their say on GM crops and include any updated information for the State Government to take into account,” Mr McEwan said.

“The six weeks of public consultation showed there’s a divergence of opinion about the impact of GM crop cultivation on markets and trade for our produce,” he said.

“This came up in the seven public meetings, the 38 letters and 83 formal submissions.

“However, 81pc of the submissions and 97pc of the letters supported retaining the moratorium.

“Our view is that at present we believe there’s no compelling reason to lift the ban for growing GM crops for human consumption in SA.”

Mr McEwen said the Government would be closely watching to see how NSW and Victoria address the key issues of segregation and regulation, as well as monitoring the benefits of keeping the moratorium in WA and Tasmania.”

Cathran

A MUST WATCH VIDEO!

The World According to Monsanto

This outstanding French produced video (1hr 50min) backs up my accusations against Monsanto and their kind. It demonstrates why these guys simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth about their products and what they do,.

I have shown one link to watch it, but here are numerous sources from which you can download this. It has gained extraordinary coverage in just 4-5 weeks.
It deserves it - the production is outstanding. While produced in France, the world version is in English.
Just Google the title!

Paul

The World According to Monsanto
Video Documentary

A documentary that Americans won’t ever see.

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won’t ever see. The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19738.htm

I have no doubt that a lot of Americans are looking at it right now. Online of course!

Good on Ballarat!  They know there are going to problems and are doing something about it. 

Then we have the pro-GM sector being just outright nasty:-

April Monday 14 2008
Portuguese anti-GM crop action classified as terrorism.

Portuguese Judicial Police classifies action against genetically modified corn as a “terrorist” act in Europol report.

In the last “EU terrorism situation and trend report” of Europol, the partial mowing of a field in Silves (Portugal), last summer, is classified as a terrorist act. In France, Germany and the UK, similar actions are often far more radical and happen regularly. Yet, they are not classified as terrorist acts in the report. Currently, in Germany an occupation of experimental GM fields is taking place.

The Portuguese radio station ’Radio Clube’ was the first to report on the Europol document. But even the lawyer of the accusing party declared that he could not see any elements that would justify to label the destruction of the GM field of his client as ’terrorist’. A specialist in penal law also declared he could not establish any relation between the action in Silves and terrorist acts.

It is becoming obvious that the Portuguese government is grabbing all opportunities to crush opposition against GM crops, by classifying a non-violent political action as an act of terrorism. They had this opportunity here because the Europol report is written based on the contributions of the relevant authorities of each EU member state. When a democracy is weak, police, in this case judicial police can afford to spread this kind of nonsense in an official report. And it does not only affect the ones involved in this particular case, but it oppresses everyone struggling for a better world, without GMOs.

And then we have the anti-GM governments trying to stop GM getting into EU.  Australia should have had the courage and guts to do this as well.

April 22, 2008
Holyrood bid to ban GM crops in Europe
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
MSP to back EU commissioner’s controversial stance

THE SCOTTISH government will this week make an unprecedented intervention in Brussels to try to help ban genetically modified (GM) crops throughout Europe.

The environment minister, Michael Russell, is planning to back a controversial bid by the European environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, to block applications by three multinational companies to grow GM maize.

The move is likely to heighten tensions with Westminster, which has been increasingly irritated by Holyrood’s anti-GM stance. It will also annoy the GM industry - but delight environmentalists who want to see Europe remain GM-free.
advertisement

There has been an effective moratorium on GM crops in the European Union, with none approved for cultivation since 1998. This has sparked fierce conflict with the US, which regards the ban as a breach of free trade rules.

Now Syngenta, Dupont and Dow, three of the world’s most powerful agricultural companies, are seeking permission for two types of GM maize: Bt-11 and 1507. They had expected their applications to be approved by European commissioners, most of whom are thought to favour GM crops, including UK trade commissioner Peter Mandelson.

But in October, Dimas revealed he was opposing the applications because the damage the crops could do to the environment was “irreversible” and “unacceptable”. There was evidence of potential harm to butterflies, food chains and water life, he said.

Since then, commissioners have been unable to agree on the applications, with a decision being postponed twice. Meanwhile, anti-GM groups across Europe have mounted a major campaign in support of Dimas, asking governments to publicly back him.

That is the call to which the Scottish Nationalist government is now going to respond. “We think that the commissioner’s stance is worthy of support,” Russell told the Sunday Herald.

“The Scottish government is profoundly opposed to the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland.”

According to Russell, the precautionary principle should apply. “We don’t know enough about the risks,” he said. “Scotland’s reputation is based on having a clean and clear environment. This reputation would be sullied if GM crops were grown here.”

Russell is planning to write to Dimas this week, offering him the backing of the Scottish government. This will not please the London government, which is more supportive of GM crops.

But it was warmly welcomed by environmentalists yesterday. “This is excellent news,” said Pete Riley, campaign director of umbrella group GM Freeze.

“It’s good to see the Scottish government lining up to keep Scotland GM-free and to support moves to keep Europe GM-free. It will give encouragement to the millions of consumers and farmers across Europe who have serious misgivings about GM crops.”

Green MSP Robin Harper said Greens across Europe were delighted at the stand being taken by Dimas. “GM food is not wanted and not needed,” he said.

“The agribusiness multinationals must not be allowed to use their allies on the commission, like Peter Mandelson, to overturn this. We fully support the minister’s stance.”

The GM industry was less happy. “This seems a little superficial,” said Nathalie Moll, executive director of Europabio, which represents more than 80 GM companies in Europe.

She argued that Dimas was breaching EU procedures by ignoring the all-clear given to the GM maize crops by the European Food Safety Authority. “If his proposal goes ahead, it will set a precedent for other commissioners not to respect the approved procedures,” she said.

GM food should be a matter of choice, Moll argued. “It should be on the shelves so that consumers have freedom of choice. I don’t think governments should deprive them of that.”

The world according to Monsanto is a fantastic video to watch I agree.  It shows only some of the many lies and corruption that are going on to contaminate this world with GM. 

What I am really hoping for is that Victoria and New South Wales farmers will reject growing GM.  It concerns me though that most seed companies in Australia (about 90%) now are owned by Monsanto.  If only GM was a different colour so we could see that they are contaminating.  And don’t the pro-GM sector love that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Is the full history of what Monsanto has done.  A very interesting read and eyeopening read.

“The World according to Monsanto”-
In March 2008, french journalist Marie-Monique Robin released the results of her three-year long research across the world about Monsanto. A book was published by La Découverte, a french editor and a video documentary was released on DVD and shown on Arte TV. “Le Monde selon Monsanto” (“The world according to Monsanto” reveals numerous controversial facts about Monsanto. Marie-Monique Robin traveled the world to meet scientists and political figures in order to investigate the consequences of several Monsanto products. The author of the research met several independent scientists around the world who tried to warn the political authorities about the use of GM seeds. According to the journalist, most of these scientists actually lost their jobs as a consequence of their speaking out. The “revolving doors” habit is also pointed out in the research as a threat to the quality and independence of the scientific conclusions about the effects of Monsanto products, especially the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). At the end of the movie, it is explained that Monsanto did not want to answer to Marie-Monique Robin’s questions.

Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 20 April 2008

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university’s department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had “noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions”. He added: “People were asking the question ‘how come I don’t get as high a yield as I used to?’”
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto’s own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop’s take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya’s yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a “decrease” in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See graphic above.)
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . “Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile.”
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: “The simple answer is no.”

With South Australia and their total ban of GM, when the issue of keeping the moratorium went around the state at meetings, no pro-GM farmers turned up.  There were only the speakers (Network of Concerned farmers and Government officials) and the non-GM farmers at the meetings.

Says a lot that they should and will keep the moratorium on.

(89)

  “This is deliberate policy on the part of the powers that be - the global bankers, the corporations, governments.
Behind all this, we have the Rockefellers, Kissingers and others who are bent on a drastic global population reduction.
We are well past 6.5bn people. Their aim is about 2bn ‘survivors’!
Boggles the mind, does it not?”

  This i a pretty extraordinary statement , a conspiricy theory that proposes the existence of the “illuminati” which would be very nasty indeed      
  just as another such theory proposes that the AIDS virus was purposely manufactured in South Africa as a means of decimating he black races !,a form of culling if you will !
    I am not too sure that i can at this time subscribe to such theories , as one could lose all faith in humanity, i have also been trying to gain a balanced opinion , and for every statement there is a counter one ! and one must also take into account that books on conspiricy theories ARE best sellers !
                    d.d.
                  d.d.

And on the front page of the Age newspaper today in Melbourne is a 200 million dollar package amongst other things to persuade farmers to go GM and for Research and Development for GM.  Who is conning who here?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gm-crops-linked-to-200m-farm-package/2008/04/23/1208743040386.html

In not looking at a narrow viewpoint that everything is “tickety-boo” with GM, we have to understand why there are people that are venomously against Monsanto and the GM industry and seeing it as a conspiracy theory dd.  Step back a moment and see the facts (I’m not being nasty here or on my soapbox):-

A high representative for Monsanto has openly admitted that “We want to control the world’s food supply.” It is also very clear that they have no concern for health hazards or human disasters caused by the callous decisions of world leaders to give up on biological farming and opt for genetically engineered food production and monoculture industrial farming.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26304.shtml The proof that GM Companies huge industrial monocultures and Roundup herbicide are destroying the earth’s environment and human health are completely censured and ignored, due to intense lobbying and pressure from sold-out individuals at the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Drug Administration. 

This is also happening with our government (see above in the Age).  The government has spent millions (and possibly billions)on GM because they have been conned by the GM industry to do R&D;.  But the government does not realise that our farmers will go broke from this and the government will have to rescue them or become more dependent on multinational companies to supply food.

I normally ignore the conspiracy theorists about what’s going on in the world and maybe by this I am oblivious to other subjects that the conspiracy theorists are on about.  In this particular case though with GM, there is too much evidence to show that Monsanto and the GM industry are creating a conspiracy.  They are agreeing together, especially secretly, to do something reprehensible with our food supply.  They are manipulating evidence to serve their purpose of controlling the world’s food supply.  Where does this go from here?  Surely dd, with all the facts and the billions spent on GM to get it out there to the farmers and con the consumers that it is safe, would you have an inkling that something is wrong?

I have spent countless hours researching GM and at the beginning as most people are, they are ignorant of the facts and think that GM is an advancement for humankind.  But the more you look and find evidence on how bad GM is, the more (and not wanting to be) you see that this is a conspiracy.  They are not showing all the facts because if they did nobody in the world would want to eat or farm GM.

I take on board what you say “concerned” , and one has to say in view of all the adverse publicity ,and the fact that G.M. has been with us for some time, we humans are living much, much , longer and maintaining our stamina into much older age than say just 30 years ago.
 
  Certainly, there is much more cancer and other disease ,however that could be put down to the very fact that we are an aging population, as when i was a lad 50—55 was considered a good innings, and as i turn 70 this month ,i feel better than when in my 40,s ! touch wood, then again that could be in the genes.

  G.M. in the medical profession is doing wonderful things with some extraordinary breakthroughs almost on a daily basis and for the sentence in the beginning of my last post(100) from your post (89) what they supposedly are doing fly’s in the face of that work, and regardless of all that is presented here at present , someone once said that “for there to be a successful outcome !it entails an element of risk”, which for instance could be seen in last nights “catalyst or 7.30 report ” cant remember which ! where a lady with type 1 diabetes,  embarked upon a trial which was successful for only 12—14 months , however it eventually failed ! and her response was , Well ! someone has to be a guinea pig or nothing is ever achieved ! wonderful attitude !
   
  I still cannot subscribe to the “illuminati”
theory at this stage , i keep an open mind !
                     
                        d.d.

The reason why people are living longer is that we now have antibiotics, injections for all types of diseases, eastern medicine, more hospitals, strict anti-bacterial techniques for surgery, cures for typhoid, malaria, small pox, measles, diptheria, TB, the list goes on.  We also know the reason for certain cancers (i.e. lung cancer) like smoking and the consumers have realised that and are reducing or quitting smoking. Consumers are now becoming aware that certain foods, drinks, smoking, heroin, cannibis, etc. generally are bad for your health and avoid it.  With GM medicine, it is the choice of the individual to have the GM medicine, but with GM food we don’t have a choice.

They are not going to stop at GM canola.  They have already got trials in Australia with GM sugar, GM wheat, GM brocolli, new strains of GM cotton, and these are the ones I know about.  They will say, “GM canola has been accepted so now you must accept GM wheat etc.” Tell me, how would you avoid GM wheat and sugar when 95% of food products in the supermarket have these two ingredients in them? 

When you were young, what did the older people and even the younger ones die of?  How did they die?  A lot of the reasons would have been addressed by modern medicine.  There were not enough doctors or hospitals to go around either whereas now there are doctors usually down the street for you in clinics. 

I cannot believe at all that GM has anything to do with the age increase.  In fact, within the last 10 years, which has been how long GM has been consumed in Australia, there have been a dramatic increase in allergies, eczema, unknown diseases (like Morgellens which has been linked to GM), ulcers, obesity, fribromyalgia, endometriosis, retroviruses, heart and lung diseases, young women getting uterus cancer (possibly from GM cotton tampons), hepatoma, migraines, different types of cancers, etc.  The list is getting larger.

How do we know that the DNA of the indiviudal has not been changed and affected by GM and causing these increases.  How do we know that the RNA in the cells has not been changed due to GM?  We don’t know.  No tests are done to track GM down because no-one knows what GM food they are eating.

The human genome Project started in 1988 which is not that long to understand the DNA sequencing and measures of proteins that affect the DNA.  This is something that we should remember.  It is science in its infancy and should be treated as such.  With caution.

I am fighting for a choice to know and to avoid GM.  But I know that eventually I won’t have a choice due to contamination.  I have seen the scientific (manipulated) and the independent testing of GM testing and with thousands of hours of internet searching, tracked down what the scientists are really saying and it is scary.  There are significant differences between non-GM and GM when fed to rats and even the GM companies cannot hide this evidence.  What is it doing to humans then?  In 10, 20 or even 50 years it will show clearly how bad GM is and I am sure we will be sorry for allowing such a product into Australia. 

I am being denied a choice of a basic human right.  To eat clean healthy food without any risk.

By the way dd, I did not say anything about the Illuminati and the theory behind that.  I also am keeping an open mind on that subject.

GM crops, pesticides in waterways, atrazine, herbicide resistance…..Where is this all going? And who ultimately benefits?

GM Crops Good for Streams?
Discovery Channel - USA
... allowed in US drinking water of 700 micrograms per liter, while alachlor and atrazine exceeded their drinking water standards by five to twenty times. ...
See all stories on this topic

Sorry about that “Concerned” my “illuminati” reference was in response to a popular belief by many and fitted with (in my mind) the statement) referred to in the first sentence of my last post.

    I have taken the trouble to read some of the be the case.
            info ,and have tempered it with that on the other side (as one should) however i still at this stage , cannot subscribe to any individuals deliberately setting out to cull the worlds population ,which is exactly what the supposed “Illuminati” would supposedly have in mind.

    World food shortage is hitting our headlines constantly at present and i would find my faith in “human endevour” to be totally destroyed in believing that what has been alluded to , to be the case         d.d.

World food shortage is not going to be solved by GM and this has been proven time and time again. 

“Even at the EU the IAASTD, an independent and multi-stakeholder international assessment of agriculture, concluded that a radical change is needed in agriculture policy and practice, in order to address hunger and poverty, social inequities and environmental sustainability questions. The current way of farming is clearly unsustainable and fails to meet sustainable development goals.

Therefore, the IAASTD report calls for a systematic redirection of investment, funding, research and policy focus towards the needs of small-farmers. Greater emphasis is needed on safeguarding natural resources and agro-ecological practices, as well as on tapping the wide range of traditional knowledge held by local communities and farmers. Sustainable agriculture that is biodiversity based, including agro-ecology and organic farming, is beneficial to poor farmers, and should be supported by the appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks. It also noted that GM crops are unlikely to play a substantial role in addressing poor farmers’ needs”.

In this meeting the GM companies walked out!

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2898

GM is a problem not a solution.  The GM companies play the line that they will feed the world but in reality they produce less yield and has been proven too many times.  Agricultural techniques are constantly changing and becoming better with less rain with different cross-breeding of plants and the farmers are finding that they are way ahead of the technology and production of what GM can produce.  We are hugely better off without GM.

Don, you should not lose faith in the ideal of the goodness of humanity. The big problem is that not all humans are good. There are all too many that are evil - and all too many of them are in positions of great power and influence.
The vast majority of the planet’s population are under the influence of the evil minority. Their minds are controlled. And I do exclude myself from this - up to late 2001 - when I started to wake up and start asking questions. When I set out on a painful quest for truth.
Unfortunately, some of these powerful people are on record on the issue of depopulation. For example . . .
National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,” says:

“Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that “depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.”
Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called ‘Global 2000’ which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.

First, there is the inconvenient reality that with more than 6.5 billion people, there are too many now for the earth to carry on a long-term sustainable basis. The idea that the planet could survive 9.5 billion by 2050 is absolutely untenable. Given the brewing ‘perfect storm’ of global warming, peak energy, global economic meltdown etc, 9.5 billion is simply not going to happen.
I can understand you being unable to grasp that any human - no matter how evil, no matter how corrupt, would deliberately set out to radically depopulate the Earth.
Setting that aside for a moment, we have to face the fact that right now, we sit between a rock and a hard place. I have no doubt that we are on the brink of global catastrophe. A catastrophe that will, with no action at all from the Powers That Be (Illuminati, Puppeteers, High Priests - call them what you will), drastically reduce the global population.
Depopulation advocates include David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Prince Phillip, Al Gore to mention but a tiny few. To explore that subject and see what these powerful people advocate, Google the words ‘depopulation advocates’.
Personally, I am nauseated by the very idea that people like this could be (and certainly are) implementing plans to bring this about. But what I see is that humanity has, thanks to the fossil-fueled industrial revolution, created a terrible problem for itself.
I am inclined to the view now that if above mentioned gentlemen and their cohorts don’t do it, Gaia will. Nature is going to step in and correct the problem.
That will be no easier to confront than the efforts of the depopulation advocates. Either way, humanity is facing terrible times.
I will no doubt shock you by stating that, for the sake of human survival - and the survival of countless other mammal species on this planet, the sooner it happens, the better.
Those who believe in God will ask - how did He allow this to happen? That is a big question! The best I can do is suggest that humans, who were created by God as His most special creation, allowed ourselves to be lead astray over many millenia by clever men - who I would call High Priests.
God certainly did not create man to do what has been done! - what has been done - and is being done right now - by powerful men to our fellow humans.
What humans have done to nature (most humans have lost all contact with and feeling for the wonders of nature).
The time has come when we humans must take control of our own destinies - re-establish our own direct communications with God. We must learn (once again) how to live with and to love nature - to be part of nature, to nurture the earth.
How many men today are capable of doing this?
I do suggest that there are many more women who can and who will!
I conclude by telling you that I am not a religious person. Quite the contrary. In fact, religious orders have for millenia been at the core of the problem. They have played a key role in leading Man away from what God created him for. They have been, and still are globally the most powerful tool in the hands of the Rulers of the World (High Priests).
I have here merely set out how I see things - based upon a great deal of reading and thinking over many years. You are welcome to form your own opinions. If it is easier to see things as you prefer to see them - that is fine by me!

The impression that i gain is that technology is trying to develop seeds and plants which will grow in arid and or overfarmed land where years of farming have rendered the soil virtually useless and if this be the case then who are we to deny the third world this opportunity if in fact it has a chance of working , millions are dying every day and i find that situation deplorable as should anyone.
    I understand where you guys are coming from ! however, could not what you allude to just be a small percentage of the large picture ? and i can,t subscribe to the thousands of individuals who work in this industry, not knowing what they do ! we human’s are better than that ! aren’t we ?

                      d.d.

This technology you talk is actually genomics which is plant to plant.  But now the GM companies have purchased these genomic companies and are patenting the genomics which was a lot less for the technology fees as it was once off payments and now introducing different species into a safe product and patenting it so now it is a constant technology fee and issuing end point royalties within Australia.  This is when the farmer has to verify that they are GM free otherwise you pay the technology fee. 

If you are GM-free and do the tests to prove it and you find that you have been contaminated with GM from your next door neighbour, you have to pay a penalty of 2.5 times the technology fee.  Do you think this is wrong or even way out there in left field of unfairness?

Plant to plant is not the problem with health through genomics or splitting of plant genes, the problems are when other particles are introduced to the plant like bacterial, different species like pigs, or human gene sequences, fish, cucumbers, bovine genes, the list goes on.  You are crossing species and this is a disaster waiting to happen.

But other problems occur.  In the USA, the mother of genetic engineering technology, as per the data published by the US Department of Agriculture [USDA], over the seven years period from 1995-2001, herbicide and insecticide use marginally increased whereas the global use of these materials actually decreased. The significance of this data is that it was during this period that US started growing genetically engineered crops while the rest of the world did not.  This means that GM increases pesticide use.

In Canada, there is a very revealing situation. Canada is the second largest adaptor of genetically engineered crops in the world. Farmers there have discovered something unpleasant - as their crop production goes up, their incomes come down. This strange phenomenon is due to the fact that as the technology gets more sophisticated, input costs soar. The Canadian farmers are aeons away from their Indian counterparts with bullocks ploughing two acres per family. Their farm sizes measure in thousands of hectares. They mount heavy tractors for their farming operations and are guided by sets of computers mounted in the driver’s enclosure. They are what scientists want Indian farmers to be: precision farmers. But they go bankrupt at regular intervals. This is a national scandal in that country.

The same fate has met their far poorer Indian cousins. To farm Bt cotton, they pay 400 per cent more for the seed and ‘reap’ benefits that are scandalously marginal. They continue to go red year after year. And Vidarbha continues to happen. Farmers commit suicide. Besides economic collapse, they are also ‘reaping’ other benefits such as mounting soil toxicity, cattle death and dangers for their health.

This is not necessary. Years ago, when there was no Bt cotton on the fields in Warangal, farmers grew their own desi hybrids called RAASI or Tulsi or Banni. And scores of farmers proudly recall that they got yields ranging from 1000 kg to 1400 kg per acre. Before you ask there was no drought or anything unusual happening between the two test reports.  Compare these yield levels to the 2007 yield data for the Bt cotton growers in US. According to the US Department of Agriculture [USDA], Bt cotton farmers got an yield of 720 kg per acre, almost 25 per cent less than the Indian non-Bt farmers!!! So much for the yield efficiency of Bt cotton.

The glossy pamphlets and hype of the Gm companies say that they can produce this “wonderful” product that will grow on damaged land.  Got any proof to that?  There is none.  It is a pipe dream!

Silencing Dissent Monsanto Style.

Article sourced from gmwatch.org

Farm Broadcaster Ousted after Ripping Monsanto’s Goon Squads
22 Corporate Crime Reporter 18, April 30 2008
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/monsanto043008.htm

Excerpt from article:

On air, Brownfield quoted from a newly published Vanity Fair article titled “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” by Donald Barlett and James Steele.

“Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country,” Barlett and Steele write. “They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops, infiltrate community meetings, and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the ‘seed police’ and use words such as ‘Gestapo’ and ‘Mafia’ to describe their tactics.”

Is this what farmers in Australia have to look forward to??  Do they really know what they are getting into??

Cathran

Paul de-Burgh-Day - what were you thinking? Didn’t you realise that by posting on a public web page that you would not come to the attention of the New World Order? Me and my fellow Puppeteers wont just sit back and take this dissing of the High Priests lightly you know. As we control all media and public services, as well as the psychic mind-control we do on the side, we are not going to allow just anyone to blow the whistle on our plans for Word Domination (or was that World Depopulation?!). Perhaps you had not considered that we may be using our mind control techniques to set you up for this post, so that the average reader might disregard your contribution as a conspiracy theory-style rant, such that we can then go back to our plots to rule the planet through our secret world government. What’s that whooping sound outside? Could be the black helicopters on their way!

