Genetically Modified Food given Green light Despite Broad Opposition
The
NSW and Victorian Governments have today (27 November) lifted the ban
on commercial growing of genetically-modified (GM) canola crops,
despite pleas from the Western Australian and Tasmanian Governments,
and over 250 companies in the food business to maintain the moratorium, and Japanese food buyers urging continuation of the ban in October. The moratorium on GM canola will be lifted from February/March 2008.
Related: Network of Concerned Farmers report: The Economics of Genetically Modified Canola (PDF 2.39MB | Text 85.9KB) | Audio: Jeffrey M.Smith on the documented health risks of eating GM food | Gene Ethics Network | Take online action | Greens Leader calls for new PM to overule States on GM Ban
Genetically modified Canola is marketed by Monsanto and Bayer
Cropscience. Over 70% of Canadian Canola is now GM, with wide
contamination of the Canola crop. In 2004 Monsanto were even successful
in a prosecution of small Canadian farmers Percy and Louise Schmeiser violating the company's patent on genetically modified canola (rapeseed), through GM canola seeds that invaded their property.
In 2003, the Federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved the commercial release of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor® genetically modified (GM) canola and Monsanto Australia’s Roundup Ready® GM canola. In 2004, the Governments of the canola growing states introduced moratoria on the commercial growing of GM food crops because of concerns within industry, the farming sector and regional communities about the impact of these crops on markets.
The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), an alliance of Australian
farmers, have countered the lifting of the ban with the release of a report on the economic
costs of genetically modified (GM) canola, revealing that the
introduction of GM canola will cause a loss to Australian canola
farmers of over $143 million a year with non-GM farmers carrying an
unjust burden of over $65 million a year.
NCF National Spokesperson Julie Newman said, "economic reports to date
on GM crops have included benefits that are not relevent to farmers,
excluded additional costs to farmers and ignored the reality that
markets are rejecting GM crops. When these factors are integrated,
there is a very different picture. The key problem is that non-GM
farmers will be burdened with a heavy loss of over $65 million a year
for the introduction of a crop we do not want and do not need.
Furthermore, non-GM farmers will have little or no legal recourse
against the GM industry for this economic loss caused."
"There
is no intention to provide workable coexistence plans and all farmers
will be expected to market as GM, a product markets do not want." said
Mrs Newman. "The aim of the industries with a vested interest, is to
try to convince farmers that GM is in our interests when it is not, and
to portray that "industry" has self regulated and agreed to unworkable
coexistence plans when this is completely false," she added.
"If introduced, Australia will be the first country to
introduce large scale commercial release of a patented GM food crop
without subsidising farmers to compensate for higher costs and
associated market loss." said Mrs Newman. "This is about industries
making money from farmers, not for farmers."
A US author and GM expert - Jeffrey Smith – has been visiting Australia outlining 65 possible risks to human and animal health posed by genetically modified organisms. He claims there is mounting evidence of allergic response to GM Foods.
Ian Cohen, member of the NSW Legislative Council for the Greens said
"We have an expert warning us today of danger to human health in the
event that GM food crops are cleared for introduction in NSW next week.
Jeffrey Smith argues that the rush to embrace GM foods has exposed
everyone to serious health risks and that there has been very little
independent testing on the possible impact on human health from eating
GM food." (Youtube Video - The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods)
"The health impacts of GM are assessed by the Federal Gene Technology
Regulator, but unfortunately the Federal Government is prioritising GM
industry access to Australia over the health of our community.
Listening to Ian Macdonald speak in Parliament you'd think there was no
opposition to GM but you would be wrong - the nation's largest
Australian-owned food company Goodman Fielder, lamb export giant
Tatiara Meats, and Coles Supermarkets are calling on state governments
to save our food from genetic engineering.
“Coles supermarkets said this week, 'Coles listens to our
customers and over 90% do not want GE ingredients in their food and
Coles whole private label range of 'Smart Buy', 'You'll Love Coles' and
'Coles Finest' exclude all GM ingredients in response to customer
concerns.' Said Cohen. "Australia is in the very fortunate position of
being free of GM food crops, with a reputation for clean green food
produce – let's keep it that way,” he said.