(111)
    Paul !  i don’t wish to sound facetious here ,however i am alittle confused by a couple of your statements when you say that you are not religous person !
 
  (1)  “God certainly did not create man to do what has been done! - what has been done - and is being done right now - by powerful men to our fellow humans.  What humans have done to nature (most humans have lost all contact with and feeling for the wonders of nature).”
 
  (2)  “Those who believe in God will ask - how did He allow this to happen? That is a big question! The best I can do is suggest that humans, “who were created by God” as His most special creation, allowed ourselves to be lead astray over many millenia by clever men - who I would call High Priests.”

  (3)  I conclude by telling you that I am not a religious person. Quite the contrary. In fact, religious orders have for millenia been at the core of the problem. They have played a key role in leading Man away “from what God created him for.”

    A belief in a God or a higher being is to all intents and purposes a religous belief in my estimation,  as for the Kissingers etc espousing the culling of humans i think that he and his cohorts would have had the Chinese method in mind, in the limiting of how many children are allowed to be born ! which is of course is out of control in the second world, and you could claim that there may well be truth in the theory of “Aids” having been a man made desease in order to decimate their populations, however i prefer to believe at this time of that not being he case.

                  d.d.

I happen to believe that the cotton plantations in Australia are the sole cause of the demise of the Murray system as it apparently aquires vast amounts of water far beyond what the value of cotton happens to be in our society.
    Perhaps if cotton is so valuable then let them move to the Ord system where there is a a bundance of water ,alternatively build a canal from the Ord to the Murray system, sounds fanciful ! i bet the Yanks or the chinese would do it !  trouble is !  No Aust. Govt is or ever has been willing to look at the big picture and the long term advantages of such projects.
                      d.d.

dd
Just because someone believes in a God does not mean that they are religious.  The difference is that religion is “recognition on the part of human beings of a controlling superhuman power entitled to obedience, reverence and worship” whereas spirituality is “having to do with the spirit or incorporeal being and spirit of the soul distinguished from the physical nature”.  The difference is religion demands respect whereas spirituality works with you to believe in your soul and purpose.  I think this is where Paul is coming from the spiritual nature. Correct me if I am wrong Paul.

But this discussion is not about the difference between religion and spirituality but about the difference between GM and non-GM.

These differences are too many to classify GM as the same as non-GM.  We are being duped by the glossy papers and marketing strategy of the GM companies.

As Cathran has said above, the gestapo of the food supply have come to town and the farmers are being misled and have joined the “Nazi” movement. But how many Nazi’s tried to run away when the atrocities started?  How many were shot because they wanted to be cleansed of the oppression that they had been a start to?  They believed something that was untrue.  This is what the farmers are doing now.  They are being misled, they are being lied to and they do not know yet the consequences of their actions.  The same as the Nazi movement isn’t it? 

And it’s interesting that Monsanto actually supplied the Nazi’s gas chambers with the poisonous gas in World War 2.  In retrospect, how many people have actually have been killed by these GM companies from their beginnings?

Thank you Concerned! You are right about where I am coming from.
I will now let Don’s comments go through to the keeper.
And yes, let us get back to the GM issue!

Save me from religous fanaticizm ! as soon as your god entered the equasion you lost me ,  i leave you and your god to sort out the worlds problems ! meanwhile i’ll get on with the serious business of stopping this bloody mill whilst you count the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
                          d.d.

Interesting dd.  I just quoted from the dictionary on the difference between religion and spirituality which I assumed was what Paul was talking about. He’s not a fanatic and neither am I.

Back to the GM issue.  If anyone is actually interested, there is an anti-GM rally in Melbourne on 21/5/08 starting at the state library at 1pm.  Apparently there is a GM summit happening in Melbourne that is talking about planting GM wheat crops.  The next is GM sugar.  If this goes through we will, according to the health research, be in danger of getting extremely ill by something that can be stopped as eventually all food would contain GM. Everyone that wants to make a difference, please come to this rally and fight for our rights to eat non-GM.  The more that come, the louder the voice can be.  Victoria can contaminate Tasmania and will so it must stop there.  Bring banners and coats.

I hope you don’t mind me saying this Lindsay.

FSANZ are asking for public comments on using GM corn to be consumed in Australia- see below.

The second follows an application from Syngenta Seeds Pty Ltd for permission to sell and use food derived from a new genetically modified (GM) variety of corn.
When we receive an application to change food regulations, or propose one in the public interest we assess the risks to consumers of making that change and consider various regulatory options to minimise those risks.
In matters of public health and safety, we adopt a cautionary and conservative approach. If there is doubt about the safety of a new food or a change to an existing one, we will either prohibit its sale or approve it only under stringent conditions.
The public comment process ensures FSANZ has as much evidence as possible to make the best decisions for the benefit of all.
Application A1001 Assessment - Food derived from Insect-protected Corn Line MIR162
Syngenta Seeds Pty Ltd has asked us to amend the Code, specifically Food Standard 1.5.2 which regulates food produced using Gene Technology, to permit the sale and use of food derived from its new GM variety of corn, MIR162. Standard 1.5.2 requires that GM foods undergo a pre-market safety assessment before they may be sold in Australia and New Zealand.
Syngenta has genetically modified MIR162 corn to protect it against feeding damage caused by the larvae of certain insect pest species.
The company intended the corn to be grown in North America. However, once commercialised, GM corn products may be imported into Australia and New Zealand. FSANZ approval is therefore necessary before these products may enter the Australian and New Zealand markets.

Submissions: FSANZ welcomes public comment from industry, public health professionals, government agencies and consumers. Details of all the assessments above can be found on http://www.foodstandards.gov.au.Submissions close on 23 May 2008 for Application A1001 - Assessment Food derived from Insect-protected Corn.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO
Watching this on Google and You Tube seems to be a problem.
I downloaded it once - since then, only part comes through.
Go to
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/the-world-according-to-monsanto-a-documentary-that-americans-wont-ever-see/
They report . . .
Updated: April 26, 2008: Sorry, Google pulled the full video. One needs to watch these when they first come out as they don’t last too long on Google/YouTube. I’ll post another when one becomes available. And of course, you can order a DVD of it (in English, French and Spanish) here. ~ Lo
To order from the source
http://www.arte-boutique.fr/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754
Helps to know a bit of French!

Further to
The World according to Monsanto

It seems this source will work to watch it online.
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-world-according-to-monsanto-a-documentary-that-americans-wont-ever-see-full-video/
I haven’t done the whole thing to test it.
Remember, it is rather large - runs some 109 minutes and I saw mention of about 245mb!

You want to know what Monsanto is really about?
You have to see this!

It also pays to recognise the role Google now plays in censorship.

If you are worried about GM trees becoming a reality in Australia have a look at this article from Scoop Independent News. In New Zealand, Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) are corporatised Crown entities charged with conducting scientific research.

“Crown Research Institute Fails Its Science Test”
Monday, 5 May 2008, 3:52 pm
Press Release: SOIL and HEALTH Assn of NZ

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0805/S00015.htm

Excerpt from the article:

“Scion’s prematurely terminated research is incomplete in design, unfinished, and unpublished in a peer reviewed journal,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “Without good design and an appropriate research period, followed by publication in a peer reviewed journal, how can a CRI make credible claims?” In respect of concerns that modified genes could be inadvertently transferred from transgenic plants, into the wider environment, Scion chief executive Dr Tom Richardson had said, “In the case of this trial, our results show that this did not occur. The trial has been monitored for nearly five years and there is no evidence of gene transfer into other organisms, or negative impact in the soil environment or insect population in and around the trial site.” Monitoring at the site is intended for another two years following removal of the trees in the next few weeks, aimed at detecting any potential gene transfer.

“For Scion to say that there was no horizontal gene transfer (HGT) following a primitive and short term study of only 5 years so far, is naïve or even duplicitous, certainly misleading” said Mr Browning.”

The CSIRO’s Ensis and New Zealand’s Scion are in a joint venture in forestry research.

Cathran

Anti GM Rally to be held in Melbourne

Article received from GM watch daily alerts 12 May 08

“Consumers and farmers are Marching against GMOs

Dear GM Watch

Consumers and farmers are marching in Melbourne, Australia against GM food and crops, on Wednesday 21st May beginning at the State Library at 1pm and proceding to Parliament House [more details below]. Please could you ask your network to tell all their Australian friends and family to get down to it!!
Best wishes, Madeleine Love

Consumers and farmers are Marching

By party policy 95% of elected representatives don’t care that Australian consumers can’t identify unlabelled genetically modified ingredients in their food, and don’t care that non-GM food may be contaminated with GM products.

By contrast 92% of Australian consumers want food with GM ingredients (by intention or contamination) to be fully labelled, so those who want to buy non-GM food (free of GM contamination) can choose it.

As a body, our elected representatives are neither representing us, nor responding to our concerns.  We have no recourse but to take to the streets on Wednesday 21st May for a peaceful march.

We would be delighted if you could send the notice of the forthcoming March (below and/or attached) around to your membership and anywhere else it may be welcome.

Hoping to see you on the 21st May!

Consumers and Farmers March for Safe Food – not GM Food

We are fully informed about research showing GM food is likely to cause allergies, illness, and disrupted fertility in humans, and from animal studies, sterility and death.

Our State and Federal Governments and Food Regulators don’t seem to be able to find this research and so we will take it to them.

Wednesday 21st May

Join us at 1pm outside the State Library (corner of Swanston and La Trobe Streets) to march to Parliament for speeches, songs and presentation of research.

A GM crops summit is being held from the 21-22nd May in Melbourne.  GM canola has been planted in Victoria for the first time this year.  It will end up in our food.  GM sugar, wheat and pasture are coming unless we act now.

*It hasn’t been scientifically tested for safety
*It’s not going to feed the world
*It’s not more nutritious
*It doesn’t help farmers with drought
*It’s not the same as ordinary plant breeding
*It puts more chemicals into the environment, and into your food
*The only thing it does is make agri-chemical companies very rich.
ASK US WHY”

Please let you friends and family in Victoria know about this rally.

Thanks
Cathran

How far will the contamination spread??

Please read the article below sourced from GMwatch.

“Keisuke Amagasa (No! GMO Campaign)
Tokyo, Japan
May 2008

GMO cross-fertilization by airborne pollen found at surprisingly large distances

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) pollution caused by pollen drift is spreading in GM crops cultivation areas such as the USA and in Canada. GMO contamination will occur once GM crops are cultivated. Therefore, the co-existence between GMO farming and conventional farming or organic farming is very difficult. This fact was proven by a research study conducted in Hokkaido, Japan.

The national guidelines for GM crop cultivation in Japan by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) has set the buffer zones for outdoor cultivation for research purposes. However the distances for buffer zones are set extremely short, thus there is no way to prevent GMO pollution under such circumstances.

According to Hokkaido’s Ordinance for Prevention of Cross-fertilization Cultivation of GM Crops, which was enforced in January 2006, commercial planting of GM crops is banned in principle, trial cultivation is allowed upon notification, in which case isolation buffer zones from conventional crops on ordinary farmland are stipulated. The isolation buffer zone distances stipulated under the Ordinance are quite severe, being at least twice those mentioned under MAFF guidelines. For rice, for example, the MAFF guideline buffer zone distance is 30 m, but under Hokkaido’s Ordinance it is 300 m.

Hokkaido has carried out cross-fertilization trials for three years from 2006 to 2008 in order to test whether the isolation buffer zone distances stipulated in the Ordinance were meaningful or not. The results announced on 13 February 2008 were the results for the trials in 2007.

The five crops covered by the trials were rice, soybean, maize, rapeseed and sugar beet. With regard to rapeseed, only the kinds of insects that visited the flowers and the preventive effect of insect nets were investigated. For soybeans, a similar investigation as that for rapeseed was carried out in addition to the cross-fertilization trial. In the cross-fertilization trials, pollen collecting pots were placed at various distances downwind, each grain being analysed after collection.

In the case of rice, since cross-fertilization had occurred during the 2006 trial at the maximum distance stipulated in the Ordinance, 300 m, the trial was carried out using the distances of 450 m and 600 m in 2007. The result was that cross-fertilization occurred even at the 600 m distance. Cross-fertilization was also found to occur for maize at the maximum distance of 1200 m, and at 990 m for sugar beet.

As can be seen from the case of rice, it has been confirmed that airborne diffusion of pollen occurs over surprisingly large distances. The view that the current buffer zone distances are insufficient to prevent the occurrence of cross-fertilization is now becoming widespread. At the same time, the unrealistic nature of the MAFF guidelines has been thrown into sharp focus.

From this data we have to conclude that buffer zones can not prevent GMO cross-contamination.”

Let’s hope Bass Strait is a big enough buffer zone!!  We do not want GMO’s by stealth.

Cathran

What will they think of next? 

Sourced from GMwatch:

“Patenting the “Climate Genes”…
And Capturing the Climate Agenda

Issue: The world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations are stockpiling hundreds of monopoly patents on genes in plants that the companies will market as crops genetically engineered to withstand environmental stresses such as drought, heat, cold, floods, saline soils, and more. BASF, Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dupont and biotech partners have filed 532 patent documents (a total of 55 patent families) on so-called “climate ready” genes at patent offices around the world. In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the Gene Giants are gearing up for a PR offensive to re-brand themselves as climate saviours. The focus on so-called climate-ready genes is a golden opportunity to push genetically engineered crops as a silver bullet solution to climate change. But patented techno-fix seeds will not provide the adaptation strategies that small farmers need to cope with climate change. These proprietary technologies will ultimately concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.

The Gene Giants are staking sweeping patent claims on genes related to environmental stresses – not just those in a single engineered plant species – but also to a substantially similar genetic sequence in virtually all engineered food crops. Beyond the U.S. and Europe, patent offices in major food producing countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Mexico and South Africa are also swamped with patent filings. Monsanto (the world’s largest seed company) and BASF (the world’s largest chemical firm) have forged a colossal $1.5 billion partnership to engineer stress tolerance in plants. Together, the two companies account for 27 of the 55 patent families (49%) of those identified by ETC Group.

Impact: Farming communities in the global South – those who have contributed least to global greenhouse emissions – are among the most threatened by climate chaos created by the world’s richest countries. The South is already being trampled by the North’s super-size carbon footprint. Will farming communities now be stampeded by climate change profiteering? The patent grab on so-called climate-ready traits is sucking up money and resources that could be spent on affordable, farmer-based strategies for climate change survival and adaptation. After decades of seed industry mergers and acquisitions, accompanied by a steady decline in public sector plant breeding, the top 10 seed companies control 57% of the global seed market. As climate crisis deepens, there is a danger that governments will require farmers to adopt prescribed biotech traits that are deemed essential adaptation measures. Will governments be pressured to give biotech companies carte blanche to use genetic engineering – and sidestep biosafety rules – as the last resort for tackling extreme climate?

Policy: Governments meeting at the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn (May 19-30) and at the joint United Nations-FAO High-Level Conference on World Food Security and the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy (3-5 June 2008) must recommend that governments suspend the granting of all patents on climate change-related genes and traits. There must be a full investigation, including the social and environmental impacts of these new, un-tested varieties. Given the global state of emergency, ETC Group urges inter-governmental bodies to identify and eliminate policies such as restrictive seed laws, intellectual property regimes, contracts and trade agreements that are barriers to farmer plant breeding, seed-saving and exchange. Restrictions on access to germplasm are the last thing that farmers need in their struggle to adapt to rapidly changing climatic conditions. Farmer-led strategies for climate change survival and adaptation must be recognized, strengthened and protected.”

Don’t be complacent and think it’s not going to happen here.  I heard on the Country Hour yesterday that dairy farmers in WA are asking for a lifting of the GM moratorium.  They think that the only way they will be able to compete with other states is to plant GM climate change resistant pasture! This will be available within 4 years.  Imagine pasture as far as the eye can see patented by a biotech company.  What if this contaminates the hobby farmer’s cow paddock?  How the hell wil we ever get GM free dairy products. This shows how desperate and gullible farmers are becoming.  They are selling our choice, our health and our independence to these evil biotech companies. They are encouraged to do this by all of the Farmers and Graziers associations around the country. 

Think about these consequences and make sure we keep Tasmania GM free. 

Cathran

Good grief!  The farmers need to be informed.  Sit down in a quiet discussion with any farmer in Tasmania and talk about the consequences of bringing in GM.  Get in J. Newman from the Network of concerned farmers to speak to them.  They all need to know what is really going on and not the false advertising that the GM companies are giving to them.  This technology is in its infancy no matter what they say and it will be a one way track down their path to destruction. 

Did you know that these companies have a very long history of murder from supplying the gas chambers with gas in the second world war to developing nuclear weapons.  They have a long history of pollution and deception together with false advertising and bribery of governments.  If you don’t believe me, have a look on the Wikipedia site under the major players of the GM industry that starts with Mon..

So why are we even considering allowing them to control and contaminate the world’s food supply?

For pollen transported by wind, Bass Strait is probably adequate.
Mind, I have come down on the ferry with a strong north wind - the air thick with thistle seeds south of The Rip. then in the morning approaching Devonport, still thistle seeds carried by that wind.
We get Victorian bushfire smoke and sometimes Mallee dust.

The far greater risk is however not from natural forces.
What protection do we have from sabotage?
What stops someone flying an aircraft from the mainland, down over Tasmania, tossing GM seeds out where they choose?
Or coming down in their car on the ferry, then throwing GM seed into established non GM plantings?

Is this going to be the Kyoto of GM technology? Will Australia be one of the last countries to accept the message that other countries are already accepting. The message that GM is on the nose to most consumers. Pathetic, once again we will be on the outer, left behind with all the problems just as it happened with climate change.

“Australia plays the biotechnology cowboy
By Duncan Currie
On Line Opinion, 16 May 2008

In the global biotechnology arena, Australia has once again taken on the cowboy role, by refusing to participate in the international United Nations Biosafety Protocol negotiations being held in Bonn, Germany this month. This meeting will deal with the impacts of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) contaminating the food chain. Issues of liability and redress for damage caused by GM contamination will culminate at these negotiations with no input from Australia.

This is a crucial misrepresentation of Australian interests. The recent lifting of the New South Wales and Victorian bans on commercial genetically modified (GM) food crops has brought GM contamination and liability issues into sharp focus. Australian farmers, communities and the environment face threats as a result of gaping holes in state, national and international law.

By standing outside the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, Australia has joined the minority group of pro-GM countries. The United States, Canada and Argentina, all big exporting countries of GM foods and seeds, also refuse to be bound by the protocol - yet they are profiting the most from the trade. If their products are safe, why not stand behind them, with liability provisions and an international fund to ensure that any damage caused as a result of GM contamination can be cleaned up?

On January 29, 2000, the Conference of Parties of the Biodiversity Convention - the United Nations organisation set up in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to protect the world’s biodiversity - agreed a Biosafety Protocol to regulate the international trade in GMOs. The protocol provides countries with information, procedures and the ability to control the import of GMOs into their territory.

The protocol gathered massive support internationally with 103 signatures by June 2001. Australia however, was absent. Now the protocol is in force and 147 countries have joined it. But still not Australia.

GMOs, if they escape or behave in an unexpected way, can cause damage to plants and biodiversity as well as injury to humans, such as through eating or otherwise ingesting GMOs not intended for humans. Countries have been meeting intensively for four years to determine how the protocol can best include liability and redress provisions in order to hold companies trading GMOs accountable for damages. And yet, even though Australia has now embraced GM crops, its delegates still remain outside this important process.

A regime to protect the environment and people from damages caused by GMOs is needed to ensure that victims can get compensation for damage, or to prevent or repair environmental damage. The “polluter-pays” and “precautionary principles” should be implemented to provide assurance for countries when considering the import and use of biotechnology. There are already situations where this liability should have been applied internationally.

For example in Mexico, maize (corn), is a staple crop and has significant traditional, cultural, symbolic and spiritual value in Mexico. Most importantly it is a centre of origin for maize. GM maize is not approved for cultivation in Mexico but it is approved as an import for animal feed and processing from the United States. However, between 2003 and 2007 significant GM contamination of maize crops was found in many states in Mexico. This contamination is likely to be persistent and is in essence a contamination of the genetic reserves of maize in a centre of origin for this staple crop.

In 1995 herbicide tolerant GM canola was introduced into commercial agriculture in Canada. Within three years, three weeds were found to be resistant to the same herbicide due to out-crossing or gene stacking within these weeds. Today the extent of contamination of Canadian canola with GM canola is so high that over 90 per cent of certified non-GM canola contains unintended transgenes from GM canola. Contamination is so wide spread that organic canola farming cannot continue in Canada, as no assurance can be given that organic canola will be GM free.

Farmers stand to lose the most through loss of international markets and GM-free certification. They are also most vulnerable to the damage caused by GMOs which could escape, contaminate fields and the environment and act unpredictably.

If Australia wants to ride with the biotechnology cowboys, there must be recognition of the threats posed to farmers, individuals and the environment, and responsibility taken for harmful impacts of rogue genetic organisms”.

Cathran

So, how far do pollens- and dust particles - travel?
Harmful elements in Sahara dust.
<http://newsletters.environmentalhealthnews.org/t/12274/19131/15590/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50cmluaWRhZGV4cHJlc3MuY29tL2luZGV4LnBsL2FydGljbGVfbmV3cz9pZD0xNjEzMjE4ODM=&x=c255dd24> Concerns about the effects of Saharan dust again sparked last year when scientists discovered six harmful pesticides in Sahara dust samples taken from Trinidad.

And the Government and the GM sector should be liable for all costs associated with removing GM from the environment, farmers paddocks and supermarket shelves.

And the Predators are…......

Predatory Agribusiness
By Silvia Ribeiro
Alai-amlatina, May 15 2008

“Food prices continue rising around the world giving rise to intolerable conditions in the most vulnerable countries like famine, often combined with drought or flooding, the perverse effects of climate change. Faced with the seriousness of the crisis, the masks slip and the speeches get emptier with biofuel prescriptions, the supposed benefits of free trade and agriculture for export.

Now head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick announces that those food prices will stay high for several years and that it is necessary to strengthen food aid to manage the crisis. Zoellick, who took up that post after being chief negotiator at the World Trade Organization for the United States, knows what he is talking about: from that former position he did all he could to destroy countries’ food sovereignty in favour of the interests of big agribusiness multinational corporations.

Even that prescription of food aid is in fact yet more covert assistance to those same multinationals who have traditionally sold to grain to the World Food Programme, which then charitably hands it over to starving people, all on condition that they themselves do not produce the foods they need. The big winners in the crisis are also the main big winners in the promotion of biofuels: the multinational corporations that dominate national and international grain trade, seed businesses and who make pesticides and herbicides.

In many cases, the same companies dominate these last two sectors: globally, Monsanto is the main commercial seed company and the fifth in agro-toxins. Bayer is the first in agro-toxins and the seventh in seeds. Syngenta is the second in agri-toxins and the third in seeds. Dupont is the second in seeds and the sixth in agro-toxins. Including BASF and Dow (third and fourth in agro-toxins), these six corporations control all the world’s genetically manipulated seeds, which coincidentally is also the solution they put forward to every new problem - problems they have been prime movers in bringing about.

Along with the businesses that control more than 80% of the world cereals market - Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, Bunge, Dreyfus - all these corporations have profited quite shamelessly from food shortages, the encouragement and subsidy of biofuels and the increase in oil prices (agro-toxins are petro-chemicals). GRAIN’s excellent report “The business of killing by hunger” documents these profits: for 2007, Cargill’s profits increased 36%; Archer Daniels Midland’s by 67 %; ConAgra by 30%; Bunge’s by 49%; and Dreyfus’s profits in the last quarter of 2007 grew by 77%. Monsanto’s profits increase was 44% over 2006 and Dupont-Pioneer’s 19%.