A day before the Federal election Shadow Agriculture Minister
Kerry O'Brien said in a letter to the Gene Ethics Network: "A Rudd
Labor Government will develop comprehensive labelling for genetically
modified food in Australia to provide an additional level of
information for consumers." Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps welcomed
this move saying "If Labor delivers on this promise, it will be great
news for food processors and shoppers. The community is now kept in the
dark on whether there is GM content in everyday foods, as the Howard
government exempts most GM products from labelling. Labor in government
may also be more inclusive, and that's a good sign."
Scott Kinnear from the Biological Farmers of Australia told ABC radio
"The markets have not opened up for our GM product internationally, in
fact they appear to have tightened," he said. "The contamination in
North America from the long grained rice scandal is estimated to cost
the grains industry $1.2 billion, so why on earth would we want to go
down this path?"
Even Giant Australian Food company Goodman Fielder has lobbied
State Governments to continue the ban. CEO Peter Margin wrote in a letter to State Premiers
"I strongly urge you to maintain the current state moratorium on
genetically modified crops. Our products cover every meal and every day
we deliver our products to around 30,000 supermarkets, convenience
stores and food service customers through Australia, New Zealand and
the Pacific Islands. Goodman Fielder is of the view that, in a world of
ever increasing globalisation, Australia's current status as a GM-free
producer gives the company an essential international competitive
advantage," he wrote.
The decision was announced by NSW Agroculture Minister Ian
MacDonald in Sydney and Premier John Brumby in Melbourne. Many
Victorian state Labor MPs opposed the lifting of the moratorium in a caucus meeting last week
and had requested public release of a report by Victoria's chief
scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, on the impact that lifting the ban would
have on farmers and the state's food exports, but were rebuffed by the
Premier. (Listen to ABC Radio PM 27 November on the issue - mp3 5:09)
Martin Foley, the new Labor member for Albert Park and a former
chief-of-staff to former agriculture minister Bob Cameron said in a
letter sent to the Victorian Premier and the panel chaired by Sir
Gustav Nossal reported on in the Age:
"I hold grave fears that the move towards lifting the current
moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified canola —
and possibly by extension other GM commercials — will disadvantage
Victoria's relative position in regards to both its international
export competitors and … our status as a trading partner,"
The Australian Consumers Association, in their 2005 submission to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council (PDF)
on the REVIEW OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY ACT said "Consumers are not
demanding GM foods. They realise that it is not them who will benefit
most from this technology. Genetic modification of food and food crops
affords greater control over the food supply to a small number of large
multinational biotechnology companies. It is these companies who stand
to benefit most from GM foods by developing, patenting and selling the
licences for their GM crops, not farmers and not consumers. While
consumers acknowledge that there may be some benefits for them, such as
improving taste and altering nutritional composition, they are not
convinced that consumer benefit is the driving force behind genetic
modification of food."
Further Information:
- Greenpeace Australia Genetically Engineering links | Take online action
- You can download the Network of Concerned Farmers report: The Economics of Genetically Modified Canola Full Version PDF 2.39MB | Print Version 85.9KB text
- Network of Concerned Farmers
- Gene Ethics Network
Sources:
- The Age, Nov 24, 2007 - Brumby faces caucus revolt over GM crops
- ABC Victoria Nov 26, 2007 - Vic Govt urged to extend GM crops moratorium
- ABC online Nov 27, 2007 - NSW, Vic lift GM bans in landmark moves
- Ian Cohen Media Release Nov 22, 2007 - Human health warnings as NSW positions to lift GM ban
- Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception - The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate
- Jeffery M. Smith, Global Research, Nov 8, 2007 - Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts
- The Age, Nov 27, 2007 - Labor MPs fight to keep GM ban
- True Food Network, Nov 12, 2007 - Leading companies support GE food crop bans
- 2409 reads
Heritage Seeds
For anyone interested, you can purchase heritage vegetable, fruit and flower seeds from the Diggers Club:
http://www.diggers.com.au/
I have been dealing with this company for over 20 years and they are very good.