To this situation one can add the fact that, faced with the financial and property crisis, the big speculative investment funds transferred money by the billion to control agricultural products and commodities in international markets. Right now it is reckoned these funds control 60% of wheat and large percentages of other basic grains. The greater part of the next few years’ soya harvest is already bought up as futures. These foods have become just one more object of stock market speculation, whose price changes and rises not on the movements of local markets or on people’s need but on speculative snatches.

Despite the global beating ordinary people have taken, worse for the most dispossessed, the multinationals are still not satisfied and are going after more. They are now preparing the next hijack, monopolizing via patents the genetic characteristics they consider useful to make plants resistant to drought, salinity and other climatic stress factors.

The governments who serve them, like Mexico’s, try gasoline to put out the fire: instead of food sovereignty and rural families controlling seeds and inputs, they propose genetically modified products carrying even more changes and risks, genetically modified maize to increase contamination and dependence and that even the most impoverished rural families, with public subsidies, sow biofuels instead of food.

Silvia Ribeiro is a researcher with the Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group”

Add to the list Arborgen with their GM herbicide ready eucalypts and we have the entire biotech academy awards!
Cathran

One of the central problems we face with the biotech corporations is that the ‘science’ they present to regulators is neither peer reviewed nor subject to public scrutiny.
We are expected to trust both the corporation and the regulator!
Decades of experience clearly demonstrate that neither can be trusted. Why on earth should we trust our regulator when it uses the decisions of the US FDA? The FDA is arguably the most egregiously corrupted regulator in the USA. It has some hot competition here!
Monsanto did an amazing (and very well documented) job of getting exactly what it wanted from the FDA.
Following is a precis of a new document looking at the question of peer review. We would all do well to understand just what Peer Review really means.

The url at the end of this precis takes you to the full pdf report - which is not very long.

ISIS Press Release 20/05/08
SiS Commentary
Peer Review under the Spotlight
********************************

What matters most is the lack of public scrutiny rather than
the lack of peer review in times of corporate corruption of
science
Prof. Peter Saunders

You’ve probably come across the expression “peer-reviewed” a
lot recently, especially in discussions on GM food, mobile
phones, or organic farming. It’s almost always used as part
of a sentence that begins “There is no peer-reviewed
evidence for …” or “There is nothing about this in any peer-
reviewed journal …”

What you’re meant to understand by that is: “there is no
credible evidence for whatever it is, and you can safely
ignore anything you’ve heard about it.” When the question is
about safety, as it often is, it means the regulatory
authorities are not going to look into it.

A lot of people take peer review very seriously, or at least
they say they do. When Sir David King, then the Chief
Scientific Adviser to the British government, put forward a
code of ethics for scientists, one of his chief examples of
unethical behaviour, right up there with plagiarism, was
“disseminating work before it has been peer reviewed”. You
may remember Arpad Pusztai who spoke for 150 seconds in a
television programme on unpublished results indicating that
genetically modified (GM) potatoes were harmful to rats,
because he saw it his duty to warn the public. He was
subjected to fierce attacks from the scientific
establishment (led by the Royal Society) that continue to
the present day.

The scientific establishment’s double standard

The scientific establishment may claim to oppose
disseminating results that have not been peer-reviewed, but
there is a blatant double standard being applied, and all
too often. Just recently, a UK government research funding
agency, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) put
out a press release that was not only highly misleading
about farmers being upbeat about GM crops (“UK Farmers
Upbeat about GM Crops” Debunked and Marketing Masquerading as Scientific Survey , SiS 38); but was also based on research that had not been peer-reviewed, according to the
ESRC’s own web site.

Another recent example came from the top mainstream journal
Nature Biotechnology. In an editorial, it criticised the
Italian National Research Institution for Food and Nutrition
(INRAN) for not publishing some results that were allegedly
favourable to GM crops.

The director of the project in question, Giovanni Monasatra,
wrote to the journal to put the story straight, and his
letter was published along with a response from the editor,
Andrew Marshall. In his letter,  Monastra dealt with the
points raised in the editorial and expressed his surprise
that Marshall, far from criticising Salute, Agricolura,
Ricerca (SAGRI) for organising a press conference to
publicise data that were, according to Marshall, “too
preliminary for peer-reviewed publication,” instead
complained that the Italian media did not give it even more
coverage than they did.

Read the rest of this article here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php

Let’s hope that all Tasmanian chefs sign this charter to boycott GM food use in restaurants.

“Top chefs cook up plan to boycott GM dining
The Age, May 24 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/top-chefs-cook-up-plan-to-boycott-gm-dining/2008/05/23/1211183108492.html

THE head chef of one of Melbourne’s best-known restaurants has called on consumers to boycott establishments that don’t commit to being GM-free.

“I know it sounds scary … but unless a massive amount of people go against (GM), nothing is going to be done to stop it,” Geraud Fabre, head chef of France-Soir restaurant in South Yarra, says.

“I don’t say it to get more customers, but I reckon … if people close their restaurants because there are no customers … it would make the Government realise they shouldn’t (allow genetically modified crops in Australia).”

Fabre is one of a number of top chefs nationally who have signed an anti-GM chefs’ charter designed to pressure state and federal governments to prevent the introduction of genetically engineered crops into Australia.

The GM-Free Chefs’ Charter, a Greenpeace initiative, has also already been signed by Stephanie Alexander, Neil Perry, Kylie Kwong and Botanical restaurant’s Paul Wilson, and chefs from around Australia will be urged to sign up. The charter, which will be released in full at a Sydney launch on Thursday, calls for strict labelling of GM foods. The chefs who sign up to it believe GM foods pose a risk to their clientele and the nation as a whole, it says.

“Because of the untested long-term risks associated with the growing and consumption of GM foods, we are strongly opposed to serving them — or ingredients derived from GM products — in our restaurants.”

The launch of the charter comes just a month after Victorian farmers began sowing their first GM canola crops following the lifting of moratoriums on GM canola in Victoria and NSW.

The Victorian ban was lifted after the federal regulator concluded GM canola posed no unusual health risks and a review led by Victorian chief scientist Gustav Nossal estimated a continued ban would cost the state economy up to $115 million by 2016.

The Nossal report also dismissed fears that non-GM canola could be contaminated by GM canola or that the price of non-GM canola would drop if GM canola was grown close by.

Victorian grain grower Andrew Broad is testing herbicide-resistant GM canola on his Bridgewater farm after a study tour convinced him grain industries in Europe, the US and South America had suffered no ill effects from GM canola.

However, the technology would have to prove itself with bigger crop yields or greater profitably before he would plant it more widely on his farm, he said.

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said GM canola would put the environment and public health at risk, as well as threatening any premium Australian farmers enjoy from being able to market their crops as GM-free. And once GM canola had been introduced into Australia, it would quickly “conquer all and make everyone (farm) GM”, he said.

Fabre, who first became concerned about GM crops about five years ago, said: “I reckon anybody with half a brain (knows) you shouldn’t be trying something that you don’t know the outcome of.”

Wilson, Botanical’s chef-director, agreed. “There has not been enough testing on humans and there hasn’t been enough established research to prove it’s not harmful to us,” he said.

“We want to support (the campaign) … to separate ourselves from establishments that don’t care. We want people to know we do care about the health of our customers.”

Cathran

I applaud the plan by restaurant chefs to boycott any genetically engineered foods - or food ingredients.
Their action can go a long way to raising consumer awareness of the profound dangers arising from the use of this technological folly.
Unfortunately, the majority of people do not eat at fine restaurants, so they tend to be the least informed on the dangers of GM ingredients in what they eat.
They are the people who eat a lot of fast food with highly refined processed food ingredients.
These are the products which, with no labeling requirements, are most likely to contain genetically engineered ingredients. They are here in Australia now!
One way this could be remedied would be for the well-known fast food outlets to join the anti GM campaign.
I therefore call on all the big brand fast food corporations to join this chef’s campaign to help educate the people, whatever they eat - of the health dangers they face from eating food with GM ingredients.

The Gustav Nossal report should be treated with contempt due to his conflicts of interest and unable to produce how he came up with the figures he has quoted.  As per below website:-

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2910
ABARE produce another bogus report to push GM crops
The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) have slammed ABARE for their latest economic report titled “Economic Impacts of GM crops in Australia” claiming that it is based on misinformation and driven by the Federal government protecting their own investments in GM technology.
“Once again ABARE has put out a bogus report showing benefits for GM crops that are not relevant and ignoring the costs and market loss involved. This ABARE report is a desperate push of GM crops onto farmers.” said Mrs Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the NCF.
“There is no reason why any of the advantages would be relevent to the introduction of GM crops as we are not being offered anything better than what we already have but there is a reason why the risks and additional costs should be included. How can a benefit be applicable to GM wheat introduction when no market wants it?”
No additional seed costs or user fees were incorporated and it was assumed all farmers would grow GM which removed the costs of segregation. No market loss or penalties were integrated but a market premium was assumed for GM crops yet a price reduction was claimed for consumers. The funding for this project was provided by the Rural policy division under the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS) introduced in 2000.
“The Federal Government adopted the Biotechnology Strategy to protect their biotechnology investments, not to protect farmers and consumers,” added Mrs Newman. “This is obviously the aim of this report as it does not address economics for farmers or consumers.”

+++

It would not be the first “bogus report” that the pro-GM sector have produced to try and con the farmers and consumers.

Remember that the creator of the GM industry has been accused of false advertising and bribing government officials before so do you really think they would have stopped before now?.

So good on these chefs as the are voicing their concerns that GM is unsafe.

Why would we risk our reputation by allowing GM crops into this state?

“Tasmanians urged to go organic
FoodWeek (Australia), 22 May 2008

The Tasmanian government wants to expand the state’s organic farming industry.

Primary Industries Minister, David Llewellyn, says it wants to brand the state with clean and natural practices. To that end it is hosting a conference on organic conversion in Launceston this week.

Llewellyn says organic produce commands premium prices in national and international markets.

“It’s something that I really think is very important and we’ve redoubled our efforts to try to get some interest in organics, more than what is already very significant interest already here in Tasmania.”

Meanwhile, a group of Tasmanian farmers has secured a deal to supply Japan with canola that’s free of genetically-modified materials.

They will 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.”

This looks hopeful but we know the TFGA already supports the adoption of GM in this state.  The Committee for Gene Technology will be reporting by the end of June.

Cathran

The big “M” has started hitting on sites promoting a certain download - a film exposing them.  We will not mention it on this site again for fear of reprisal.  We can’t risk TT with this one.  It is good to see that some main stream cinemas in Canada have the guts to show it.  Maybe we can get the Greens or the Wilderness Society to put it on.

Cathran

There is a possibility that the tide is turning for the big M when people realise that the pro-GM sector are only in it for the money and not the health or care of the world and its people.

The more that we can make people aware of the problems with bringing GM into the country the more likely that the tide will turn before Tasmania is contaminated with an unsafe product.

So let’s keep the tide turning and kick GM and their industry out of Tasmania and hopefully Australia when they find that it cannot be controlled and it is unsafe for human consumption as well as the consumers don’t want it.  Why would you then plant something that you cannot sell?

New Zealand has signaled it will vote with AUSTRALIA and Canada, OPPOSING African nations’ calls to suspend the release of GE trees until there is sufficient understanding on the risks they pose.

“NZ UN Delegates Fight African’s Over GM Tree Regulation
Wednesday, 28 May 2008, 10:42 am
Press Release: GE Free NZ

NZ UN Delegates Fight African’s Over GM Tree Regulation

New Zealand is being humilliated by its representative delegation at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, (COP/MOP4, Bonn from 12th -31 May) by opposing African nations wanting controls of GM trees.

The New Zealand delegation has signaled it will vote with Australia and Canada, opposing African nations’ calls to suspend the release of GE trees until there is sufficient understanding on the risks they pose.

As well as undermining the precautionary approach of developing nations, New Zealand’s stance may also be based on poor science designed to serve the interests of investors at the expense of the environment. It is strange that New Zealand’s GE trees are being pulled up at the same time as we are blocking international regulation.

“It is of concern that this vote might have been influenced by the false and unsupported conjecture that the GE Scion experiment was a success,” says Claire Bleakely from GE Free NZ ( in food and environment).

In May Scion notified ERMA that it was closing its field trial site down claiming the trials were a success. Yet no evidence of the claimed success has been released, and research on environmental and ecosystem impacts have only been carried out for three years. Yet Pinus Radiata trees take at least 9-12 years before pollen production and are not considered mature until 20.

Now it emerges Scion will be pulling out all remaing GE trees over the next few weeks. MAF biosecurity confirmed the trial would be carried on indoors under their original development approval.

GE Free (NZ) has written twice to find out where the reports on these “successful results” can be found. The requests, and other enquiries from independent scientists have been met with silence.

“It can only be concluded that in fact the experiment has been a failure, or some serious issues have emerged to warrant early termination. If this was not the case is surprising the experiment had to be withdrawn after 4 years into a 22 year trial” says Claire Bleakley.

“The New Zealand delegation should be careful in siding with Scion’s vested-interest opinions when they are not supported by scientific peer review.”

New Zealand forestry is going to be a billion dollar export industry and we do not want the world to think that we are willing to forsake our sustainable clean green status, and to block regulation demanded by developing nations. It is also important we live up to the Forest Stewardship Council Standards which guarantee that our trees reach the highest quality.

The New Zealand delegation has yet again let down our great New Zealand nation and shown that it represents the failing and unwanted genetic pollution that will inevitably silence our forests, affect our insects and starve our birds.

Yet again the government has sacrificed natural environment for the mirage of wealth. We ask that the NZ Government change their directive and support the African Delegation suspension on the release of GE trees.

Background In 2003 The New Zealand Forestry Institute now Scion applied to ERMA to grow genetically engineered Pines and Norway Spruce to express a suite of herbicide resistant and altered reproductive development genes. Two of these lines lines carried the Terminator Barstar/barnase genes which contravenes the World voluntary moratorium.

The GM Tree facility was severely compromised by rabbit warrens that eventually destroyed the trial on GE Spruce. In January 2008 a breach of the facility removed 19 trees 17 of which carried the reproductive altering genes.”

Alarm bells should be ringing in this state. Arborgen have GM eucalypts ready to trial now and I can see Tasmania as the chosen trial site in Australia! The new catchphrase will be “biofuel from cellulosic ethanol”.  A new use for eucalypt plantations.  MIS schemes will be even more rampant with a double dipping for carbon sequestration. Maybe there will be a third dip for growing biofuel!
http://www.arborgen.com/

Don’t be fooled by the warm, fuzzy statements on the Arborgen web site, have a good look at what they are really up to.  Their CEO Barbara Wells was previously employed by Monsanto in several top positions one being the Commercial Biotechnology Manager, Brazil.

Cathran

I assume that ‘big M’ is not a drink or burger but refers to Monsanto and the documentary, The World according to Monsanto. the film has been pulled from Google but is available on the blog:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-world-according-to-monsanto-a-documentary-that-americans-wont-ever-see-full-video/

Yes, you are right Jon.  The reason why we are only putting in the M is because they have trackers on for sites on the web that mention their name a certain amount of times so they can notify the pro-GM marketing people to get someone on and attack the anti-GM category.  This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy.  Like I have said before, I never believed in conspiracy theories until I came across this one with the M monopoly wanting to control the world’s food supply and wipe out all non-gm seeds. 

Tasmania must remain GM free to keep its people safe from harm.  If you do not think that the health of Tasmanians will change, have a look at the American public health and see how cancers, allergies, pancreatic problems, lupis, leukaemia, etc. have doubled and tripled in the last 10 years.  What’s the difference. Mmmm.  70% of the food in their supermarkets is GM and therefore in their diet.

The other thing that I came across is the increase recently in the price of the GM that the farmers of Brazil have to buy from the GM companies.  From $3 a kilo in 2007 to $14 a kilo in 2008.  Yes the figure is correct and I have not made a typo.  In India now that all of the cotton is GM, they have to pay four times higher (16R to 60R within 1 year once all the crops are contaminated) than the conventional variety they used to buy.  Can you imagine what these poor farmers are going through.  No wonder there are massive suicides in these countries.  There’s even a book written called “Seeds of Suicide” which clearly demonstrates what’s happening in India. 

They can no longer buy non-GM seed due to contamination.  Once you sign on that dotted line of the agreement with these GM companies, you are locked into and controlled by them no matter what they charge. 

We must learn from the errors that occurred in these countries that allowed GM in and demand that the GM companies pay for any contamination and charge them millions of dollars worth of fines if they do contaminate.

A day of shame for Australia! To the people concerned about the proliferation of plantations - just when you think it can’t get any worse it does.

Press Release from Global Justice Ecology Project and the STOP GE Trees Campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   31 MAY 2008

UN CBD Fails to Protect Forests from Genetically Engineered Trees

Bonn, Germany—Under heavy pressure from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, New Zealand and AUSTRALIA, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) failed to pass a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered trees into the environment despite support for a global ban endorsed by hundreds of organizations around the world, and the unified efforts to stop GE trees carried out by NGOs, Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations, scientists and foresters present at the COP.

The negotiations around the issue of GE trees were heated, with the entire African Group and numerous other Parties staunchly supporting a suspension of the planting of GE trees until risk assessments show that they will have no negative impacts on forests or forest dependent peoples.  Among those blocking this effort were the countries of Brazil, Canada, and New Zealand, all of which are currently conducting field trials of GE trees.  One member of the Brazilian delegation admitted that their delegation included a representative from ArborGen, the world’s leading GE trees research and development company, which projects millions in profits from GE tree plantations that they plan to develop in Brazil. [1]

“Most of the COP resolutions will increase hunger, especially in Southern countries,” explained Ana Filippini of World Rainforest Movement and the STOP GE Trees Campaign. [2]  “Accepting genetically engineered trees is only one more in the chain of wrong policies that will worsen the already serious hunger situation.  Millions of hectares of land are being turned over to the production of agrofuels. With the new emphasis on cellulose-based agrofuels, even more land will be taken for even larger plantations of trees-which will likely someday be GE trees, since the COP would not pass a moratorium on them.  Business has been pushing these unsustainable agrofuels all through this COP, which are only for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of human hunger and environmental destruction,” she concluded.

“Yesterday was a bleak day indeed,” added Anne Petermann, of Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, and Co-Coordinator of the STOP GE Trees Campaign.  “The fact that the COP failed to take strong collective action against GE trees means that more forests will be destroyed, more biodiversity devastated and more peoples displaced.  Global warming will be worsened and livelihoods lost.  As has historically been the case, the work to protect ecosystems will ultimately and unjustly fall upon the communities and peoples that live there.

“Under the leadership of CBD Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf, the CBD has chosen to actively embrace business and a market-based approach to biodiversity conservation, which has had the inevitable effect of watering down protection of biodiversity where it runs counter to the interests of business.  It is having the effect of seriously jeopardizing the legitimacy of this body,” she concluded.

Cathran

Press Release from Premier of WA on GM food crops.
The Tasmanian Government might like to pick up on this!
It is clear that in WA, the government has taken careful note of Jeffrey Smith’s Genetic Roulette.
EVERYONE who puts food in their mouth should have that book!

PREMIER;
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
JOINT MEDIA STATEMENT
Attention:  News Editor/Chief of Staff

2/6/08

WA Government calls for a halt to GM food approvals.

Premier Alan Carpenter has called for better labelling of foods that contain Genetically Modified ingredients and an immediate halt to the approval of all GM foods in Australia until more is known about the safety of eating them.

Mr Carpenter said Australia’s national food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), should not approve any more foods for human consumption until it introduced independent scientific trials to determine the safety of GM foods.

“I find it unbelievable and unacceptable that the national food regulator relies principally on the say-so of the GM companies when assessing GM foods as safe to eat,” he said.

“WA consumers want and deserve to know what they are feeding their families and they expect foods containing GM are not only labelled as such, but there is monitoring and enforcement of the labelling.

“This is not the case currently in Australia – no-one does any GM labelling checks, so foods are either unlabelled or not required to be labelled.

“GM ingredients are present in an extensive range of foods on supermarket shelves including corn chips, breakfast cereals, taco shells, bread, cakes, margarines, biscuits, soups, soy products and as oils.”

Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance said FSANZ was already approving GM crops that were never intended for human consumption - such as GM corn, which was bred for use in making ethanol - as safe for people to eat without having done independent tests.

“GM labelling should apply if the food is an oil derived from a GM crop, a whole food, or if any ingredients derived from GM crops are present in the final product,”
Mr Chance said.

“There is also published evidence which highlights health concerns about GM foods, including allergies, damage to vital organs and links to cancer.

“Consumers are right to be suspicious about claims from GM companies that the foods are safe to eat.”

Mr Chance said he and Health Minister Jim McGinty would write letters to their Federal counterparts requesting their support to change the current standards.

“The WA Government notes that supermarket chains including Woolworths have recognised their customers’ concerns and have policies of not using GM ingredients in their house-brand products where possible, and Coles requires its house-brand products to be GM-free,” the Minister said,

WA currently has a moratorium on the commercial production of GM crops.

“There is a lack of independent information about the performance of GM canola in Australian growing conditions and evidence of strong rejection by consumers, both in Australia and in important overseas markets,” Mr Chance said.

“Until these issues are resolved, the only responsible course by any government is to maintain a very cautious approach to the technology.”

Media contacts:
Premier’s office:              Andrew Smith     9222 9475 or 0408 176 839
Agriculture Minister’s office:  Gavin Rainsford   9213 6700 or 0438 935 480

Bravo! Alan Carpenter.

Premier urges halt to GM food approvals
Sydney Morning Herald, June 2 2008
http://news.smh.com.au/national/premier-urges-halt-to-gm-food-approvals-20080602-2krv.html

West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter has called for an immediate halt to the approval of all genetically-modified (GM) foods in Australia.

Mr Carpenter also is asking for federal government support to enforce better labelling of foods containing GM ingredients.

He wants Australia’s national food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, to stop approving any more GM foods for human consumption until independent scientific trials prove their safety.

“I find it unbelievable and unacceptable that the national food regulator relies principally on the say-so of the GM companies when assessing GM foods as safe to eat,” Mr Carpenter said.

“WA consumers want and deserve to know what they are feeding their families and they expect foods containing GM are not only labelled as such, but there is monitoring and enforcement of the labelling.”

Mr Carpenter said currently GM foods are either unlabelled or not required to be labelled.

WA Agriculture Minister Kim Chance and Health Minister Jim McGinty will write to their federal counterparts requesting their support to change the current standards.

Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke and federal Health Minister Nicolas Roxon were being sought for comment.

NSW and Victoria have allowed GM canola from this year, but WA currently has a moratorium on the commercial production of all GM crops.

Opposition Leader Troy Buswell said it was “ridiculous” to prevent commercial trials of GM canola in WA.

“We live in a state where farmers are struggling to stay on the land and run viable farms, and yet we have a premier who denies them access to at least commercial trials of crops like GM canola,” Mr Buswell told reporters.

“It is plain and simple ridiculous and it is not in the long term interests of the agricultural sector of Western Australia.”

But anti-GM group Gene Ethics has given Mr Carpenter its full backing.

“We join the premier in calling on all Australian governments, through the Health Ministerial Council, to swiftly meet the public’s rights to safe food and to know a food is GM,” Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps said.

“It is ‘unbelievable and unacceptable’ that FSANZ relies mostly on GM company data to say GM foods are safe to eat.”

Supermarkets Coles, Foodland and Woolworths have introduced policies to restrict or completely ban GM ingredients from their house-brands.