Re: Heritage Seeds
excellent, a new source of seeds is always good. I have been using Eden Seeds, which are also, as they put it, "Old Traditional Open pollinated varieties".
Guess what? Genetic
Guess what? Genetic modification is not a precise art, it is a random lottery: each inserted gene is not precisely inserted with tweezers, although this is the impression many advocates will give you. Inserting the gene is a bit like using a sledge-hammer to kludge a piece of glass into a tree. The glass sometimes goes in, somewhere near to where you want it, and if you do it often enough you will find some trees that show the desired traits. But they will have other changes as well. And some glass may go flying.
Once the gene has been inserted, in a random and violent manner, it will stray. It will even stray outside the species, let alone between member of the same species. There are organisms who specialise in taking bits of genes from here and there. Some of them even go about inserting genetic material into unrelated species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilus Some of these live inside you and are needed for your own health. http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Enterococcus_faecium
Genes are rearranged in nature, yes, true .. but obviously the genetic "engineering" rearranges them in ways that nature doesn't .. or else why would people put so much effort into doing it? So .. these people want to slam a few genes around in some of your food, then put it into your tummy .. where these bacteria, for example, like to take genes they find and put them into their comrades. This is one of the ways that bacteria adapt .. they are not passive recipients of evolution, they ACTIVELY grab genes, and ACTIVELY put them into other bacteria (FOR EXAMPLE) in order to accelerate the process of adaptation.
So the idea of "no genetic drift", the idea of "segregation" is just a plain lie. Anyone who would straight-faced tell you these things are possible is NOT QUALIFIED TO ADVISE YOU ON GMO. Got it yet? The people who push this bullshit don't know wtf they are talking about. If that doesn't give you the heeby jeebies, I don't know what's wrong with you.
If they tell you they test this technology for impact on health and ecology, they lie. Here is an example result of independent testing, of course there isn't much of that. http://www.regnum.ru/english/813298.html The fat mouse was fed non-GMO, the skinny runt was fed GMO soy. The specimens are examples of the 'average' size of mouse for each diet. Go figure.
Farmers in India are killing themselves at unprecedented rates, after being convinced to move to GMO, then finding their crops fail because they are NO FUCKING GOOD since the only quality the manufacturer wants is resistence to the brand of pesticide they happen to already have a patent on, and the pesticide manufacturer-come-food-manufacturer couldn't give a fucking shit how the crop does compared with the traditional crops, in real life conditions in real farmers fields. They test them in controlled laboratory farms, and care less about the actual health of the crops.
Do you imagine, with all the expense and difficulty of sledge-hammering those genes into a crop, that the manufacturer gets to choose also that the crop should have such-and-such qualities for drought-resistance, that it should have such-and-such toxin that prevents such-and-such local weed or pest? No, they get pot luck, the one where the gene stuck. And then it goes to the marketing department, and those guys get on the phone and send a couple of hookers around to the head-of-state of every major precint they have listed in their little black books.
Get a clue.
Don't Dismiss it out of hand
Humans have by definition been genetically modifying crops since the beginning of agriculture. We have always cross bred plants. Selected good varieties at the expense of bad ones and aided natural selection of plants.
There are many good issues that opponents of GM have. Control by one company, pesticides etc. But on the science, dangerous to the public etc, they have none. GM gives us the tools to improve crops to the benefit of all mankind. Unlocking the possibility of a surplus crop of foods for all times.
Lets put our thinking caps on about GM not our bandannas.
Re: Don't Dismiss it out of hand
I totally agree with your comment. There is a lot to win from GM food, it sure isn't all bad. But we have to be careful. GM food can bring us enough food to feed everyone, can help us make our food more healthy and reduce the cost of production. But we have to keep in mind that what we are doing "might" be dangerous. Some day, we might make an error that will kill thousands or millions. GM food can be good and it can be bad, only the future will tell :)
Gene Technology
I personally do not dismiss gene technology 'out of hand'. Like many issues it comes down to risk management.