Cathran

Well done Alan Carpenter.  Finally someone within the Government has realised that there is something “fishy” in the GM takeover.  Someone who has actually done the research on the fiasco of GM and found it lacking.  Maybe I will move to WA.  C’mon Tasmania, realise that this is a horrible mistake to take on and follow this example and demand labelling as well.  The consumers will certainly tell you that GM is a dangerous product and refuse to eat it.  Just the same as any laboratory rat in any GM experiment refuses GM food and scientists have to force feed them.  Makes you wonder doesn’t it that the mice know already that GM is dangerous to their health.

Let’s hope that Tasmanian politicians take note of these events taking place in WA.

GM foods lobby gains momentum
ALEISHA PREEDY
The West Australian, 11 June 2008

PERTH - There have been renewed calls for the State Government to retain its moratorium on growing genetically modified (GM) crops.

Members of the WA Conservation Council and members of the Japanese Consumers Union today presented a 20,000-strong petition to WA Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance.

The petition voices concerns over the safety and environmental impacts of GM foods.

Japan is the State’s largest customer for canola and cereal crops, with the industry valued at $550million per year.

The country currently imports about 146,000 tonnes of canola from WA - representing about 50 per cent of Australia’s export canola.

Ten members of the Japanese Consumers Union, which has 3 million members, travelled to WA this week to meet representatives of the State’s farming community and Perth consumers to discuss market advantages of producing non GM crops.

The group’s spokeswoman Michiyo Koketsu said the union previously bought canola from Canada until they began growing GM varieties and she hoped Australia did not follow that path.

“Japanese consumers have voiced a strong preference for non-GM products and the union currently imports the majority of canola from Australia because of its non-GM status,” Ms Koketsu said.

“If WA was to lift the moratorium and allow GM crops to be commercially grown we may no longer be able to import canola from the state.”

Mr Chance said the State Government had no plans to remove the 10-year moratorium on GM foods and had called on the Federal Government and Food Standards Australia to tighten food labelling and increase health awareness on GM foods.

“On a multinational basis our valued customers in Japan and our valued Australian customers are saying there is a very clear rejection of GM foods,” Mr Chance said.

“The State Government is taking this very seriously and at a bare minimum will continue to call for renewed labelling on GM foods to better inform consumers and give them a choice.”

Last week WA Premier Alan Carpenter called for the nationwide suspension of approvals for foods from engineered crops until more health research was carried out.

Cheers
Cathran

The TFGA held a GM Information Forum in Launceston at the end of May this year.  It was a pro GM propaganda unit in spite of the fact that they had a speaker on GM ethics.

We were told by CSIRO scientist Dr Alan Richardson that there would not be any cross contamination problems, that segregation would be easily achieved. It would seem that there are many concerns with cross contamination.  See the article below.

Header contractors in bind over GM canola
GRAHAM FULLER
The Land, 10 June 2008

THE Australian Grain Harvesters Association (AGHA) is becoming increasingly concerned about the implications of handling genetically-modified (GM) canola crops as the countdown to this year’s harvest gets under way.

Already, there is talk of members boycotting properties growing GM canola for fear of spreading seed into non-GM canola paddocks.

At issue are the legal implications which might eventuate should header operators unintentionally spread GM canola seeds when moving between properties.

The topic surfaced at a recent south east Queensland branch meeting of the AGHA in Toowoomba where Kingaroy-based header operator, John Murphy, called for a meeting with Monsanto Australia to discuss the issue.

“I’m not against GM canola crops being grown but anybody who introduces a commodity into Australia which some people don’t want, and it’s detrimental to some people’s financial interests, then somebody has to take responsibility,” he said.

“I just what to make sure everybody is happy with the (harvesting) procedures and that the interests of header contractors are protected,”” Mr Murphy said.

Then there’s the issue of costly downtime needed to clean down big harvesters as they move from a GM canola crop back into a non-GM canola paddock. Assuming it takes about five hours to properly clean-down, operating costs of between $350 to $400/hour also have to be taken into consideration by AGHA members.

As well, the AGHA says it will be talking with insurance companies with respect to their members being covered in the event of court action over contamination.

As a result, the Queensland branch of the AGHA wants a list of where GM canola is being grown so its members can make up their own minds as to whether they should harvest these crops.

* Footnote: Monsanto Australia says it is committed to ensuring that all stakeholders along the supply chain are “comfortable” with this year’s limited commercial release of Roundup Ready canola.

Cheers
Cathran

GM will not solve the current food crisis, says Syngenta boss.

David Adam guardian.co.uk, Friday June 27, 2008

Genetically modified crops will not solve the current food crisis, according to the head of one of the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology companies.

Martin Taylor, chairman of Syngenta, said the current industry focus on farmers in rich countries meant it would take 20 years to launch crop varieties designed to address the problems of the developing world. He told the Guardian: “GM won’t solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term.”

His words appear to contradict statements from UK politicians, industry bodies and the European Commission that GM technology should be considered as a way to address chronic shortages and soaring prices of basic staples across the world.

Recently, the environment minister, Phil Woolas, said Britain was rethinking its position on GM for that reason. He told the Independent newspaper: “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue.”

A European Commission briefing documents says that GM crops can “play an important role in mitigating the effects of the food ‘crisis’”.

Syngenta is a member of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, along with other GM companies such as Monsanto and BASF. The council has said the technology “has to be seen as part of the solution” to combat rising food prices.

Supporters say that GM technology can boost crop yields and reduce losses caused by pests. Groups opposed to GM technology argue that companies are exploiting the current food crisis to win approval for their products.

Taylor told an agricultural conference in London this week that, because it was so expensive to win regulatory approval for a GM crop, the industry has been forced to focus on a few lucrative “blockbuster” varieties, which could be sold to western farmers but had “hardly any environmental benefits”.

He called for looser, cheaper regulations that would allow companies to develop thousands of GM crops for smaller, more diverse markets, including those in poorer countries. But he said it would take up to 20 years for them to be developed and tested. Existing varieties, largely designed for the climate, chemicals and pests of the northern hemisphere, would be unsuitable.

Most GM crops grown commercially are soya bean, maize, cotton and oilseed rape. Most goes into animal feed. None are grown commercially in Britain, though significant amounts are planted across Europe. The EU has an unofficial moratorium on approving new varieties – no new GM crop has been approved for commercial production since 1998 – but is coming under increasing pressure to review its stance. Taylor said its opposition was based on a “superstitious fear among supposedly educated people about new technology”.

Earlier this year, a major report from UN experts said there was little role for GM, as it is currently practised, in feeding the poor on a large scale. The report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) said: “Assessment of the [GM] technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” The GM industry, which helped to fund the report, pulled out before it was published.

Bob Watson, director of the assessment, and chief scientist to the UK environment department Defra, said on the report’s publication: “The short answer to whether transgenic crops can feed the world is ‘no’. But they could contribute. We must understand their costs and benefits.”

A leading British plant scientist told the London conference that the UK needed to set up a dedicated site to test GM crops under secure conditions. Howard Atkinson, of the University of Leeds, said Europe should establish “secure vandal-proof national testing centres”.

Atkinson’s field scale trial of GM potatoes near Tadcaster was destroyed this month, though nobody has claimed responsibility. The crops were designed to test technology that could make important African crops resistant to a nematode pest. Atkinson compared the trial’s destruction to “burning university books 75 years ago” - end of article.

It’s interesting to note that the Chairman of Syngenta would like “looser, cheaper regulations that would allow companies to develop thousands of GM crops for smaller more diverse markets including those in poorer countries”.  Dream on Syngeta, by the time you develop these crops - 20 years - the world will be a different place!

Cathran

Yes Cathran (149), the world is going to be a profoundly different place. There is, in the plans of these biotech corporations, zero recognition of the looming catastrophe that will result from a ‘perfect storm’ - the rapid onset of global economic collapse, soaring food staple prices, global climate change and peak oil and gas.
Consider that modern agriculture is utterly dependent upon oil and gas to produce fertiliser and other chemicals needed to support vast monocultures. It is utterly dependent upon fossil fuels.
Much of the world will be forced to try and emulate Cuba - following the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union. Cuba is now almost totally organic. They have reverted to traditional methods of producing food - far better, more nutritious, healthier food! They are substantially self sufficient. Cuba is a model that we should all study.
The perfect storm bearing down on us is very likely to decimate the global human population. Nothing will be as it is today.
Tasmanians should consider that they have the good fortune to be living in what may well prove to be one of the safest places on the planet. One of the best places to survive what lies ahead.
But even here, there will be profound changes.

Paul

http://www.naturalnews.com/023539.html
Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. For example, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported in June of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severe rashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling would allow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risks involved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based on the principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistent and dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GE foods essentially equates to human experimentation without informed consent. According to Nuremberg Code,

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved… All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment” [12]. According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informed consent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of the experiment if they choose to do so.

After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind the mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive research clearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labeling is necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA) and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriage between U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, who produces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following the overwhelming condemnation of SA’s paper from the U.S. and the extra procedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of these comments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.

As a result of this development and the constant battles with the corporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA called another meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and create their own labeling system with or without their agreement. Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries with Japan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries stated their commitments to the mandatory labeling.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previous labeling documents and keep the door open for the future possibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a later date, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.

I imagine everyone who follows the GM food crops issue would know about Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser.
He has fought a long and bitter battle against the mighty Monsanto. As is their wont, Monsanto have used despicable tactics to try and squash him. In the process, Schmeiser has become a celebrity amongst all those who who are standing up against the biotech industry.
I have emphasised the fact that every biotech mantra, extolling the claimed merits of their technology is a smoke screen - to hide their real agenda.
If you have not yet seen the incredibly powerful DVD doco, The World According to Monsanto - let me, or Cathran know. We will be very pleased to send you a copy.

Today I received the following report. Percy Schmeiser, thanks to his unbending determination has finally beaten Monsanto!
This is really great news - it could open a floodgate of litigation by farmers around the world against Monsanto. Certainly in Canada and the USA.

Monsanto has to Accept Full Responsibility for Genetic Contamination

http://CurrentConcerns.ch/index.php?id=589

On 19 March 2008 Monsanto accepted their responsibility for the genetic contamination of Schmeiser’s canola fields in an out of court settlement between Percy Schmeiser and Monsanto.

In an earlier trial the Canadian Supreme Court had recognized the legality of the patent protection to Monsanto’s Transgene, but at the same time this court had transferred the question about the legality of a patent about life and forms of life to the Canadian Parliament for re-evaluation. In accordance with earlier legal norms the owner of a patent on a certain gene is also the owner of the respective harvest. This question is still pending and has to be re-assessed by the Canadian Parliament.

Since Schmeiser could prove that he had never used Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds nor the total-herbicide Roundup Ready going with the Monsanto GM seeds, and that he had indeed no advantage from the pollution and contamination of his harvest, he was acquitted of Monsanto’s compensation demands.

In 2005 Schmeiser again found Monsanto GM Rap plants on his fields. He informed Monsanto and demanded that the company remove the plants. Monsanto confirmed to Schmeiser that the plants were Roundup-Ready raps and therefore property of Monsanto. Referring to the existing judgement that the owner of a plant is also liable for plant contamination damages, Schmeiser had the plants removed professionally and forwarded the removal cost invoice to Monsanto.

In earlier attempts to achieve an out of court settlement, Monsanto had not consented to paying the removal cost amounting to $660, so Schmeiser subsequently had sued the company. Monsanto would have paid for the contamination damage, but only under the condition that Schmeiser signed a “gag agreement”, i.e. he would agree not to talk about the damage case, which would have deprived him and/or his wife of the right for the remainder of their lives to ever speak about the case publicly or to ever again sue Monsanto for contaminating their harvest in future before any court. Schmeiser rejected. The demands raised by Monsanto were totally immoral. When the judge asked why Monsanto had not simply paid the very small sum of $660, Monsanto’s lawyer Richard W. Danyliuk responded that there was a lot more involved than just $660.

One hour before the court hearing was scheduled on March 19, 2008 Monsanto accepted all demands of Percy Schmeiser as well as their responsibility for the contamination of Schmeiser’s fields. Monsanto does not only pay for the damage but also accepts that Schmeiser reports and informs the public about the background and that he can express his opinion and position about this case in public. The acceptance of responsibility by Monsanto as the owner of the patented Transgene for the contamination of neighbouring fields opens the path for all farmers in the world to demand compensation by Monsanto.

What was Donald Rumsfeld doing before he collaborated with George Bush and Dick Cheney to invade and destroy Iraq (and the US economy and military in the process?)

As CEO of G.D. Searle, he pimped for a chemical called “aspartame.”

For eight years, even the highly corrupt FDA refused to certify aspartame as safe because it produced seizures and brain tumors in lab animals.

Then Ronald Reagan became president and removed the FDA commissioner who was blocking its acceptance.

Rumsfeld’s company followed up by presenting the FDA “new and improved” studies showing the additive to be safe. The data presented was later proven to have been falsified.

Sound familiar?

Aspartame is everywhere

Take the time to watch this video if you or loved ones consume aspartame. It is a dangerous substance that causes cumulative damage to the brain and immune system.

The following products often have aspartame in them:

* Breath Mints
* Carbonated Soft Drinks
* Cereals
* Chewing Gum
* Flavored Syrups for Coffee
* Flavored Water Products
* Frozen Ice
* Frozen Ice Cream Novelties
* Fruit Spreads
* Gelatin, Sugar Free
* Hard Candies
* Ice cream Toppings
* Ice Creams, No Sugar Added or Sugar Free
* Iced Tea, Powder
* Iced Tea, Ready to Drink
* Instant Cocoa Mix
* Jams & Jellies
* Juice Blends
* Juice Drinks
* Maple Syrups
* Meal Replacements
* Mousse
* No Sugar Added Pies
* Non-Carbonated Diet Soft drinks
* Nutritional Bars
* Powdered Soft Drinks
* Protein Nutritional Drinks
* Pudding
* Soft Candy Chews
* Sugar Free Chocolate Syrup
* Sugar Free Cookies
* Sugar Free Ketchup
* Table Top Sweeteners
* Vegetable Drinks
* Yogurt, Drinkable
* Yogurt, Fat Free
* Yogurt, Sugar Free
                     
                d.d.

Totally agree with you Don,
But you did not include the link to the video.
Meanwhile, google ‘aspartame video’ and you will get plenty to curl your teeth!

What you say here highlights = yet again - that the US FDA has been - and still is utterly corrupted - from within. A situation that become quite overt in the Dubya era - and is not limited to the FDA. So why do Australia and NZ mirror FDA positions? A no brainer for sure!
It is for the very same reasons that the biotech’s have been able to foist their dangerous creations upon a vast number of unsuspecting people around the world.
Connect some dots—Rumsfeld, a protege of Reagan, went on the be defense (should be offence) secretary - head honcho at the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a major funder of biotech.
Who can we trust?
Certainly not anyone in positions of great power!

Paul

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/361.html
 
                d.d.

Thanks Don for that info on aspartame.  Another wonder product originally developed by Monsanto promising no harm to humans!  No wonder they don’t want GM food labelling, their track record is terrible!

Monsanto is gradually buying seed production companies all over the world.  Have a look at this link

http://vicinsea.blogspot.com/2008/07/seeds-of-shame.html

Excerpt from article below - see link above for full list of seed companies owned by the big biotechs.

“Saturday, July 5, 2008
Seeds of Shame?

Gardening Into The Future.
Gardening is enjoying renewed interest in the US and around the world. We are trudging down the garden path of our grandparents to plant our own Victory Gardens. We dig in the dirt and drop in a few seeds and a miracle happens…food appears! Home gardening seems so safe, we know what we put on our food and we can choose organic or non-organic methods, but the line is beginning to blur. Can Genetically Modified(GM) crops be “Organic”? How do we know if seeds are GM or not? Where do garden seeds come from? Who grows fruits and vegetables just for the seeds? Monsanto is the worlds largest supplier of garden seed in the world, so how do we trust that they are selling us the seeds we want? Currently there is no way to know.

Monsanto is the largest supplier of seeds in the world, but they don’t seem very proud of the fact. I doubt I will ever see a package of Monsanto Brand Big Beef Tomatoes but they own that variety. Big Beef Tomato Seeds are resold by dozens of seed companies including Johnny’s and Burpee, but nowhere do they say “Proudly Produced by Monsanto Seeds…” In fact 23% of the Tomato seeds sold in the WORLD come from Monsanto and none of them say so on the package. Monsanto is also the creator of “Round-up Ready” seeds and “Terminator” Seeds. When will these dubious “atributes” be incorporated into vegetable garden seeds? Very Very soon.

Monsanto subsidiary Seminis is announcing “Seedless Tomatoes” on it’s website. Tomatoes WITHOUT SEEDS. “Seedless” is the basic foundation of “Terminator” seeds…they don’t reproduce. I felt a chill down my spine at the thought of that. When bees visit the flowers of these tomatoes, they will cross pollinate with other tomatoes….how long does it take to make ALL tomatoes SEEDLESS? The only seeds available will be from Monsanto!

Seeds are the foundation of the future of our food supply, yet it is almost impossible to find out where the seeds come from. Even Heirloom varieties can be contaminated, and if they are, all the better for Monsanto. It is time to care for our own future by being more careful where we get our seeds. Boycott the GM seeds and be watchful for your neighbors to prevent cross-contamination. And, learn how to collect your own seeds for the coming season.”

Happy Gardening!
Cathran

From Crikey today.
CSIRO’s T.J. Higgins sprung - yet again.
And some folks wonder why the once august CSIRO has lost much of its credibility.

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080708-CSIRO-scientist.html
CSIRO SCIENTIST ASKS CHEFS TO LEAVE GM FOODS ALONE
8 July 2008 Katherine Wilson writes:

A letter campaign to Australia’s top chefs—including Kylie Kwong, Maggie Beer, Stephanie Alexander, Stefano de Pieri and Margaret Fulton—has again raised questions about the CSIRO’s alliances with industry.

In copies of a letter forwarded to Crikey, Deputy Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Plant Industry, TJ Higgins, has written to more than 50 chefs who signed Greenpeace’s GM-free Chefs Charter, asking them not to boycott Genetically Modified products.

Higgins, whose claims about the safety of GM foods have attracted criticism from some scientists and support from others, is CSIRO’s co-inventor of the GM field pea. The pea, spliced with a bean gene, cost more than $2 million to develop but was abandoned because it caused immune issues and lung-damage when fed to mice.

Despite this, Higgins’ letter urges chefs to “think more broadly about the implications of your opposition”. Higgins says “it is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety.” It has, he notes, “and very widely”—independent studies have found no “connection between health problems and GM food”.

But Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales told Crikey that Higgins’ claims have been refuted by peer-reviewed studies and that “Higgins has clearly, and not for the first time, crossed the line between being a scientist and biotechnology industry lobbyist.”

Claims of safety are also challenged by public health scientists, including Australian epidemiologist Judy Carman and nutritionist and biochemist Rosemary Stanton, who say there is mounting evidence to suggest some GM foods currently on the market are unsafe, and these have not undergone the rigour of testing that found health hazards in Higgins’ ill-fated GM pea. While Australian food regulation bodies don’t require such testing, in Europe and Japan, many GM foods are banned because of perceived inadequate testing.

CSIRO’s public comments policy forbids advocacy and calls for “careŠ when speaking about work with commercial potential.”

CSIRO Plant Industry has commercial partners and holds several GM product patents that depend on market acceptance of GM food. Many of these products are co-invented by Australia’s Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, who has lobbied to overturn GM bans.

CSIRO policy also states: “where diversity of scientific views exists make reference to the range of scientific perspectives held within CSIRO.” In the case of GM food, a senior scientist who spoke publicly about hazards of GM crops was sacked from the organisation.

CSIRO was contacted for a response to the latest claims, which follow a spate of accusations besieging CSIRO, including accusations of gagging scientists who express opinions on climate change policy, and a Canberra Times exposé of CSIRO’s coal industry influence on boosting fossil fuel research and reducing renewable energy research.

Scientists in Nature and within the CSIRO have also attacked some claims in the bestselling CSIRO Wellbeing Diet, which was funded by meat and dairy industry bodies.

CSIRO Communications Spokesperson Sophie Clayton said Higgins would like to respond to the latest claims but could not in time for this story. CSIRO’s position statement on gene technology is here.

Yet again we see the inadequate and manipulated “science” that our Government and people of power accept as real and true and yet it clearly shows that these scientists and corporations have vested interest in GM.  They should not have any position of power in advising our government and people about anything to do with GM.  In fact they should be disbanded just like the wheat board.

For those that are interested the ABC is running a forum that would be great if you could run your comments.  Very pro-GM and be careful as they will attack with vengeance.

“A bright GM farming future”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2283227.htm#comments

How does the massive rise in the price of staple food crops relate to the biotech industry?
They have pounced on this situation, claiming that their technology can solve the problem! This would be derisory if the underlying agenda was not so nauseating!
This report makes for deeply disturbing reading.

World Bank Secret Report confirms Biofuel Cause of World Food Crisis
By F. William Engdahl

July 10, 2008

A secret study by the World Bank, which reportedly has not been made public on pressure from the Bush Administration, concludes that bio-fuel cultivation in especially the USA and EU are directly responsible for the current explosion in grain and food prices worldwide. The US Government at the recent Rome UN Food Summit claimed that “only 3% of food prices” were due to bio-fuels. The World Bank secret report says that at least 75% of the recent price rises are due to land being removed from agriculture—mainly maize in North America and rapeseed and corn in the EU—in order to grow crops to be burned for vehicle fuel. The World Bank study confirms what we wrote more than a year ago about the madness of bio-fuels. It fits the agenda described in the 1970’s by Henry Kissinger, namely, ‘If you control the food you control the people.’

Go to
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9547
to read the full report.

Paul

PAN Updates 10 July 2008

Small farms, not GMOs, can feed the world.

At the Organic World Congress meeting in Modena, Italy, in late June, members of the International Federation of Organic Food Movements reinforced the global consensus that small-scale farming is the answer to the food crisis. Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva noted that, while the World Bank pledged increased food aid during the U.N. Food Summit in Rome in June, “The $1.2 billion the World Bank says will solve the food crisis in Africa is a $1.2 billion subsidy to the chemical industry.” This kind of “aid” leaves countries “dependent on chemical fertilizers when their prices have tripled in the last year due to rising oil prices. I say to governments: spend a quarter of that on organic farming and you’ve solved your problems.” Meanwhile, in a revealing UK Guardian interview, Martin Taylor, the head of Syngenta—one of the world’s leading producers of genetically modified (GM) crops—admitted that biotech “won’t solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term.” The Organic Consumers Association observes that “this is in stark contrast to the biotech industry’s ongoing propaganda that the world must embrace genetically engineered crops in order to feed the world’s growing population.” While biotech giants like Syngenta and Monsanto claim that GM crops are environmentally sustainable, Syngenta’s Taylor confessed the industry’s real focus is on selling high-priced seeds and pesticides with “hardly any environmental benefits.”

Illegal GM maize detected in France

Latest news from GM Watch

“NOTE: It’s sometimes claimed by pro-GM lobbyists that if any reason is found to ban a GM crop once it’s been introduced, then this offers no more difficulty than, say, a drug recall. This article shows that in practice regaining control over an agricultural crop is far more challenging.

Thanks to Claire Robinson for the translation.
GM crop reapers detect illegal GM maize on the farm of a small farmer [summary]
Le Monde, 11 July 2008

Small farmer Jean-Louis Cuquel has been summoned to appear in court at Montauban on July 10 following a writ served by Confédération Paysanne, Greenpeace and organic body Nature et Progrès. The reason: these groups found Monsanto’s GM maize MON810, banned since February, growing in one of his fields.

The Voluntary Reapers, farmers from Confédération Paysanne and members of other associations opposed to GMOs are conducting an ongoing investigation in different regions to attempt to identify GM crops.

The methods are well developed, as evidenced by the guide, “How to detect transgenic plants in fields” released by the GM Info group. Investigators take samples of the suspect maize, crush it into a juice and mix it with an inexpensive reactive substance. If the cardboard reacts, the test is positive. The mixture is then sent to labs to do further analysis according to standardized methods.

But Mr Cuquel, aged 40, is not a big farmer who stands to make a fortune from hundreds of hectares of maize. He built his own house over 12 years and lives there with his wife and child. He has only 20 hectares and finds it difficult to compete with cheap imports from Spain, Italy and Morocco. For the past 5 years he has had to work as a hospital porter, tending his land during the evenings, weekends and holidays

The GM maize? He says that before, he spread products [chemicals?] by helicopter. With the GM maize he doesn’t have to do that any longer. He says it’s healthier and gives a better yield. But MON810, approved in 2007, was banned in 2008. “They sold the seed in quantity, on pallets, so I had some left over last year,” he says. “A 180 euros per load, I could not afford to throw them away.”

Indeed, the laboratory Ad. Gene at Thury-Harcourt (Calvados) contracted by the groups, found that samples collected in the field have “DNA derived from GMOs” in excess of 5%. For opponents of transgenic crops, the offence is no doubt. “We are not targeting the farmer, said Michel Dupont, of Confédération Paysanne, but the economic system which led to this illegal cultivation.

“The discovery of this cultivation of MON 810 means nothing is being done to enforce the moratorium,” said José Bove, spokesman of the Voluntary Reapers. If nothing is done, this is the politics of ‘fait accompli’: contamination will become widespread, and all standards will be gradually relaxed.”

The spead of GM crops would seem to cause many bad side effects.  Not only is this contamination a serious breach of biosecurity by someone who cannot afford to waste seed, it also sets farmer against farmer and communities against communities.

Cheers
Cathran

In a welcome and visionary move, South Gippsland Shire in Victoria is well on the way to becoming GE free entirely due to the commitment and persistence of the local community:

http://www.truefood.org.au/news2.html?mode=aust&newsid=420

The far reaching ramifications from this campaign against formal State policy could well be applied on a number of fronts across Tasmania.

An unusually frank statement from a GM expert!
I wonder if he has lost his tenure?

CLAIMS ABOUT GM “BULLSHIT”—EXPERT
Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales, was among those who, after the British public decisively rejected GM crops in the UK’s official public debate, wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, urging him to push ahead with GM. But it seems the current ‘GM can solve the food crisis’ hyperbole is just too much to stomach.

Prof Murphy told Rob Lyons of the ferociously pro-GM Spiked-online website: “The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullshit.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5438/

“Too many unknowns in the manufacture and use of GM foods
Judy Carman*
Canberra Times, 28 July 2008

In her guest column in this space on July 14, Paula Mathewson of CropLife put forward the genetically modified crop industry’s view of GM food. Unfortunately, she left out some critical facts.

First, most GM foods come from GM crops. To make these crops, genetic engineers insert bits of DNA from animals, plants, bacteria and/or viruses into the food plants that we eat. While the GM crop industry boasts about how accurate the process is, the reality is rather different.

A classic insertion method is to actually fire the DNA into the plant using a modified shotgun. As the inserts land randomly, they can interfere with the plant’s normal genetic functioning, and may cause a previously unknown substance to be made.

To date, almost all GM plants have been designed to make a new protein that makes the plant able to survive herbicide spraying or to make its own insecticide (which we then eat), and not to benefit consumers.

Like the GM industry, Paula likes how our food regulator regulates GM food. What she
hasn’t told you is that the regulator does not do any safety experiments of its own, but only does a paper-based safety assessment, based largely on what the GM crop company decides to tell it. It also does not require any animal or human studies to be done at all before it approves a GM crop as safe.

If any animal studies are actually done, they are almost always done by the GM company that wants to profit from the crop and not by independent researchers. This is like accepting the safety statements made by tobacco companies without requiring independent studies.

Furthermore, these animal studies generally just involve feeding only the new protein that the plant is designed to make as a single oral dose and measuring how many animals die within seven to 14 days.

There are serious problems with this method.

First, the actual protein tested does not come from the GM plant that we eat but from a GM bacterium that we don’t eat. Our regulator simply assumes that the protein is the same when it may not be.

Also, it assumes that the plant will only make that substance and nothing else. It also assumes that any animal that is not actually dead must be healthy and will stay that way, when it may in fact be seriously ill.

If feeding studies of actual GM plant material are done, they are usually completed within only four weeks and animal production measures such as meat production are usually measured rather than matters relevant to human health, for example organ
health. Allergy is only assessed using a paper-based method, not by animal studies. Proteins with similarity to known allergic substances have been passed as safe. Reproductive effects are not measured.  Study periods are not long enough to allow cancers to develop. Now consider that we will be eating these crops for generations.

Is there evidence of harm from eating GM crops? Yes, mostly from independent researchers using animal models. Effects have been found on the liver, kidney, pancreas, testes, digestive system, respiratory system, immune function (including allergy) and reproduction.

Are any of these occurring in people? We simply don’t know. There have been no studies into whether any of the millions of people who have been hospitalised or died since GM crops were introduced got ill due to eating these crops.

Our food regulator has allowed 55 different GM crop varieties into the Australian food supply, mostly corn, soy, canola and cotton. They are likely to be present in much of our daily diet, including fried and baked goods, such as soy in bread and processed food, cottonseed oil in chips and canola in margarine. Refined products like oil are exempt from labelling, as are meat, milk, cheese and eggs from animals that have eaten GM feed.

Why? Because our food regulator believes that they do not contain any DNA or protein from the GM crop. Scientific studies show otherwise. Meals from restaurants and take-aways do not require labelling. Moreover, the labelling laws are not policed.

Finally, Paula uses one survey to “show” that people have no concerns about eating GM foods. Unfortunately, she didn’t mention all the surveys by bodies such as Swinburne University, Roy Morgan Research and Biotechnology Australia that show the opposite. Polling also shows that 92 per cent of Australians want all GM food labelled.

Of course, the GM crop industry doesn’t want this and continues to vigorously oppose it. Labelling allows for consumer choice, traceability, easier investigations into the effects of GM crops on human health and easier legal action.

*Dr Carman is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research”

Crikey [Australia], 21 July 2008

Health scientists have accused CSIRO Plant Industry Deputy TJ Higgins of making innacurate claims, following a CSIRO campaign urging Australian chefs not to boycott genetically modified (GM) food products.

As reported in last week’s Crikey, Higgins wrote on CSIRO letterhead to more than 50 chefs who had signed Greenpeace’s GM-free Chef’s Charter. But his letter campaign has “backfired spectacularly”, according to Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales, who says health scientists and chefs are angered over public resources being used for pro-GM lobbying.

Sydney restaurateur and cookbook author Holly Davis told Crikey some chefs are “very concerned. I thought that CSIRO was an impartial research organisation.”

Dr Higgins, whose promotion of GM foods is strongly supported by Australia’s Chief Scientist Jim Peacock and Victoria’s Chief Scientist Gus Nossal, is CSIRO’s co-inventor of the GM Field Pea, abandoned because toxicologists found it caused immune problems and lung damage in mice.

Does this finding contradict Dr Higgins’ assurances to chefs that “independently reviewed tests have not found any connection between health problems and GM”?

No, according to Dr Higgins. In a letter to Crikey, he wrote:

“My GM pea research emphasises the effectiveness of case-by-case evaluation of GM plants and the important role science can play in decision-making around the introduction of GM crops. The research does not imply that all GM plants are inherently bad. Food Standards Australia New Zealand undertakes comprehensive evaluation of GM foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption.”

But these claims are “simply wrong” says nutritional biochemist and epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, whom the West Australian government commissioned to undertake independent studies into the safety of GM foods.

Carman told Crikey: “TJ Higgins’ GM pea provides a clear example of the failings of our current GM food regulatory regime. The pea failed miserably on all the [independent health] tests conducted.” And despite Higgins’ claims, “these tests are not required by our food regulator”.

Her assertions are backed by health advocate Dr Kate Clinch-Jones, a director of the Institute for Health and Environment Research, who is concerned that preliminary independent studies, which suggest allergic responses, organ damage and precancerous growth in mice fed GM foods, have not been followed up.

And Crikey has confirmed that contrary to what might be implied in Higgins’ letter, FSANZ did not request any of the independent testing that found health hazards in Higgins’ GM Pea, which was initially meant for livestock consumption. Nor do FSANZ and the US Food and Drug Administration require such testing for any GM food for human consumption.

FSANZ spokesperson Lydia Buchtmann said such testing “does not conform to validated methods for GM food safety assessments”. But she says FSANZ has “a rigorous process for approving GM foods to ensure they are as safe as the conventional variety”, including tests for allergens.

Dr Higgins is also accused of making innacurate claims on two other fronts.

First, his claim to chefs that:

“It is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety. It has, and very widely. These independently reviewed tests have not found any connection between health problems and GM.”

This is disputed by toxicologist Dr Aprad Pusztai, who co-authored a study on Higgins’ GM Pea.

“There is only one partial clinical study with one GM crop (RR soybean) done in Newcastle and published in 2004,” says Pusztai.

Continued on next post

Crikey [Australia], 21 July 2008
Continued from last post:

This study apparently produced worrying evidence that GM material might survive in the human gut—a finding which, says Pusztai, is “hardly a resounding confirmation of Dr Higgins’ claim. No other human study has been published.”

Higgins, as a plant industry scientist, is not qualified to make the claims in his letter campaign to chefs, says Dr Pusztai.

“He has no background or track record in nutritional research and thus he should refrain from making comments on the safety or otherwise of any GM product.”

“We published a paper on this study in 1999 in which he is a co-author but his role was confined to providing the GM and non-GM pea samples for our study and he contributed nothing else.”

Professor Paul Foster, who led the Australian National University team that found immune problems in rats fed Higgins’ GM Field Pea, was contacted for comment, but did not respond in time for this story.

Given scientists’ criticisms of his claims, Dr Higgins reiterated that CSIRO “supports FSANZ’s comprehensive evaluation of GM foods. We back the case-by-case assessment of GM products.” To which Pusztai responded: “Higgins’ response dodges the issue by referring to FSANZ assurances.”

And other health scientists have complained to Crikey about “inadequate” FSANZ GM safety testing. Their complaints and FSANZ’s responses will be published in a future report.

Another scientist, Dr Maartan Stapper, disputes a third claim made by Dr Higgins in his Crikey letter. Higgins wrote that “No-one has been sacked from CSIRO for speaking out on GM.”

Stapper, who worked at CSIRO for 23 years, said he spoke out about inadequate testing of GM foods, but met with stonewalling from CSIRO.

He said the organisation “doesn’t allow internal questioning of GM, no scientific discussion, and as a farming systems agronomist I was told not to talk to farmers and in public against GM, with the threat of being fired.” While CSIRO continues to support pro-GM public campaigning, Stapper was fired last year, allegedly for speaking out about the hazards of GM food crops.

Can we trust the motives of the biotech industry?
A mountain of evidence say NO!

The latest biotech industry scam is to claim that they have all the answers to high staple prices - which are leading to starvation and claimed food shortages.
The reality is a brutally immoral scam. Fact is, more than enough food is being produced. But available food only goes to those who can pay for it. Right now, we see vast stocks of food wasted, destroyed and hoarded. Biotech claims that their creations are needed to ‘feed the starving million’ are a desperately sick joke. If existing surplus food stocks do not find their way into famished mouths, why can anyone think that biotech products will be generously donated?
The only way GM grains and corn go to those in desperate need is as US food aid. Why?
All the better to ensure contamination of locally produced crops! This has always been about contamination!
When African nations have asked for corn (for example) to be milled before shipment, the US refuses - insisting that it will only send whole grain. CONTAMINATION!!!

The staggering hypocrisy of the biotech industry should alert everyone to the realities. What we are seeing now is strong evidence of the true agenda of these staggeringly evil corporations!

ISIS Press Release 06/08/08

Exposed: Europe’s GM-Hype in Times of Food and Fuel Crisis

Claire Robinson

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details here

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Exposed_GM-hype.php?printing=yes
   
Pro-GM brigade at large in the food and fuel crisis

The pro-GM brigade has been losing no time in exploiting the current global food and fuel crisis and the high price of animal feed to promote GM as the solution in the mainstream media. An offensive was launched on the European Union (EU) to relax its policy on GM imports and cultivation. At present only one GM crop, a GM maize, is approved for cultivation in Europe. The European Commission department of agriculture has joined forces with the biotech industry and the animal feed industry in claiming that it is the EU’s GM policy that is harming Europe’s livestock industry.

Leading the charge of the pro-GM brigade in Europe is Britain, in its role as chief ally of the largest GM exporter the United States. The UK Independent reported that [1], “Ministers are preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops to be grown in Britain on the grounds that they could help combat the global food crisis.” The main source quoted in the article is environment minister Phil Woolas. The night before promoting the GM agenda, the article said, Woolas held talks with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a biotech industry PR group representing Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Pioneer (DuPont), and Syngenta. This industry lobby group is run by Lexington Communications, a PR agency intimately connected to the New Labour government [2]. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has fallen in line, calling on the EU to relax its rules on importing GM animal feed in order to cut spiralling food prices [3]. In addition, a new report by the UK Cabinet Office on the food and feed crises focuses almost exclusively on the role of the EU’s GMO regulations in creating delays for GM feed crop approvals [4].

Critics say that such scaremongering is a cynical attempt to force the EU to drop its “zero tolerance” approach to GM and GM-contaminated imports. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said at UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) conference [5], “I think the debate about higher prices and being able to meet the demand of people in the world for food is a perfect opportunity to make the case [for GMO crops]... We may have a window of opportunity here and I would encourage you to exploit that.”

President of European Commission at the heart of EU’s pro-GM lobby

continued part 2

part 2

Industry lobbyists hoping to convince Europe to go down the GM route face an uphill battle, at least, as far as democracy prevails. Most EU member states and their elected representatives in the EU Parliament remain sceptical of GM crops. Votes by ministers from the member states on applications for their import or cultivation regularly oppose GM applications, but not with a sufficient majority to finally block the approval. The technical name for this type of majority decision in Eurospeak is an ‘unqualified majority’. In such cases, the decision reverts to the unelected European Commission.

The Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, is at the heart of the EU’s pro-GM lobby. Reports have emerged that Barroso is trying to get member states to agree on GMOs behind closed doors, so that there are no more unqualified majorities [6]. Barroso is also trying to find a way to lift Europe’s “zero tolerance” policy and smooth the way for the entry of GMOs into Europe [7, 8]. The Commission has already announced that a decision on animal feed imports and EU GM approvals and laws will be reached this summer. A group of MEPs on the agriculture and environment, public health and food safety committees has written a letter to Barroso expressing concern at [9] “reports that the Commission is deliberately trying to find ways to avoid a co-decision process, thus excluding MEPs, the elected representatives of European citizens, from any decisions on this issue.”

The pro-GM lobby, including influential people within the European Commission, claims that Europe must open the doors to GMOs in order to solve the food and feed crisis; but there is little basis to the claim.

No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis

Most of the EU’s animal feed comes from Brazil and Argentina, which are careful to grow only those varieties of feed, both GM and non-GM, that are approved in the EU, so as not to harm their export markets [10]. An article in the Financial Times quotes a Brazilian diplomatic source saying, “We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy.” The article goes on to say that neither Argentina nor Brazil share the “apocalyptic” scenario currently being put forward by the biotech and livestock industries and intensive farmers [11].
Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].

More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU’s agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK’s Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].

The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.

Continued part 2

continued

Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world

And here’s another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company’s spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.

The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto’s chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], “From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]”. Fraley now says the “challenges” are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.

Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto’s concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it’s good for the company’s bottom line.

Given that industry has revealed the truth behind its biofuels agenda, is it too much to ask of Europe’s politicians that they should be equally honest about the vested interests behind the hyping of GM crops?

Claire Robinson is an editor of GMWatch http://www.GMWatch.org

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 51885, London NW2 9DH
telephone: [44 20 8452 2729]  [44 20 7272 5636]

Dr Pusztai may think little has changed in ten years. Maybe so in the terms he writes about, but there is no doubt that CONSUMER rejection in many important markets has stood in the way of biotech conquest. And with every passing day, more and more consumers are saying NO! NO! to GE food crops.

Dr Arpad Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

NOTE: On the 10th August 1998 the GM debate changed forever with the broadcast of a programme on British TV about GM food safety featuring a brief but revealing interview with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his research into this issue. Item 1 is Dr Pusztai’s comment on the anniversary, while item 2 is GM Watch’s look at the scandal he helped expose and the attacks he subsequently suffered.

Dr Pusztai on 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV “fame” and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven’t got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still “many opinions but very few data”; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armoury of people’s resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.

We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people’s good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.

Let’s hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

The Pusztai scandal laid bare
(text originally published by GM Watch on the 10th August 2005)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5592

And today’s news:-
GM crops a disaster - Prince Charles
From correspondents in London

August 13, 2008 06:16pm
Article from: Reuters

PRINCE Charles said the widespread use of genetically modified crops would the “biggest disaster environmentally of all time” in a newspaper interview published today.
The 59-year-old heir to the throne is well known for his support of organic farming but his comments during an interview with the Daily Telegraph are his most outspoken attack yet on GM foods.

His views will likely strike a chord in Britain where biotech crops have faced significant opposition, with concerns centred on both food safety and possible environmental impacts.

Charles said multinational food companies were conducting a “gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong.”

Small farmers would be the victims if “gigantic corporations” took over the mass production of food.

“We (will) end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness,” he declared.

He said “excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture” had already damaged water supplies in India’s Punjab and in Western Australia.

“What we should be talking about is food security, not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.

“And if they think it’s somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another, then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”

His intervention comes as a wave of food inflation has reopened the debate on the ways science can boost agricultural production.

Earlier this year Britain’s chief scientist John Beddington said GM crops should not be shunned as agriculture seeks to respond to rising food demand, particularly from China and India, at a time when climate change is expected to hit yields.

+++

And the last paragraph clearly shows that even when reporting that GM is so bad, the pro-GM sector clearly are lying about the crop yields when there is sufficient evidence that there are lower yields with GM.

Superweeds: ready for Roundup
by Tom Philpott
Grist, 14 August 2008

*In Arkansas, a new GMO/herbicide solution to a problem created by an old one

I’ve written a couple of times about the rise of “superweeds” in the Southeast and mid-South.

In Arkansas, horseweed and Palmer amaranth now choke fields planted with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready cotton and soy—engineered to withstand heavy doses of Roundup, Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide. Fifteen years ago, horseweed and amaranth weren’t problem weeds.

Back in March, Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service officials were pushing farmers to supplement their Roundup applications with doses of Reflex, a broad-spectrum herbicide made by Monsanto’s rival, Syngenta.

Now the agribiz-friendly extension service is hotly promoting the wares of another Monsanto rival, Bayer Crop Sciences, Delta Farm Press reports [see next item]. Bayer’s Liberty Link soybeans, designed to withstand doses of Bayer’s broad-spectrum herbicide Ignite, will be available next year.

The active ingredient in Ignite is glufosinate ammonium—evidently pretty nasty stuff. Here is the International Pesticide Action Network:

“At sub-lethal doses, glufosinate can have significant, but not so easily observable impacts. For example, a recent study found that low doses of glufosinate affected central nervous system development in young rats ... The results suggested that exposure to even low doses of glufosinate in the infantile period in rats causes changes in the kainic acid receptor in the brain.
According to PAN, the EPA classifies glufosinate ammonium as “persistent” and “mobile”—meaning it sticks around and moves easily through soil and water.”

Then there’s this:

“In one study, residues of glufosinate were found in spinach, radishes, wheat and carrots planted 120 days after glufosinate had been applied. In sandy soils, which overlie many aquifers, glufosinate has been found to be highly persistent due to lack of biodegradation. Its transport through the soil was also determined to be “essentially unretarded.” Glufosinate’s metabolite, MPPA-3, has been found to be more persistent and more mobile than glufosinate [itself].”

It’s hard to see what good can come of this GMO/pesticide treadmill—unless, that is, you own shares in one of the very few companies that dominate the GMO/agrichemical market.
—-

Inevitably reality makes a nonsense of biotech industry claims.
A few years back this situation was cited as being inevitable.
The biotechs frothed at the mouth in heated denial.
Even today they try and deny what is in their contract.
Trust a biotech corporation?
Sure can’t!

CANBERRA TIMES
Concerns about ‘onerous’ clauses in GM crop contract
BY OLIVER PERKINS
25/09/2008 12:00:00 AM

Australian farmers signing up to grow genetically modified canola are exposing themselves to ‘‘onerous’’ obligations, an international law expert says.
Duncan Currie says the contract between biotechnolgy firm Monsanto and GM canola growers bars farmers from selling their land to anyone without a Monsanto licensing agreement.

Monsanto described the claim as ‘‘ridiculous’‘.

The contract, obtained by The Canberra Times, shows that if the land is sold up to two years after the agreement expires, contractual obligations are passed to the buyer, who could be liable for the former owner’s contract breaches.

Monsanto reserves the right to take legal action against any farmers who possess its patented canola without a licensing agreement.

If GM canola is found, the land owner must prove whether its presence was intentional or due to inadvertent contamination.

Under the contract, farmers give Monsanto the right to ‘‘inspect, take samples and test all of the grower’s owned and/or leased fields and storage bins’’ and to obtain copies of all operational documents for three years after they buy GM canola.

Mr Currie believes the implications for farmers are dire.

‘‘In general this is a very one-sided agreement,’’ he said.

‘’[One provision] is particularly onerous [and] includes liability for payment of Monsanto’s legal and attorney fees, including expense incurred in enforcing Monsanto’s rights and investigation expenses.’‘

Australian National University patent law expert Matthew Rimmer said contracts such as Monsanto’s were not new, and many of the company’s rights in the contract would be granted under patent law.

He said the contract highlighted the need for patent law reform to deal better with biological inventions.

A Monsanto spokeswoman said claims of contractual bias were ‘‘ridiculous’‘.

‘‘We are licensed to sell this product. All the state farm associations and commodity councils, which we work closely with, asked for GM canola [and] all growers undergo accreditation before they can get access to the seed,’’ she said.

‘‘Farmers are very happy with the process ... We haven’t had these issues in Australia yet.’‘

NSW and Victorian farmers are now harvesting Australia’s first GM canola crops after a moratorium on GM crops was lifted in both states earlier this year.

The crops contain resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in many non-selective herbicides. A member of the Concerned Farmers Network, Donald McFarlane, said canola crops were hard to contain in one location.

‘‘Farmers of canola will know that it’s almost impossible to stop the spread of [canola] seed,’’ he said.

‘‘Every year, up to 13per cent of a crop will escape to end up god knows where.’‘

He was concerned if a farm sold land within three years of planting GM crops, the contract did not ensure the new owner would be trained to prevent crop contamination.

The NSW Farmers Association would not comment on deals between Monsanto and individual farmers.

Its president, Jock Laurie, advised farmers to seek legal advice before signing any contract, GM or otherwise.

Celtic revolt against Westminster over GM crops
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Independent on Sunday, 28 September 2008

Scottish ministers plan to link up with Wales and Northern Ireland to head off attempts to grow modified food on home soil

Ministers are facing an unprecedented Celtic revolt from their Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts as they launch a new campaign to plant GM crops in Britain.

All three devolved governments have declared themselves implacably opposed to any modified crops in their territory, setting the scene for one of their sharpest-ever confrontations with Westminster. And their opposition is likely to have an impact throughout Europe, sapping the UK’s hitherto obdurate support for the introduction of the technology throughout the Continent.