Risk Management
Here we have a genetically engineered crop (canola) with seeds so small that they can be windblown for several kilometres. Once released, they will be very difficult to contain and stop widespread contamination of non-GM varieties and maybe interspecies fertilisation.
Hello, anyone still keeping track of the devestation of the Cane Toad? What a wonderful biological implementation that was with regards to species diversity in tropical Australia. Has it reached the top end of WA yet?
Confirmed Independent research
From my cursory reading the independent scientific studies on the long term environmental and health effects of GM crops have mostly not been done. Research presented by the biotech companies should always be assessed in independently funded and managed studies.
Corporatisation of agriculture
Plant diversity is part of the agricultural commons developed over thousands of years. Farmers who use GM crops are beholden to the Biotech companies for their seeds and the fertilizers/herbicides. Now maybe if the gene patents were released under something similar to copyleft, or creative commons this would be much less a concern, but I don't see the biotech companies being motivated by "feed the starving millions" largesse. No, another way to monopolise production and profits for a relative few.
Consumer Choice
If everytime I went shopping and the veggie oil proudly said "Made with Genetically Modified canola", I would be free not to buy such a product. That way consumer demand could drive agricultural production. It is a sleight of hand, ethically dishonest practice by agriculture and biotechnology to not come clean to consumers on the makeup of ingredients of what we buy.
Re: Gene Technology
Totally independent research re long term human consumption is required at the very least and PRIOR to release. Too often with 'science' we discover the negatives later - often much later.
And company research is surely subject to preceived if not (as I fear) actual conflict of interest: That companies have in past hidden negative results cannot be contested: see smoking, addiction; asbestos etc
Do we really think that food tech companies are not subject to similar pressures re the bottom line / profits maintenance at the expense of the community?
GM Canola WILL contaminate - spread across non-GM crops / non-GM states - its seeds will spread like a wind-borm virus - a state border does not stop seeds! [Check the near Mt Gambier experience]
We need to ask more questions , do more research now re what is already happening with our children - allergies increase (at a level/frequency and a severity never before heard of in Australia), asthma / species disappearing : why do we want to make the puzzle far harder to investigate / unravel the causes?
Transgenic plants / animals open a new vector for disease both of the plant and perhaps even the person ingesting it or a derivative product. 'We' think we are so 'clever' putting an animal gene into a plant etc The day may come when an animal disease may also cross that boundary ... using the very gene inserted ... 'not so clever' then ...
The research is grossly inadequate by any measure. Cane toad? Hmm . just one of many examnples. Think terminating genes; non-reproducing plants; insects affected perhaps etc. We have not done sufficient testing.
I find it appalling that two Labor state govts have 'okayed' GM canola - will the others now 'give up' as they may see the polluting genes as inevitable ... Have we learned nothing.
On the broad politics, GMO as diversion too from pulp mill, coal
GMO is without doubt an important fight but as advocated to a senior Greenpeace chap last week, we fear that the Vic and NSW ALP govt are picking and choosing their redneck agenda to promote post Rudd election, as if to run interference on federal ALP travails not least demotion of big name Garrett.
Get the greenies busy on GMO, like Robert Hill and Campbell used to get them busy on whales, while the very difficult and damaging issues the ALP can't sleaze their way through, like expanded coal mining AND especially Tasmania's disgusting pulp mill forest slaughter house slip on past the public's regular attention.
So my plea to Greenpeace (et al) was to keep a sophisticated eye on the overall landscape of the browns in the ALP and whether they are being played on selective issues, while of course engaging on GMO as they should and must.
One bit of feedback from GP was that 'Rudd's people have led them to believe pre election that a coal fired station in NSW was likely (though I read a different line in the Australian contrary), and that GMO was also being queued up post election.