No GM crops have yet been cultivated commercially in Britain - despite a drive led by Tony Blair - thanks to public hostility and official trials which found that growing them harmed wildlife. But London-based ministers have privately never given up. For years they have voted consistently in the EU to allow the sale of modified food and animal feeds throughout Europe, giving Britain the strongest pro-GM record in the union. And they have now launched a bid to grow the crops in the UK.

Ian Pearson, the science minister, last week said “a significant majority” of Britons “will want to choose GM” once they learned of its advantages, adding: “We have to show that there are benefits to the consumer of adopting GM technologies.”

And earlier this month, Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said opponents now had a year to prove their case. In an apparent reversal of the “precautionary principle” that is supposed to guide government policy, he said: “If you are opposed to GM it is now up to you to provide the evidence that there is harm. Ten years ago it was the other way round.”

But their new drive is running into uncompromising resistance from the UK’s other governments. Wales last week restated a long-standing policy of taking “the most restrictive approach to GM crop cultivation” consistent with the law, adding that this GM-free stance in all but name has “cross-party support”.

Earlier this month Northern Ireland signalled that it would join with the Irish Republic to keep the technology out of the entire island. Michelle Gildernew, the minister for agriculture and rural affairs, told a conference in Waterford: “Once we go down the GM route there is no going back. We need to keep Ireland GM-free.”

But the toughest opposition of all is being mounted by Scotland, where the first minister, Alex Salmond, has himself stressed his unequivocal rejection of modified crops. His environment minister, Michael Russell, told The Independent on Sunday: “We are not prepared to have trials of GM crops take place, and we are not interested in GM cultivation.”

Mr Russell is planning to form a united front with Wales and Northern Ireland, with whom, he says, “there is a unanimity of view”, and is working on a counter-strike against Westminster over its consistent support for the technology in the EU. He believes it is wrong that UK ministers take this position on half of the whole country, when the other three governments hold a diametrically opposite view, adding: “They need to represent both strands of opinion at the European level.” He says he will have a meeting “very soon” with Mr Woolas, to talk about “creating a structure in which all have confidence” for deciding the line to take in Brussels. This could involve having a “pre-meeting” of all the governments to work out a joint position before each vote.

This would be likely to mean that Britain’s consistent “yes” in favour of GM would turn into an abstention. Helen Holder, of Friends of the Earth, says: “If Britain changed from its systematic support, this would have a big impact on attitudes in Europe.”

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that it was “aware of the position of the devolved administrations” and “discusses these issues regularly”.

Article from GM Watch 2nd October 2008

Monsanto’s intimidation tactics no longer legal

California’s first protections for farmers from threats of genetic engineering become law

PRESS RELEASE

Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, 29 September 2008

A landmark piece of legislation protecting California’s farmers from liability was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on Sept. 27, 2008. The bill, AB 541 (Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma), was sponsored by a coalition of agriculture organizations and food businesses, and it is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

AB 541 indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable - the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of non-GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, most notoriously Monsanto. Further, if their contaminated crops cause harm to other farmers, the environment or consumers, they have not been protected from that liability. AB 541 provides protections for farmers from such liability. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to level the playing field when biotech companies investigate alleged patent or contract violations.

AB 541 was sponsored by a thirteen-member coalition including Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, California Certified Organic Farmers, and United Natural Foods Inc. It also had the support of the California Farm Bureau Federation which has traditionally opposed any restrictions or regulations for GE crops.

“AB 541 provides much needed protection for farmers who typically lack the resources to fight lawsuits brought by biotech conglomerates,” stated Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the coalition sponsoring AB 541. “This is a good first step towards establishing that Monsanto - not farmers - is legally responsible for the economic, environmental and health harms caused by their patented and uncontrollable products.”

NOTE: Worth remembering that according to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California were an independent state, it would rank among the world’s top ten economies.

THE food authority responsible for approving genetically modified products has been accused of pandering to agrochemical giants at the expense of consumer health, in a report set to be released today analysing the authority’s recent decisions.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand is gambling with the health of consumers, the director of the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, Professor Jack Heinemann has warned, and is one of only a few regulators to have approved every application for genetically engineered food products.
and more…
Over the past 12 years the authority has approved more than 50 varieties of genetically engineered crops, from corn and soy to potato and sugar beet, the report, compiled by Greenpeace, found. Among the products approved despite what the organisation described as a weight of harmful evidence were:

- A strain of corn (MON863) by Monsanto found to cause liver and kidney toxicity when fed to rats in a peer-reviewed French scientific study last year.

- A Syngenta-manufactured corn (GE alpha-amylase) specifically designed to be used in bioethanol production and not intended for human consumption, yet with the potential to enter the human food chain through unchecked US imports.

- Another Syngenta corn (GE Bt10) approved by the authority despite being banned by the European Union and Japan because no safety assessments have yet been conducted.

- A Monsanto canola, still the subject of debate in the European Union and banned outright in Austria, after Monsanto’s own testing found increases in liver sizes in rats by up to 16 per cent.

Endorsing the report, Professor Heinemann said many of the authority’s decisions on genetically engineered food were based on assumptions, and “picking and choosing only the science [the authority] wants to believe”. Moreover, while in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South Africa more stringent food labelling laws are being passed, in Australia genetically engineered products such as oils, starches and sugars as well as meat, milk, cheese and eggs produced by animals that have been fed genetically engineered crops still require no labelling. Food from restaurants and takeaway outlets is also exempt.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/specials/science/food-authority-accused-over-gm-decisions/2008/10/20/1224351155224.html

Organic farming ‘could feed Africa’.

Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations to be presented today. London Independent, United Kingdom.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html

‘The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education. Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world. But this form of agriculture requires cash to buy the patented seeds and herbicides – both at record high prices currently – needed to grow GM crops.’

All areas affected by ‘dryness’ (the new politically correct word for drought here in Australia as we must not let farmers be downhearted by this) need to think carefully about these findings. On crops grown without pesticides, the soil shows..‘better retention of water and resistance to drought’.
Why would farmers continue to use practices that potentiate drought?
Who is joining the dots here?
Why are farmers in Africa growing crops without pesticides and GM seed to increase their crop production and yet at least 70% of farmers here in Tasmania, continue to use pesticides?

CONTAMINATION has been the key ambition of the biotech corporations in their quest to control the world’s seed supply.
These evil corporations will go to extreme lengths to get what they want.
You can bet your boots the Rudd and his Ag minister Burke (?) would be delighted to see Tasmania fall to contamination.

Fears hay-cutting will lead to escape of GM canola
03.nov.08
ABC Rural
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200811/s2408420.htm
There are worries that the hay from genetically modified canola may contain seeds that will escape and grow.
A lack of rain has forced some farmers to cut their crops, instead of harvesting for oilseeds.
Fodder dealers may purchase the hay and then sell it to farmers who are unaware where the product came from.
Alex Schaap, general manager of biosecurity at the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, says he didn’t expect segregation issues in the first year of GM canola in NSW and Victoria.
“If hay is exported, that hay may carry viable seeds. It would cause problems for maintaining GM freedom,” he says.

SURELY Tasmania’s DPIWE must move immediately to ban ALL canola-based hay from the mainland!
I call on all who read this to write to David Llewellyn, calling for the imposition of quarantine controls to protect our GMO Free status!

‘GM harvest renews calls for labelling

3rd November 2008, 6:00 WST
Food safety chiefs are under renewed pressure to toughen labelling standards as farmers in the Eastern States prepare to harvest their first crop of genetically modified canola.
 
The Conservation Council of WA has warned that the NSW and Victorian canola could be processed and put on supermarket shelves across Australia within months, but shoppers would not be aware they are buying GM food because of inadequate labelling laws.
 
The harvest comes as WA Agriculture Minister Terry Redman said he was working out a “pathway” to start commercial GM trials.
 
Conservation Council of WA director Piers Verstegen said he wanted the State Government to implement a new labelling system for GM products but it had to be supported nationally.’

And Alex Schaap (#178) surely means “It will mean the loss of GM free status for Tasmania.”

How can the politicians ignore the fact that other farmers in other countries that have taken up this farce of GM have gone broke?  How can they ignore the fact that every single health test on GM that has fully investigated major organs and influences of GM, have shown that there are major changes in the organs even the GM companies own research?  How can they ignore the fact that GM is a health and biological hazard to the people of Australia?  How much are they being paid out if they are ignoring these facts?

Wake up politicians and smell the roses.  No allergy tests are done by the GM industry because it clearly shows that allergies are being created by the GM plants in humans and they don’t want this known by the general public until all the world is contaminated.

This report is from the Network of Concerned Farmers.
Why I ask, would anyone be surprised about rigged trials?
This is standard biotech industry behavior!

When you read this, I’m sure you will be as disgusted as I am!

Rigged GM Trials
Why has there been so much promotion of GM trials but little attention to detail? Media has focussed on Andrew Weidermann’s GM trials in Victoria but these trials were manipulated to favour GM. The non-GM varieties could not perform to their full potential because standard weed control was avoided.
The “advantage” of GM canola is only a weed control tool as the GM part of Roundup Ready canola is a gene transfer from soil bacterium to non-GM canola to change it to a GM canola that has resistance to glyphosate. The agronomic difference between GM and non-GM herbicide tolerant canola is the type of chemical that it is resistant to and performance trials should compare the weed control using the different chemicals at optimum times.The trials at Andrew Weidermann’s property did not.
The recommendations for the Roundup Ready canola were followed well and spraying was done when weeds were manageable. Trifluralin @ 1.5l/ha was incorporated prior to sowing and glyphosate was applied around 6 weeks after sowing when ryegrass was 2-4 leaf, musk 5cm, vetch 2 node and hogweed 2 leaf. Despite this ideal treatment, hogweed and vetch survived and there was a second germination of weeds (including hogweed). 
Standard practise for non-GM canola is to apply a knockdown herbicide of glyphosate prior to sowing but this was not applied.
In a blatent disregard for standard practise of triazine tolerant varieties, no pre-emergent triazine was applied which is essential to the success of TT varieties. Normally a full dose of 2.2kg/ha would be applied or a half dose of 1.1kg/ha followed by a follow up dose no later than a month after planting. A half dose of atrazine was applied two months after planting when ryegrass size exceeded label recommendation for control. Ryegrass was 4-6 leaf, musk 10cm, vetch 4 node and hogweed 4 leaf. This weed control was well outside label recommendations and would have had a serious yield drag due to lack of weed control, particularly in early growth stages.
It is not surprising that there was ryegrass survivors in the Clearfield varieties as again the herbicide recommendations were not followed. The weeds were not sprayed until around 10 weeks after emergence when the ryegrass was late tillering and musk was 20cm. 
An excuse of “bad weather” was given for delay but no rain was recorded at the optimum spraying time. 
A tall variety was planted to provide the impressive visual difference in height for those that were not aware that Australian plant breeders have been deliberately breeding for shorter varieties. For an additional visual extra, triazine tolerant varieties were sown far thicker resulting in a spindly look as the average plant density was 164 plants/sq metre rather than the recommended 60-70 plants. Roundup Ready varieties looked more robust as plant density averaged 76 plants/sq metre.
As treatment of non-GM seriously deviated from the norm, it is valid to say that trials have been manipulated to give a false benefit to GM varieties by compromising non-GM comparisons. It is a sad day when trials need to be rigged in a desperate attempt to avoid the truth that GM fails to live up to the hype that surrounds it.

So eating GM food crops is safe?
There is no evidence that GM food is unsafe?
Right?!?!

Read this!

ISIS Press Release 19/11/08

GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice

Comprehensive long term studies commissioned by the Austrian
government reveal that mice fed GM maize produced fewer and
smaller litters with many genes affected compared to
controls. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Austrian scientists carried out long term studies that
showed GM maize fed to mice significantly reduced their
fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one
generation [1]. Similar effects were found in mice fed GM
maize and bred over four generations; although the results
did not reach statistical significance in any one
generation, the trend was unmistakable, more pups lost and
smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.
continued - see full report
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GmMaizeReducesMiceFertility.php

Hot on the heels of yesterday’s news from Austria [182], comes a similar reports from Italy.

ISIS Press Release 19/11/08

GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice

New research add to the weight of damning evidence against the safety of GM food Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

The Italian government’s National Institute of Research on Food and Nutrition has just published a report online in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry documenting significant disturbances in the immune system of young and old mice that have been fed the GM maize MON 810 [1]. This follows hot on the heels of results released by the Austrian government showing that GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice (SiS 41) [2]. These revelations confirm a string of previous findings on adverse health impacts of GM food and feed, leave us in little doubt that GM is Dangerous and Futile (SiS 40) [3]. Proponents should stop misleading the public that GM food and feed is safe.
The GM maize and the parental non-GM variety from which it was derived, were grown simultaneously in neighbouring fields in Landriano, Italy, from seeds provided by Seeds Emporda (Girona, Spain). The control maize flour from the non-GM parental strain had a low level of GMO contamination (0.29 percent by PCR test) but only the GM maize had the specific gene coding for the toxin Cry1Ab that acts as a pesticide.

continued at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MON810gmMaizeMiceImmuneSystem.php?printing=yes

Congratulations to David Llewellyn and his department (DPIWE) for this outstanding news.
This statement follows on the decision earlier in the year to accept the recommendations of the parliamentary committee chaired by the Minister.
My thanks too, to all who worked towards this outstanding result.
My personal opinion is that GMO’s as we know then today will be a dead issue by the time the issue is revisited in 2013.
While keep a close eye on the biotech industry, our focus should shift to the scary issues confronting us with nanotechnology.
You thinks GMOs are bad?
Get your head around Nanotech!
That is potentially far worse!

Tasmania’s GMO ban to stay until 2014
24/11/2008 3:34:00 PM

TASMANIA’s ban on the commercial release of genetically modified food crops will continue for at least another five years.
Primary Industries and Water David Llewellyn announced the extension to November 2014 today and said move would make the State’s primary produce even more desirable.

“Tasmania’s GMO-free status is a key factor in the Tasmanian brand and is therefore vital to Tasmania’s primary producers realising their full potential in international and interstate markets.’‘

Mr Llewellyn said there are exciting opportunities for Tasmania’s primary industries, operating under the Tasmanian brand.

“The markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green, high quality and safe.

“Tasmania is already well-positioned to meet that demand and our decision to extend the GMO ban makes the Tasmanian brand even stronger.

“The decision by some other Australian States to relax their GM bans has actually increased the value of Tasmania’s GMO-free status and that creates opportunities for even better access to prime markets across the globe.

“The hard work done over recent years has ensured Tasmania is well-placed to take full advantage of its reputation as a reliable supplier of the best and safest food to a range of new markets that will arise out of the maintaining of the ban.

“The State Government and the Brand Tasmania Council will be developing a more aggressive marketing campaign to maximise the business opportunities flowing from extension of the GMO ban.’‘

Mr Llewellyn said the Department of Primary Industries and Water would be actively working with industry to investigate GMO-free seed production and other opportunities.

“Clearly, the growing demand in premium markets for non-GM food will also see a growing demand for non-GM seed stock for both crops and pastures that will flow into industries such as dairying and beef, to value-add to their products in the market place.’‘

Tasmania’s GMO policy:

* Prohibits use of gene technology in commercial agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fisheries, bioremediation and pets;

* Does not apply to gene technology use in contained research and medical or non-agricultural industrial use where there is no risk of release to the environment;

* Allows specific authorisation of some types of research if risks of escape of GM organisms to the environment is low enough;

* Prohibits import of viable GM organisms which could establish in the environment (eg GM canola seed);

* Does not prohibit import of non-viable materials derived from GMOs (eg feed containing GM soya bean meal);

* Continues the eradication program at former trial sites at which residual GM canola occurs; and,

* Supports continued Tasmanian participation in national GMO and food safety regulation systems.

Copies of the gene technology policy can be found at http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au
..........................................

Well done indeed Minister Llewellyn, DPIW and the Tasmanian Government.
This is good news indeed for those interested in Tasmanian produce obtainig a niche marketing advantage, and for all those consuming such produce.
“The markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green, high quality and safe.”
Extension of these principles into other areas would indeed obtain a further marketing advantage and extend the notion of preventative health care in our own State by removing many unwanted environmental toxins.
Dr Alison Bleaney

FSANZ (food safety Aust/NZ) follows the FDA and other US agencies!

NOTE: Anyone who says GM foods are carefully regulated is badly misinformed or simply lying, as the following carefully sourced quotes make abundantly clear. Links to all the sources can be found at the banGMfood site, see url below.

EXTRACT: “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto—and, by extension, the biotechnology industry—got. Even longtime Washington hands said that the control this nascent industry exerted over its own regulatory destiny—through the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and ultimately the Food and Drug Administration—was astonishing.”
Kurt Eichenwald, Redesigning Nature, The New York Times
—-
—-
Regulatory breakdown  
http://www.bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” 
Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, Playing God in the Garden, New York Times Magazine, 25 October 1998

“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104, 1992, p. 229

“It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies as the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question.”
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Frequently Asked Questions on EFSA GMO Risk Assessment, 15 May 2006, p. 7

“Claims regarding the safety of these crops… are founded mostly on unpublished studies conducted by the crop developer.”
William Freese and David Schubert, Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21, November 2004, pp. 299-324

“One thing that surprised us is that U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review… The picture that emerges from our study of U.S. regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
Dr David Schubert of the Salk Institute commenting on a comprehensive, peer-reviewed study of federal regulation of GMOs he co-conducted, quoted in Brian Tokar, Deficiencies in federal regulatory oversight of genetically engineered crops, Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project, June 2006

“It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992… The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist… Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”
Editorial in The Lancet, Health risks of genetically modified foods, Volume 353, Number 9167, 29 May 1999

“There is a criticism by many people that dossiers that are submitted to EFSA [the European Food Safety Authority] are only dossiers prepared by the companies. And so, obviously, the companies would present data that are more favourably disposed to their varieties and products. We have in the scientific literature a thing called publication bias - that literature with positive findings is more likely to be published than issues with negative findings… We probably need much more publicly-funded research.”
Prof Patrick Wall, until 2008 the Chairman of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU Agency mandated by the European Commission to advise on the safety of genetically modified food and animal feed for the European Union, in an interview: “We cannot force-feed EU citizens with GM food”, 2 December 2008

continued next post

PART 2

“EFSA ignores scientific evidence that GM animal feed and food are dangerous, and continues to rely on secret dossiers with partial, selective, and biased ‘advocacy science’ submitted by the applicant companies - which cannot be fully examined by independent scientists for peer review.”
European Union Parliament Petition No. 0813/2008: The importance of impartiality within EFSA & the food safety rights of EU citizens. From Dr Brian John. Hosted by Kathy Sinnnott MEP (Ireland South).

“This is confirmation of all our worst fears that the Government’s GM policy is being driven by bad or fraudulent science. They are reliant on the industry that wants to sell these seeds to monitor the trials. This is insane, and criminally irresponsible. If data from one company has been falsified how do we know others have not been up to the same?”
Alan Simpson, UK Member of Parliament, quoted in Antony Barnett, Revealed: GM firm faked test figures: Poor crop results were replaced by a forgery, Ministry’s internal paper shows, The Observer, April 16 2000

“The U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”
Dr Henry I. Miller, who was in charge of biotechnology issues at the US government’s Food and Drug Administration, responsible for food safety, from 1979 to 1994, quoted in Kurt Eichenwald, Redesigning Nature, The New York Times, January 25 2001

“Call me, we are in the ‘dereg’ business.”
Vice-President George H. W. Bush, while on a tour of Monsanto, May 15 1987, offering help to Monsanto if it had problems getting its products through the regulatory system, as seen in the documentary, The World According to Monsanto, Arte, 2008

“The White House complied, working behind the scenes to help Monsanto—long a political power with deep connections in Washington—get the regulations that it wanted. It was an outcome that would be repeated, again and again, through three administrations. What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto—and, by extension, the biotechnology industry—got. Even longtime Washington hands said that the control this nascent industry exerted over its own regulatory destiny—through the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and ultimately the Food and Drug Administration—was astonishing.”
Kurt Eichenwald, Redesigning Nature, The New York Times, January 25 2001

“The person who oversaw its development [FDA policy on GM foods] was the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president.”
Institute for Responsible Technology, State of the science on the health risks of GM foods, June 2 2008

PART 3

“What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’ -type document. It will look like and probably be just a political document… It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.”
FDA microbiologist Dr Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the FDA policy, quoted in Institute for Responsible Technology, How the FDA promotes GM foods, October 11 2007

“And certainly when I became Secretary [of Agriculture], given the fact that I was in charge of the department regulating agriculture, I had a lot of pressure on me, not to push the [GM] issue too far, so to speak. But I would say that even when I opened my mouth in the Clinton admininistration I got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration. In fact I made a speech once saying that we needed to more thoughtfully think through the regulatory issues on GMOs and I had some people within the Clinton administration, particularly in the US trade area - they were very upset with me. They said ‘How could you, in Agriculture, be questioning our regulatory regime?’”
Dan Glickman, former US Secretary of Agricuture, in the documentary “The World According To Monsanto”, Arte, 2008

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”
Dan Glickman, post-departure as US Secretary of Agricuture, quoted in Bill Lambrecht, Outgoing Secretary Says Agency’s Top Issue is Genetically Modified Food, St. Louis Post-Dispatch 25 January 2001

“Now the one thing that’s interesting is that on many of the [regulatory] panels in EFSA [the European Food Safety Authority], they are populated by experts who are comfortable with the technology. And so if you have a lot of molecular scientists who have been playing around with recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] since 1969, it’s not a new technology… It’s like, you know, you go to a motorbike convention and ask the motorbike riders ‘do you think riding a motorbike is dangerous?’ They say ‘no’, whereas other people would think they’re half crazy! So that’s an issue.”
Prof Patrick Wall, until 2008 the Chairman of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU Agency mandated by the European Commission to advise on the safety of genetically modified food and animal feed for the European Union, in an interview: “We cannot force-feed EU citizens with GM food”, 2 December 2008

“One member [of the EFSA - European Food Safety Authority] has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links… Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry… Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project. The aim of this project was to agree [to] safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.’ Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group [for the project] that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta.”

Friends of the Earth Europe, Throwing caution to the wind: the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified food and crops, November 2004

Could this happen here??  I hope not!

The Observer, 25 January 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/25/wales-gm-crops

Environmentalists are calling for the prosecution of a farmer who claims to have sabotaged Wales’s GM-free status by secretly planting and harvesting genetically modified varieties of maize and feeding them to local sheep and cattle.

In a political stunt that has infuriated the National Assembly for Wales, Jonathan Harrington, 53, an agronomist who advises farmers on how to grow crops, claims to have imported two varieties of GM maize from Spain, planted them on his land and given seeds away to two other farmers who also planted the banned crops. Wales has been GM-free since 2000 and markets its milk, meat and vegetables accordingly.

As the Welsh assembly considers its legal options, GM-free campaigners condemned Harrington as “grossly irresponsible”. Plant scientist Brian John of GM Free Cymru said: “To plant it, then deliberately push it into the food chain is absolutely insane.” Friends of the Earth Cymru said: “The concern is that it has entered the food chain without any control, traceability or labelling. Even if it is a small quantity, it means Wales is not GM-free any more.”

An unrepentant Harrington said he had resorted to the secret planting after the Welsh assembly, which voted unanimously for GM-free status in 2000, refused to have any meaningful discussions over its policy. He said: “Out of frustration I went and bought some varieties of maize bred to be resistant to a pest called the European corn borer and which are grown widely in Spain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.”

The varieties he chose were on the EU common variety list, and as such it is legal to grow them anywhere in Europe.

The Welsh assembly admitted that despite its policy, which has otherwise been strictly adhered to throughout the principality, it has no actual legal power to ban GM crops in Wales.

However, anti-GM campaigners believe Harrington can be prosecuted for not complying with stringent regulations that require monitoring, labelling and traceability of GM crops.

Not only does he claim to have planted the maize at his farm at Tregoyd, near Hay-on-Wye; he claims two other farmers, whom he refuses to name, also planted the same maize.

“It was a poor summer, so they didn’t do terribly well. But we did have enough for silage. So, it has been used in animal feed, for Welsh lamb and Welsh cattle,” he admitted. “I’ve no qualms, no regrets at all. I am waiting for the backlash, and am very happy morally, ethically and legally, if need be, to defend my actions.”

The assembly said in a statement: “The Welsh assembly government believes that the introduction of GM crops could undermine some of our achievements and future ambitions for Welsh agriculture. We are committed to close monitoring and control of any proposals for GM crops in Wales. However, we cannot legally ban GM crops in Wales because we have to work within a European legal framework.

“Our policy is to take a precautionary and restrictive GM crop policy stance which is in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture. We believe it has broad public support and reflects the Welsh assembly government’s legal duty to act responsibly within the UK and EU legislation.”

Brian John condemned Harrington’s stunt as political sabotage. “If he has, as he claims, planted it and it has entered the food chain, and he has no monitoring in place, then clearly he’s broken the regulations and he should be prosecuted, absolutely,” he said. “We think this is grossly irresponsible. Wales’s GM-free status is very important.”

Sorry for the delay as this is 10 days old from the non-GM farmers website at http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2942

GM Canola a flop

In response to W.A. and Victorian ABC Country Hour report 16.1.09

GM CANOLA A FLOP

Today the GRDC announced the results of the first independent trials of GM canola which revealed that GM canola yielded 17% lower than both Non-GM herbicide tolerant canola varieties. While it sent shock-waves amongst farmers expecting higher yields with GM crops, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) expected this result.

“This is clear evidence that GM canola is not what it is promoted as,” said Julie Newman, NCF National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers. “We hope farmers will now realise that they have been misled to believe GM canola should yield more when there is no logical reason why it should.”

The GRDC National Variety Trials showed Roundup Ready GM canola yielding 0.7t/ha while non-GM Triazine Tolerant and Cleafield canola yielded 0.8t/ha. The trials compared non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties with GM Roundup Ready canola which has a single genetically modified trait conferred to the plant allowing the plant to be sprayed with glyphosate between the 2 leaf to the 6 leaf stage.

“GM canola is only a limited weed control tool of a non-residual herbicide tolerant canola which is not as effective as what we already have.

Interestingly, the GM farmers in NSW and Victoria have reported the key advantage as grass control which has nothing to do with the GM part because it is achieved by the recommended residual chemical Trifluralin when planting.”

The 2008 costs involve a half price stewardship fee of $500/farm, a discounted $10.20/tonne EPR-style royalty and an extra $43.50/ha for seed.

“Even at these low yields, the GM fees for 500 ha would amount to an additional $25,820 which would require an additional yield increase of 15% to pay for itself. It looks like the farmer pays 15% more but gets 17% less which is a big loss of 32% of the value of the crop.”

“Agronomically and economically, GM canola has been proven to be a flop.”

Contact: Julie Newman Phone 08 98711562 or mobile 0427 711644

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com

This clearly shows that GM is not increasing yields as the GM sector is prone to lying about.  Why would farmers want to plant it if there is less yield?  What a marketing ploy to contaminate our food supply with a dangerous product.

Contamination in Wales.
If this farmer is for real, he should receive the appropriate treatment (after a fair trial) reserved for traitors.
I do have a lurking suspicion that there could be more behind his claims than we are told.No doubt the reality will be established.
This does serve to highlight a great concern of mine.
From the beginning, it was clear to me that a major aim of the biotech corporations has been to contaminate. Get the GE genie out of the bottle! Bloody hard to stuff it back - just ask DPIWE here in Tassie - they are still working on eliminating Aventis (now Bayer) canola contamination created in 2000.
Major canola production areas in the USA and Canada will NEVER get rid of it.
I have worried about just how easy it would be to contaminate our GE Free island. Hire a light plane in Melbourne, cruise over our agricultural lands, throwing GE seeds out the window.
Come over on the ferry in a van, drive around, broadcasting GE seeds as you go.
Who would wake up?
Who would know - until maybe years later?
When you really understand the implications of GMOs in what we eat - this is SCARY!
Maybe, just maybe, this is what the Welsh farmer is on about?
It would be so easy!
ANYWHERE!
I must add that the biotechs have demonstrated time and again that they will go to extreme lengths to have their way.

As per a press release today:-

WA Agriculture Minister using phantom studies and Monsanto data to reassure public over GM canola
In December last year WA Agriculture Minister, Terry Redmond, announced widespread GM “Roundup Ready” canola trials would go ahead this year. 
MADGE (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) says that Terry Redman’s Office has referred people to an empty list of studies on a GM advocacy website, GMO pundit. 
The site lists 67 independent studies of GM.  However:
•  There were no studies on the GM Roundup Ready canola to be trialed in WA.
•  The only GM canola study on the list was on an experimental GM canola. It caused weight and thyroid problems in pigs. 
•  Other studies found damaging effects from GM including recent studies finding:
o   increase in immune cell levels and products associated with allergy in children
o   indications of accelerated liver aging
•  The list was compiled by Dr David Tribe of the University of Melbourne.  He is a well-known GM advocate.

MADGE researcher Madeleine Love detailed the contents of the list: “This isn’t a list of studies showing GM food is safe – it’s a random collection on the general topic.  A number of the studies report adverse findings.”
“This list appears to have to been used to create the impression that GM canola has been independently determined to be safe. 
“Food Standards Australia New Zealand has approved the GM RR canola on the basis of data provided solely by Monsanto. The WA Agriculture Minister’s office is reassuring the public with an empty list on a GM advocacy site.  Blind Freddy can see something’s wrong.”

You have to wonder who the heck is allowing this disgrace into our food system.

The Wales contamination is a total disgrace to any country and its politicians.  They should fine him so hard or send him to prison so that he will regret it for the rest of his life.  Wales will now be promoted as GM and that’s what we should avoid.

If any Tasmanian farmer decides to do the same thing, we have to fine him millions of dollars or strap him in irons to cope with the clean up that would possibly not be able to occur.  This should be told to the farmers before they decide to do such an outrageous stupid thing.  How much are the biotech companies paying these type of people?  How ignorant are they?  How stupid are they?  I shake my head in disgust at this lunatic.

And now WA is worried about sabotage of the GM crops.  Poor pets.  We do not want GM and the proper channels have pro-GM members controlling them so the public have to take matters into their own hands.  The only reason why farmers in the eastern states are going to use the product again is because they have signed a contract with Monsanto.  They cannot get out of replanting even though the yield is less.  Poor blindfolded fools.

Trashing GM paddocks completely acceptable, say activists
MICHAEL HOPKIN
The West Australian, 26 January 2009
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=2&ContentID=120808

Leading anti-GM activists have condoned the sabotage of paddocks sown with genetically modified canola in a bid to stop WA’s planned crop trials.

Greenpeace anti-GM campaigner Louise Sales said it would be “completely acceptable” for protesters to trash crops and that such actions would be for the “wider good”.

“I think it’s acceptable for citizens to take matters into their own hands when the Government is ignoring their wishes and releasing crops that threaten the environment,” she said.

She said the crops had already been tested in Victoria and NSW where GM canola was producing lower yields than conventional varieties. “The data are in and we don’t need more trials on this scale,” she said.

Licence holder Monsanto claimed the crops had performed well in their first full commercial season in the Eastern States and that most farmers were planning to use the herbicide tolerant GM canola again this year.

Piers Verstegen, director of the Conservation Council WA, said he would not be surprised if some of the 20 Wheatbelt sites to be sown with GM canola were vandalised by activists.

He had not heard of definite plans to destroy GM crops, although rumours of direct action had swirled around green groups since the failed attempts to stop the Government pressing ahead with commercial-scale trials this year.

He refused to condemn activists who might seek to destroy the crops. “Obviously it’s illegal, so it’s not something we would be cheering for, but we feel this type of direct action may have a role,” he said.

Agriculture Minister Terry Redman approved the GM canola trials last month, despite receiving a 27,000-signature petition against the move. Plans for the trials are still being developed, although the threat of vandalism may increase the pressure for the locations to be kept secret.

Janet Grogan, of the Network of Consumers for GM Free Food, said the trials would inevitably contaminate neighbouring crops because buffer zones would not be wide enough. She said she had not heard of any plans to vandalise crops, but said “people will make up their own minds as to what they will do”.

Science and Innovation Minister Troy Buswell has denounced the idea of activists planning sabotage.

He said he hoped protesters “will voice disapproval through measured and responsible channels”.
—-
—-
3.GE no solution
Hobart Mercury, 24 January 2009

THE story “GE pegged as saviour” (Mercury, January 22) incorrectly
states that a report by a United Nations expert panel of chemists and engineers claims that we need genetically engineered crops to cope with
climate change.

In fact, the report was by a panel from the Royal Society of Chemistry and Institution of Chemical Engineers, which included a representative of the GE crop company Syngenta. The report was written by exactly the sort of individuals who benefit from the adoption of chemical intensive GE crops.

The findings of the report directly contradicts the UN’s most recent
report which looked at how to most effectively feed the world’s
population. The final report of the UN’s International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology project, released in April last year, shows that GE crops have no role to play in solving the world’s food crisis. It shows that GE crops pose unacceptable risks to human
health, the environment and the economy and have no proven benefits. That is why countries all over the world are rejecting GE crops.

Australia should do the same.

Louise Sales
Genetic engineering campaigner, Greenpeace Australia Pacific

When I was a small boy reading Agatha Christie whodunits I found the sure and safe way of identifying the villain was to follow the money. Many intervening years have not destroyed this early belief.
I do not have the science to dispassionately resolve the GM debate but I look, and on this side there’s a company trying to make mega dollars and on this side, there’s a bunch of people using their own resources to fight tooth and nail.. I know who I believe.
Personally I’m of the opinion that the best food is the one that has been least buggered about with before it reaches your plate. I’m quite happy to eat the cow I patted last week and I’d like to think that the grass he ate was just grass!

Hear hear.  A direct quote to give you an idea of how much they are making:

“The profits received by farmers was 128 million dollars to the cotton growers and about 62 million dollars to Monsanto, the developers of the technology” (R.Rouch).  http://upclose.unimelb.edu.au/transcript/20  Be careful if you look at this site and take out the cookies. when you have finished.

This figure to the farmer was what they received from their yield.

Makes you wonder how the farmers are going to make anything without subisidies (US) if half of their profit goes to the biotech industry.

And with the recent report showing that GM gets 17% less yield than non-GM (Australia)it makes you wonder who the farmers will be working for.  They will be contract growers on their own land.

Lies and more damned lies from the statisticians the scientists and the lobbyists!

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE
PRESS RELEASE, February 10 2009

*****
NEW REPORT: BIOTECH INDUSTRY FAKES GROWTH OF GM CROPS IN EUROPE
*****

Brussels, 10 February, 2009 - On the eve of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report released today by Friends of the Earth International reveals the failure of genetically modified crops around the world, and how statistics showing their increase in Europe have been manipulated.

The new ‘Who Benefits from GM Crops?’ 2009 report exposes inconsistencies in how the European biotech lobby group EuropaBio has reported the total area planted to GM crops. The group inflated the figures by almost a quarter in 2008 to mask an actual decline.

The misleading numbers are used by companies to make genetically modified farming appear more widespread than it really is. In reality public opposition and safety-conscious European governments mean that planting of GM crops in Europe has decreased every year since 2005 with an overall drop of 35 per cent.

Helen Holder, European GMO campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, said: “Global acceptance of GM crops would mean big bucks for an industry that profits from royalties for patented seeds and pesticides, but Europe has resisted GM food and crops for more than ten years.

“The biotech industry is resorting to lies in its attempt to force its products onto the public. It’s time for them to stop the spin and face the failure of GM in Europe.

“GM crops are grown in a very small surface area worldwide, and only significantly in countries targeting the markets of richer nations. As has now been recognised internationally, they do not benefit small-scale farmers or contribute to poverty reduction.”

The cultivation of GMOs remains a fraction of agriculture, with GM maize, the only GM crop approved, constituting a mere 0.21 per cent of agricultural land in the European Union. Globally, GM crops are still confined to a handful of countries with highly industrialised, export-oriented agricultural sectors. Nearly 90 per cent of the area planted to GM crops in 2007 was found in just six countries in North and South America, with 80 per cent in the US, Argentina and Brazil. One country alone, the United States, plants over 50 per cent of the world’s GM crops. Just 3 per cent or less of cropland in India and China is planted to GM crops.

Friends of the Earth International’s report exposes how even as populations around the world are hit by rising prices of basic food, biotech corporations are reporting record profits by increasing prices of GM seeds and pesticides exponentially. Farmers are being squeezed at a time when the number of people around the world facing hunger is reaching 1 billion.

Despite much pro-GM hype built up by the industry during the food crisis, there is still not a single commercial GM crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition or other ‘beneficial’ traits long promised by biotech companies.
Official data from major producer countries - US, Argentina and Brazil - confirms that pesticide use increases with GM crops, including the use of toxic chemicals banned in some European countries. This causes massive increases in costs for farmers as well as agronomic, environmental and health problems, mostly affecting poor communities who live near intensive GM farms.

The ongoing comments at Steve Dube’s blog are well worth reading
_http://blogs.walesonline.co.uk/upcountry/2009/02/farmer-or-faker.html
the latest extracts are: 
3) Judy Carman, Ph.D. is director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc., a non-profit research institute based in Australia focusing on the safety of genetically modified food. She earned a doctorate degree in medicine from the University of Adelaide in the areas of metabolic regulation, nutritional biochemistry, and cancer. She has investigated outbreaks of disease for an Australian state government.
Not someone known for rushing into prejudice, one assumes Dr Cayman says very little safety testing is done on genetically modified foods, and when it is done, it is done in a minimal way by the biotechnology companies. Dr. Carmen says that more extensive testing of GM foods is needed to ensure they are safe. 
“We are conducting one the very few long-term, independent animal feeding studies with GM foods. To date, most of these types of studies have been done by biotechnology companies or scientists associated with biotechnology companies. Of the few independent studies being done, a study by the Austrian government recently made public found reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn.
Another recent study done in Italy showed immune system problems in mice fed GM corn. The studies done by biotechnology companies tend to show no health problems associated with eating GM food. The independent studies are finding adverse effects.” Ain’t that strange. The biotech companies find no problems but the independent studies do.  How can that be?
Dr Cayman: “It is disturbing that the study showed a gradually worsening effect on mice that ate the GM corn. I am worried that something similar is happening in humans. If it is, it could take many years for   problems to
become apparent, and by then it could be too late to do anything about it.”
So let’s have more independent research. Why isn’t it happening?
Dr Cayman: “First, it is very hard to get GM seed to conduct the research.
In order to buy GM seed, you have to go to a licensed seed dealer, and sign a technology licensing agreement, which states that you won’t do any research on the seed, which includes agronomic, health, and environmental research.
Also, scientists who try to research health impacts of GM food get harassed and intimidated by people with vested interests in GM technology. I’ve had 10 years of abuse from such people who’ve defamed me, driven me out of a university, and tried to get me fired from jobs. With that kind of intimidation, scientists often decide not to do any research. Vested interests have been trying to find out about research I’m doing. They filed a freedom of information request with the Western Australian government to find out. The government denied their request. It could have ended up in court. My research protocol could have been stolen.”
Any other problems?
Dr Cayman: “If you want to do medical research, you have to go to an organization that funds such research.  In order to get funding you need to have a proven track record in that area of research. However, in a new area of research such as GM food safety, no one has a track record, so it is difficult to get the funding. It’s a Catch-22. We are thankful that the Western Australian government gave us funding. The research protocol was sent to 15 scientists worldwide for review and then approved by a steering committee. I wanted people to know that I was doing a thorough job with this research.”
A question: If your research finds negative health impacts caused by GM foods, Dr Cayman, are you prepared to deal with a negative onslaught from biotech companies?
Dr Cayman: “Yes, I understand that will happen. I’ve been attacked many times. GM food advocates want to make people who do this type of work frightened of losing their jobs to make them stop working on the issue. They can’t get me fired now. I work within my own organization,  the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, which I established along with others who are committed to finding out if GM foods are safe to eat.  The behaviour of GM food advocates makes me ask, “What are they frightened of?” If they believe GM foods are safe, they would be confident that I would not find any problems. Instead they are paranoid. What do they know that I don’t know?  What are they trying to hide? It makes me more curious and determined to find out.” These are extracts from an interview by Ken Roseboro for the Organic Growers Association magazine, Dec08/Jan09.

and
4) In May last year I interviewed Professor Giles-Eric Seralini,  professor of chemistry and molecular biology at Caen University. He studied GM techology for two years in North America and has successfully carried out GM transfers.
This is an edit of what he said:
“I practised genetic modification not to make plants but to make bacteria to investigate the role of genes in cancer. I cloned several genes in human cells to look at hormonal promoted cancers.
When I heard that some commercalised GMOs were released in order to reduce pesticide use I thought it was great and asked to see the files as I was working on the effects of pesticides on cancers. I asked for the files and I found it was very difficult to get them. When I eventually got the working documents I saw nothing had been done to look at the actual effect of the pesticides within the plant. Instead of reducing pesticide use, three-quarters of the GM were created in order to absorb pesticides like Round-up and one-quarter designed to produce their own pesticides. I was worried about the control of that.
In 2003 I was chosen by the EU to review all the studies commercial GM sites in Europe. I saw that the reviews were not organised - they could not answer the controls that were needed to enforce GM in Europe. I felt the crucial
controls were to have labelling and a ban on GM ingredients in food.
First Clinton and then Bush have said that the scientific arguments and request for more controls should be ignored and they complained about GM labelling and assessment in Europe.
I began to work on Round-up and I discovered several things - doses of Roundup lower than those recommended for agricultural use were potentially toxic, and Roundup is considered less toxic to the ecosystem than other pesticides.
Even small amounts could disturb human and rat pregnancies, mouse kidneys, rabbit sperm and other human tissues. The   pesticide disrupted endocrine production, which is necessary for the creation of oestrogen, even in the male.
Last summer (2007) we challenged a Monsanto advertisement extolling the biodegradability of Roundup - a dog finding a bone sprayed with Roundup and saying it was not toxic. The advert was banned and Monsanto was fined 15,000 euros.
I was asked to meet other experts and specialists from across Europe and we asked the Government for environmental assesments of GMOs. The result was EU Directive 201.
GM is not about feeding poor children. They are here to feed the rich of the G8 countries. Countries that are very rich, and their politicians, are in favour of it.
The technology has a lot of rich possibilities but the way they are exploiting and   using it right now is to serve pesticides in the plant
without the proper tests and assessments. If you were to do the proper tests and assessments, GM is not profitable as it is.
99.9% of GM plants are to absorb or produce pesticides.  People don’t see that. They only see the propaganda about growing food in a desert or feeding the world,  how all other problems will be solved if this technology is allowed.
There are 30 million kinds of plants in the world and just four - rice, wheat,maize and soya - give 60% of the food and energy.  It should be possible to change that, making different plants adapted to different countries to help feed the world, but not if you make thousands of hectares of the same plants just for feeding pigs and cows.
The fact that you have only four plants imposes monoculture and also the control of the seeds. If you control the seeds that feed the world you become 100 times richer than Bill Gates because you can say which country has which seed and which culture and you get paid every time somebody uses that seed anywhere in the world. And if you add the possibility of green oil you become master of the world. You are richer that any State or any country. You have more power, and you decide who plants what.
The drug companies want to do that. The eight biggest drug companies are the biggest GM makers and the biggest pesticide manufacturers. They are interested in GM not to make a lot of varieties but to have patents for these four species. They began with maize and soya and they had the patent last year (2007) for wheat in the United States and they are working on rice.
I believe GM seed will make hunger in the world. They will make people starve. Poor people will not have enough money to buy the seed.

and
I think GMOs are dangerous because of the results that have been produced in the laboratory, because of Roundup residue and probably because of Bt residue. Maybe they have some other dangers that have not been seen because of genetic engineering itself. It’s possible in some cases and not in others.
I think Gm technology is out of control.
It is abnormal at the beginning of the 21st century to give these seeds no more than three months trial, and this is a dishonest way of   functioning for genetic engineeting control.
I am not against genetic engineering itself, but I think that not too many things are possible with it.  It takes hundreds of genes to adapt to
a changing environment and we are able to change a couple of them so we wont be able to adapt a seed to a different environment.
France has given 1bn euros to the genoplant project. German and Uk governments have done the same - they have invested a lot of money in biotechnology.
You can’t feed 240 million Europeans without tracing the product and GM is not traceable. There’s no traceability in the States where 98%  are produced at the seed level.
I’m confident that the effects of GM are not like toxic effects. They are like pesticides - they increase endocrine diseases,  increase cancers and increase neurologial diseases like we have seen in farmers,  increase malfunction and reproductive problems. But if there’s no traceability you can’t ask the right questions. It’s like Parkinsons and Alzheimers diseases.  Nobody asked if pesticides are involved. I think they might be.
A total of 400 pollutants have been found sticking to the DNA of a baby. You can’t find out about GM created diseases if you don’t study
We are almost eating GM already through animal feed in Europe. Are American people more sick because they are eating GM food directly? Are they living less and having more food-related diseases? The answer is yes to both of the last questions.  Americans are living less and more dying are early from food-related problems.  Is that linked to GM or hormones in the cow or to all the addtives in the food they eat? No one knows because no one is finding out.
GM is not labelled over there. It will go on like that for years if we don’t study the problem.
I wanted a moratorium of GM in Europe. We were successful in that, but we have   been told we can’t have any money for testing.
So this is the first time in the history of the world that what amounts to a drug or pesticide has not been tested before release by anybody other than the company that makes it.”
I’m sorry if I’ve gone on a bit. I don’t think I’m occupying a moral high ground. I got interested as an independent (agricultural)  journalist in looking into this technology, and what I say is what I have found. What I’ve reproduced here, believe it or not in shortened form, is some of what I have found. I have also interviewed other independent scientists who back up what Carman and Seralini say. The only people I have interviewed who have spoken in any
way   “authoritively” on the merits of GM, like Dr. Clive James, Chair of ISAAA, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, are funded by the pro-GM movement. Dr James’ job is to promote GM. His organisation is funded, like CropGen, by the biotech companies. He told me everything was fine, and the interview also contributed to my prejudice.
I hope this helps readers of this interesting blog. So it’s over to you, Catherine. And Jessica,  where are you? And where is Mr Harrington, the farmer or the faker?
Oh, and I nearly forgot yields. A three year study at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt published in April, 2008 found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent. An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)  states that “ currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. […] In fact,  yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars”.  (Fernandez-Cornejo, J.  and Caswell, 2006) The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004). A 2003 report   published in Science stated that “in the United States and Argentina,  average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative”. (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite the authors being strong supporters of GM crops.
Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary -  sometimes greatly - depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission,  2000

I see unchallenged Luddism is going strong here. Up to 200 posts already! Glad to see the cherry-picking and gross inaccuracies continue… Keep up the good work on feeding your prejudices boys and girls. But why don’t you have a go at vaccines while you are at it? New Ludditeism has been effective at stringing together the raft of fears against technology and the modern world.

Ah yes, the impudence of the pro-GM sector.  The lowest form now coming to the fore as you call us names.  We are observing sociometry not ludditism which is a very strange metaphor that you are accusing us of seeing as we implore science but correct scientific research which is not what the GM industry is doing. We will not demean ourselves by calling you names.  What course did you go on to try and demean a real issue of concern to both consumers and farmers?  Paid by the GM industry I gather.

Ah Tomas!
Is that the best you can do mate?
Sling some mud. No facts, no evidence?
No counter arguments?
Where is all the bought corporate junk science that the biotechs disseminate? Calling it ‘sound’ science!!
Utter humbug!
Corrupted science is taking the long hallowed word SCIENCE to the same stinking cesspit called politics.

Some disturbing trends on human feeding trials going on in the U.S with “golden rice”  See reference at end:-

“We are writing to express our shock and unequivocal denunciation of the experiments being conducted by your colleagues which involve the feeding of genetically modified Golden Rice to human subjects (adults and children.)  We are all senior scientists / academics with a professional interest in the health and environmental effects of GMOs.

We refer to three trials described on the US Clinical Trials web site:

1.  Project NCT 00680355.(10) Bioavailability of Golden Rice Carotenoids in Humans.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00680355?term=golden

2.  Project NCT 00082420. Retinol Equivalence of Plant Carotenoids in Children. (Record of site shown but unable to show here)

3.  Project NCT 00680212. Vitamin A Equivalence of Plant Carotenoids in Children. (Record of site shown but unable to show here)

We wish to remind you that the variety of Golden Rice used in these experiments (GR2) is inadequately described in terms of biological and biochemical characterisation on the Clinical Trials web site and indeed anywhere else in the publicly available literature, and has woefully inadequate pre-clinical evaluation.  It is a genetically modified product which has not been shown to be distinctive, uniform and stable over time. 

It has never been through a regulatory /approvals process anywhere in the world.  There is now a large body of evidence that shows that GM crop/food production is highly prone to inadvertent and unpredictable pleiotropic effects, which can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals (for reviews see Pusztai and Bardocz , 2006; Schubert, 2008; Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009).  More specifically, our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals, and there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects.

In these circumstances the use of human subjects (including children who are already suffering illness as a result of Vitamin A deficiency) for GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable.  The three Projects listed breach the Nuremberg Code / medical ethics code on a number of counts, and we urge you to call them to a halt immediately.

They should not be resumed unless and until the researchers can demonstrate that a full range of laboratory and animal feeding trials have been completed and published for the Golden Rice strain being used, and unless and until appropriate regulatory bodies have had an opportunity to come to a view on the health and safety issues about which we are very concerned.

We can assure you that such trials would not have been approved within the European Union in the absence of safety information, which highlights yet again the flaw of the USDA and FDA regulatory system in considering GM crops/foods as hypothetically “generally recognised as safe - GRAS” in the absence of hard experimental data.

These unethical and potentially dangerous trials MUST be stopped, and we ask you to undertake a thorough review of why and how they were approved and funded in the first place.  Please accept this letter as a formal protest, and please forward it to the relevant authorities at USDA, FDA, NIDDK, NIH and the US State Department”.

Read the rest of this article here:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SPUCTGM.php

To what purpose Paul? It s clear that the small group posting here has made up their collective mind, and the collective seems to spend quite a bit of time cherry-picking the internet to bolster their case. The difference twixt you and I, and the other ‘concerned’ posters etc, is that I am an actual scientist - not some kind of deranged flat-earther who hates the modern world and the technology that accompanies it. There is a syndrome here which feeds off some weird ultra-earth lovin’ and is willing to malign teh fields of science and technology to advance an agenda. In this sense, I would love to hear yours and your colleagues views on, let’s say, immunization, dental amalgams? I am sure it will spring forth from the regular set of prejudices.

But the thing is, is that the 200 or so posts here don’t matter. Science and technology will march on. It is irrelevant as to whether Tasmania lifts its moratorium on GM crops. You deluded Luddites will continue to preach to each other - let’s see if you can get to 400, no 800 posts, on an agenda that circles the plughole while scientists out there will continue to make your world better.

205; That’s not much of an argument Tomas. I make a comfortable living out of technology and I certainly would not consider myself a Luddite.
My concern about GM stems from a much older philosophy which is based about who pays the piper?

Hell Tomas, you are out of your tree!
‘scientists out there will continue to make your world better’!
Bloody hell!
You scientists have managed to stuff up far more than you have contributed. How clever you are!
You delude yourselves into the idea that no matter what clever things you conceive, it is to the benefit of mankind.
After all, nature is, for you, something to conquer, something to change to fit your imaginings.
Give us a break Tomas!
I deeply respect nature. I do not respect those who have this idea they can improve upon it. Especially corporate controlled and financed ‘science’ that is driven solely by the profit (and power) motive.
I can support responsible science. Science that comes from a respect for and deep understanding of the natural world.
So much science today - dominantly corporate funded science - has no respect for nature. It has no basis in scientific ethics. It is the antithesis of responsible science.
As the biotech industry so ably demonstrates, it has prostituted a once proud and dignified profession.
Are you so arrogant to really believe in what you write on this forum?

Well Tomas, me old foe , I’m both withya and agin ya !  it is true that this blog is almost entirely kept going by two or three passionate believers and I do have a problem as to why more have not come on board the debate !  then we have you , as usual ! telling us of your scientific background, but no actual substance to your comments !~
   
    How about you trying to refute some of what you see here with your supposed scientific background and or expertise ?  h’mmmmmm !
           
              d.d.

Don - they’re not for convincing. I have seen the anti-Sci/Tech crowd at work all too often. Colleagues of mine in medical research have had property destroyed and been harassed by the hamster-loving brigade. What I find extraordinary (which has become the ordinary, alas) is the high-falutin’ criticism from the pack who enjoys all of the benefits that science has brought them. The internet for one (now where did that come from? Altruistic scientists coming up with new ways for sharing information), vaccinations and drugs that are keeping us alive and healthy for longer periods of time, the technology that puts us in space and provides for modern telecommunications, the principles of engineering that give us roads, bridges, automation etc. Even for the ecologically minded, there are hosts of scientists at work delving into plant and animal biology and ecology. In my experience, which is more extensive than the new-Luddites, most scientists and technologists do what they do because it is interesting and might serve a useful, altruistic purpose. Most scientists get paid a fairly average salary. But science lies at the heart of a modern and developing civilization. You couldn’t afford to have much other culture if science hadn’t provided the luxuries that modern civilization enjoys.

But I also hold to the view that science will march on regardless of the numbskulls seeking to undermine it. And history also shows that practical ethics often reigns - if science and technology comes up with a better way of doing something, then society will nearly always take it up.

And now I wait with baited breath for all the ‘bad’ things that science is responsible for… the usual inane stories about the evils of technology. Yawn.

And Paul, the natural world is there to be conquered by bright people. That is the bedrock of civilization my friend. You may choose to absent yourself from civilization, in which case turn off that computer now!! I often think that some of the anti-science corps is often expressing their frustration due to the that undeducated chip on their shoulder, or because they are not taken as seriously as they would wish to be. In essence, some distrust science, because they do not (and can not) understand it. In which case, move aside!!

We as a whole are giving scientific evidence that is refuting the “science” of GM.  Why would you be upset with that?  Why are you continuing to be childish and calling us names when there is scientific evidence out there that is clearly showing that GM is a placebo that will not work to increase yields or profit to the farmer?  This is the issue on this forum so do not try and lead us away from the important subject of GM into some void of stupid questions on what I believe about amalgams or some other subject that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Let’s give an example of the irresponsible science of GM.  Have there ever been any scientific reporting on allergic responses to GM?  Besides CSIRO that just happened to cancel the research due to finding that the allergy response to GM was not what they wanted, what other research out there that is irrefutable evidence to say that when we eat this product it is not going to cause us allergic responses on people?  Before you answer this question you have to remember that the FDA had to put (after thousands of complaints) a warning to people of the US that if you eat GM corn and are allergic to shellfish, then you may get an allergic reaction to GM corn. 

The next question is “What long term studies have been done on GM besides stock weight?”  We are looking at health issues here not anything at all to do with stock studies.  And I don’t want studies done on quails or anything that is not anywhere near our animal kingdom branch.  Do not send me to the pundit site.  Give me the real studies not some pro-GM activist giving studies done on stock feed or weight as a health testing that is not even looked at by FSANZ.

I will ask more questions of you later.  This is the food that you want us to eat and yet there are no studies to say that it is safe beyond doubt.  And don’t waffle on about “Why should GM have to be proved safe when no other food has had to go through this process?”  Well that’s because you are wanting us to forever change the food we eat that has been safe since the beginning of time with a manipulated product that has unknown consequences.

This GM food is not perforce nor is it going to help farmers as the increase in the price of seed as shown from other countries, clearly shows that the minuscule increase in their profits at the beginning is quickly gobbled up by the seed price increase as soon as all are contaminated together with an increase in pesticides.  And it continues to rise.  Do you deny this?  Or are you so entrenched in the pockets of the GM companies, either directly or indirectly that you are blindfolded by the GM hype?

EU environment ministers vote to uphold ban on biotech crops. European Union governments delivered a blow Monday to the biotechnology industry, allowing Austria and Hungary to maintain national bans on growing genetically modified crops from Monsanto. International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/02/business/gmo.php

Well at least some countries are not blindfolded with bulldust from the biotech industry.  Pity our Federal Government has taken the line of the biotech industry.  It would be so good if they woke up and realised this is a mistake and backed out.

So much for the promised increase in crop productivity and financial gain from growing GM crops.

Monsanto’s GM corn flops in South Africa
South African farmers lost “between 80000 and 150000 tons” of genetically-modified
(GM) corn when the plots failed to produce hardly any seeds, reports The Times in
Johannesburg. “As much as 40,000ha planted to Monsanto maize cultivars… failed to
pollinate or suffered reduced pollination,” the South African Farmer’s Weekly adds.
Monsanto attributes the failure to “under-fertilization in the laboratory”. Marian
Mayet, director of the Africa Centre for Biosecurity in Johannesburg, demanded an
urgent government investigation, and an immediate ban on all foods from
genetically-engineered seed, according to the DigitalJournal. Mayet blames the crop
failure on Monsanto’s “genetically-manipulated technology”. Monsanto has stated that
losses were “‘less than 25% of three different corn varieties,” but according to
Mayet’s information some farms have suffered up to 80% crop failures. “Monsanto says
they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a
failure. You cannot make a ‘mistake’ with three different varieties of corn,” Mayet
said. While Monsanto has offered compensation to farmers for lost crops, there is no
clear solution to replace the lost harvest. Corn is the main food source for South
Africa’s 48 million citizens.
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20090409#6

News from Western Australia

Greenpeace, 9 April 2009
http://www.truefood.org.au/newsandevents/?news=38

Moves by the Western Australian Government to allow large-scale trials of genetically engineered (GE) canola have been thwarted by the Greens and the ALP. This means that planting GE canola in WA is now illegal.

The trials were sneakily announced by WA Agriculture Minister Terry Redman on 23 December. However, on 10 April a motion by the Greens to disallow the trials passed in the Upper House. This means that planting GE canola in WA is now illegal unless, and until, a new Order is made.

Greens MP Paul Llewellyn, who moved the motion, is happy with the result. He claims that the trials were in fact commercialisation by stealth. The decision should hopefully give the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman some breathing space to re-think his approach to GE crops trials

As Paul Llewellyn points out “the arrangements that were proposed by the government simply did not offer an appropriate level of protection to the farmers involved in the trials, to non-GE farmers, or to consumers.”

GE growers were required to sign up to full responsibility and liability for the trials, even though the level of contamination risk is not properly understood. Meanwhile, there is no legal framework in place to ensure strict liability for damage to non-GE growers by the big companies that seek to profit from market domination in GE agriculture.

There is still a danger that the WA Government may ignore the wishes of the public and either make a new Order to allow GE canola field trials, or lift the GE food crop moratorium altogether. Please help make sure they don’t!

Tell Terry to cut the crop and prevent the release of GE canola in WA!

You can contact him at:

Hon. Donald Terrence Redman MLA
Level 11 East, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
West Perth WA 6005
Ph: (08) 9213 6700
Fax: (08) 9213 6701
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

WA Upper House blocks GM canola trials
Media Release - 9 April 2009

The Upper House today supported the motion by Greens MLC for the South West Region, Paul Llewellyn to block GM canola trials in Western Australia.

“This will give the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman some breathing space to re-think his approach to GM crops trials,” Mr Llewellyn said.

Minister Redman had approved 1,000 hectares of ‘GM canola trials’ at 20 sites, on the pretext of testing segregation systems but experience in Victoria and NSW shows these do not work.

“The arrangements that were proposed by the government simply did not offer an appropriate level of protection to the farmers involved in the trials, to non-GM farmers, or to consumers.

“GM growers were required to sign up to full responsibility and liability for the trials, even though the level of contamination risk is not properly understood.

“Meanwhile, there is no legal framework in place to ensure strict liability for damage to non-GM growers by the big companies that seek to profit from market domination in GM agriculture.

“These ill-conceived trials were in fact commercialisation by stealth.

“We will continue to work to ensure good and fair outcomes for the environment, consumers and growers,” Mr Llewellyn concludes.

From CBH (Co-operative Bulk Handling - WA)

To date we have yet to see a contract proposed by Monsanto, however the attached briefing note has been provided as an interim measure. The interim ‘‘briefing note’ from Monsanto has the following implications:-

  * Monsanto will license only CBH to receive their GM canola – does this have the capacity to persist and force growers to use their designated storage agent. If not signed, do we (CBH) remove our capacity to receive Canola owned by ‘Monsanto’ growers.
  * Mutually agreed sites for receival.
  * Reference to Better Farm IQ to suport the receival and management.
  * CBH will charge fees nominated by Monsanto.
  * Significant penalties be charged by CBH for deliveries of non-Monsanto GM canola growers.
  * We (CBH) will use a test kit and protocol approved and provided by Monsanto. CBH will be paid $7.50/test.
  * CBH will be paid $5.13 per tonne for all canola received.
  * Random testing by Monsanto of non-licensed growers for the GM trait.
  * CBH to retain the positive test strips and provide to Monsanto on demand.
  * Payments for collecting the fees be made electronically to Monsanto.
  * The right of growers to have grain returned is removed by Monsanto provisions to only deliver to food processors.

NCF further comments:

Monsanto issues an exclusive license to a specific storage and handler providing contract conditions are met. If not approved, alternative storage and handler will be sought which puts pressure on CBH to accept terms.

CBH is to charge fees nominated by Monsanto. These include significant fines (? value) + Technology user fee (currently $10.20/tonne).Monsanto could also set the fees for storage and handling (need contract specifics).

There must be no price disincentive for GM growers. CBH will be paid an additional $5.13 per tonne by Monsanto for all GM canola received. Monsanto could set a cheaper fee for GM growers, and Monsanto will compensate CBH to $5.13/tonne.

CBH will be paid $7.50 per test by Monsanto to use the test kit and protocol approved and provided by Monsanto (which is sensitive to 0.5% GM contamination). CBH must retain all positive test strips and provide to Monsanto on demand. Random testing is to be undertaken by Monsanto of non-licenced growers for the GM trait. “Significant penalties be charged by CBH for deliveries of non-Monsanto GM canola growers.” A positive test will be triggered with only 0.5% contamination which is the amount allowed in non-GM seed for sowing. CBH must impose “significant penalties” on the non-GM grower for this and tests must be retained by Monsanto (for further action.)

Payments for collecting the fees be made electronically to Monsanto which effectively removes Monsanto from the key role of policing their royalty collection.

The right of growers to have grain returned is removed by the Monsanto provisions to only deliver to food processors which allows Monsanto to dictate the buyer of their GM canola in a closed loop marketing arrangement.

As early as 1999, the research sector revealed the intention of genetically modified crops to pursue a closed loop marketing system involving the whole of industry. A government submission extract from 1999 by the Crop Research Centre (CRC) http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/primind/gtinq/ sums up this intention:

“Companies are establishing alliances to involve groups at all stages of the chain - breeding, seed production, agronomic management of crops, grain delivery, marketing, processing and consumers - with the aim of achieving profits at each stage. The producer will be affected not only by the cost of seed, but through an End Point Royalty imposed on delivery, and the price paid for the product… There may be contractual obligations between the farmer and the seed supplier or the marketer that are not currently present.”

This clearly shows that in WA at the moment there is a push for a closed loop system which is clearly demonstrated is this meeting with CBH executives.  This must stop now!

Mr Llewellyn is pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes if he thinks that bringing in GM will be able to give fair outcomes to environment, consumers or growers.  This will make all farmers contract growers to Monsanto or Bayer and give no choice to any consumer.  I only hope that WA sees the errors of their ways and demands that the miniscule amount of farmers that want GM has to be overwritten by the majority of farmers that do not but will be directly infected (yes I mean infected) by GM.

EU to ‘reflect’ on Germany’s GM maize ban
EU Business, 15 April
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1239807722.48

Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said Wednesday the European Union
would “reflect” on Germany’s decision to ban a type of
genetically-modified maize produced by US biotech giant Monsanto.

“We will reflect on the issue and we should take the right decision”, Dimas said after an informal meeting of EU ministers for the environment in Prague.

On Tuesday, Germany outlawed the cultivation of MON 810 maize, the only GM crop permitted until now in the country, on environmental and health grounds.

Germany is the sixth EU country to introduce a provisional ban on MON 810, following similar action taken by France, Austria, Hungary,
Luxembourg and Greece.

The European Commission sought to force Austria and Hungary to reverse their bans on the crop but its ruling was overturned by a majority of EU
nations last month.

A source close to the European Commission told AFP the German ban might bring a revision of the European legislation on GM crops.

Throughout Europe, the public opinion is now against and if the people were asked one more time, “there would be a rejection,” the source said on condition of anonymity.

“The spirit has changed, the legislation in a way is operating like an automatic pilot and we have to put some direction in it,” the source added.

Farmers to fight farmers over a multi-million dollar GM liability

Network of Concerned Farmers (Australia), 8 April 2009.

Farmers trialling genetically modified canola in Western Australia this month risk costly legal action, warns the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF).

“We will launch actions on a whole range of fronts,” said NCF spokesperson, Julie Newman. “Legally, non-GM means no GM, not even 0.001%.”

“The basis of our legal action is that it’s not the responsibility of a conventional farmer to keep contaminated crops out; it’s up to the GM farmer to keep their crops contained.”

“GM growers, not Monsanto, will be liable for any damage or economic losses to conventional farmers,” said Julie Newman. “Very few people realise that recourse to the courts means that farmers will take legal action against farmers.”

“Farmers who’ve volunteered for GM trials only need to look at their contracts to know that Monsanto will not protect their liability in the courts, or support their legal defence.”

GM trial farmers risk being sued individually for the loss of their European and domestic markets and premiums, and the costs of testing and recalling contaminated produce.

They will also seek recovery of legal costs, and significantly, any fines, fees or end-point royalties for uncontrolled contamination.

“We will not follow the international trend where non-GM farmers have tolerated contamination, lost markets and are now being forced to pay fees for using a patented product they did not want and could not avoid.”

This week the NCF are preparing letters to GM canola-trial farmers outlining their legal liabilities, and before seeding begins.

“We are simply making these farmers aware of what they are getting themselves into and their ultimate liability,” said Julie Newman. “Our early notification states our refusal to accept the burden of contamination, inadequate crop management and coexistent plans.”

“We are setting up a stronger legal case down the track should non-GM farmers wish to make a claim in the future.”

Julie Newman said that if those supporting GM believe that there is no economic risk, they should accept full liability.

“It’s not good enough to say she’ll be right mate and then expect the non-GM farmers to carry the can,” she said. “Anyone who has read the coexistence protocols knows they will fail on the basis of contamination.”

“We will not accept market loss and we will not pay for contamination that we and our prolific and ever-expanding international markets don’t want.”

“If GM farmers find our legal remedy of protection unreasonable, they need to ask themselves why conventional farmers should pay for a market loss valued at literally millions of dollars, and caused by a product they choose not to use.”

Why should Australian farmers have to go to these drastic measures when only a small minority of farmers want to grow GM but will contaminate the rest of the farmers that are seeing the stupidity of GM and are trying to stay GM free?

More and more countries and consumers are forcing their governments to be GMO free.  Most of Europe is now fighting to keep GM out.  It is a pity that our government is so entrenched in the GM companies pocket that they cannot see the truth as they are blindfolded by the lies and deceipt of these multinationals.  We have a right as consumers and the farmers have a right not to have to plant a product that has health issues.  This is being denied to us by the lunacy of this government with only 1% of the blindfolded farmers that have believed the hype.  Now Victoria’s Graincorp has said that they will not segregate GM and non-GM canola in their silos.  The lies are being revealed.  They cannot segregate anymore and this is only after one season.  Disgraceful.  We have lost our democracy to a government that is pandering to the GM industry.  Stupidity.

Is any more evidence needed that government in Australia is run by corporate interests?
As ever more independent scientific evidence proves the health dangers of ingesting genetically engineered ‘food’, corporations ride roughshod over the will of the people - ably assisted by federal and (some) state governments.
We are fortunate indeed in Tasmania that the current government stands against GMOs here.
It is clear that Graincorp (see #218 above) never intended to even try to segregate canola.
This is a clear case of willful deception!
Aided and abetted by Canberra and the Brumby mob in Victoria - in wedlock with the biotech industry.
It is not as though canola is the only issue - major ‘food’ manufacturers use a lot of corn meal in their creations.
They use genetically engineered corn - generally from the USA.
We see nothing on labelling to inform us of this fact!

Outrage is appropriate!
Make your voice heard!
Go out of your way to only eat healthy natural food.
If you can, grow your own food!
Europeans have seen the light!
Even the EU politicians!

GMO Moratorium: The way forward for Europe

The participants of the 5th European Conference of GMO-Free Regions “Food and Democracy” call for an EU-wide moratorium on the authorization and the commercial planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the wake of six EU member states banning the planting of MON810 and in light of the rapid
increase in GMO-free regions in Europe, there has never been a better moment for a moratorium than now.
<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/luzern_final_declaration_en.pdf>
to read the full (short) announcement.
Only the UK government flies in the face of evermore compelling evidence of the ways in which GMOs will compromise your health and damage the genetic future of your family.
Is this not an act of treason?
We MUST DEMAND that our governments are there to act in the best interests of their people. NOT for the corporations!

Once you opt to buy Monsanto seeds, you are no longer a farmer, you’re a “grower”—a serf.

I firmly believe in giving credit where credit is due.
A great deal of the credit for keeping Tasmania GE FREE must go to David Llewellyn. The process began in those days when Jim Bacon was premier - when the biotechs demonstrated just how little they could be trusted.

To keep informed, I recommend you look at the following report

SEEDS OF TRUTH
By Sheila Samples
Once you opt to buy Monsanto seeds, you are no longer a farmer, you’re a “grower”—a serf.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22577.htm

I have made a comment [#7]

The World According to Monsanto.
A brilliant French TV produced documentary.
Google for sources - but don’t try and watch online with google - they censored it.
Better to buy the DVD. One source is
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/...ducts/ index.cfm
This site also offer the brilliant Jeffrey M. Smith books, Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette.

Once you discover the shocking facts about Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry - you will go to great lengths to NEVER eat a genetically Engineered food!
It is not just the evil manner in which they seek to impose their designs upon the world - it is the ever more scientific evidence about how eating these products will undermine your health!

The return to feudalism.  Except this time by the Dukes of Monsanto, Bayer and the other chemical companies wanting to control the food supply.  Disgusting and disgraceful. 

With more and more evidence coming out at how dangerous this product is, surely the government should look at it and realise the stupidity of going down this path.

Keep Tasmania GM free.

i have a popup (securityTool) it will not let me run anything, it just keeps popping up and stopping every thing i try to do. i have a anti virus but it tells me all is ok, please help

_________________
download xbox 360 games

Gday every one, it might be described as a little bit of an odd issue but I am just wanting to know if there are actually any high quality message boards around for discussing recent events. I’m sick of the people today that post in the feedback on magazines, I’m hoping for anything a bit more shrewd and civil. Anyone discover good quality places which deal with them?

looks like a nice topic OP has started. post bookmarked for all the updates. 
 
dragonballz movies