By the by I totally concur about the threat of GMO super weeds and cynicism of big agri industry PR being highly untrustworthy let alone the Dr Strangelove tendencies of big science (speaking as a biology science graduate, ANU 1986).
GM Food given Green light Despite Broad Opposition
There are a large number of unanswered qusestions about GM canola. I have tried to keep an open mind about it but want to be given the choice on whether or not I purchase these products. see
CAN we put the GM genie back into the bottle?
Be coincerned
Diego Luego
case by case
GM crops should be assessed rigorously on a case by case basis. GM canola is a clear case for outright rejection. This is not a crop whose genes can be segregated. The GM trait it exibits, herbicide resistance, encourages unsustainable chemical monoculture farming practices. The beneficiaries of the technology are the corporations selling it. The North American experience clearly indicates that farmers do not benefit. Farmers will have no choice- this plant is a promiscuous cross pollinator with tiny seeds, the reality is that maintaining GM free canola will not be possible. Consumers clearly do not benefit, as there will be no real choice to avoid GM canola as complete segregation is made impossible by the nature of the plant. Human health trials are by means adequate. This is madness, government selling out to corporate interests, not a science based decision as they like to pretend. See www.seedsavers.net
Latest News on GM (December 3rd)
The Australian Oilseeds federation has welcomed the NSW & Victorian Governments descision to release 2 kinds of GM Canola seed for cultivation.
However a fair majority of members of the Australian Seed Federation does not want GM canola while others do.
Alot of agricultural authorities around the world have said the Canola can be used to produce fuel such as biodiesel then this means that GM Canola is ok for this purpose only but it should not be used for human consumption. Note that next year fuel will be 2.50 a litre in Australia because Rudd ratified the Kyoto treaty making the fuel price level with european fuel prices.
However Authorities in America say that Corn can produce more oil than canola but of cause corn sometimes need irrigation while canola is more hardy & can rely on weather patterns to grow but of cause less oil is extracted from Canola.
But the most appropriate alternative to crops like Canola or Corn are the west african oil palm which is now being recently cultivated in Indonesia also note it can cultivated in Australia or anywhere else as Palms are pre-historic plants & are extremely hardy & also better for the enviroment because they are trees as opposed to annual crops like Canola or Corn which can cause soil to become saline due to tillage or irrigation. Oil Palms do not require irrigation to grow they are reliant on weather patterns & they also do not require soil tillage.
When canola oil is processed it is thus made up of hydrogenated fats & Hydrogenated fats are toxic to humans, for 100's of years people have known canola is poisonous. So why are companies allowed to advertise that Canola products are healthy & beneficial, when the reality is that Canola
products are poisonous & toxic, their should at least be a warning label on the product, just like what is placed on tobacco products, would you cook with motor oil, of cause not. Note that Tobacco leaves are also poisonous, tobacco leaves have been traditionally used as a insecticide in horticulture but these days chemicals are used instead which is probably wrong as there are many pest repellant plants, tobacco & marigolds being just a few. Canola food products are made by using a process called hydrogenation which makes
them even more poisonous, thus Canola food products are trans fatty Hydrogenated fats, which means poisonous & toxic to humans. If you eat alot of the black seed from a canola plant you will get sick. Margarine made from
Canola is not a food & Canola Oil is not a food, it is called a non-food meaning a poison.
Two thirds of US citizens develop heart disease because of Canola &
other trans fatty acids.
Listed below are the main alternatives to canola, in order
of their benefites to both peoples health & the
enviroments health . . . . . .
[A1] Animal Fat
[A2] Ghee
[A3] Butter
[A4] Coconut Butter or Palm Oil
[A5] Almond or Walnut Butters
[A6] Non-hydrogenated peanut butter with the oil
floating at the top of the jar.
[A7] Flax seed oil
[A8] Hemp or Cannabis Oil
[A9] Olive Oil
Of cause all these products can also be used to make biodiesel but in regards to human consumption canola oil should be avoided or any other trans-fatty acids.
Of cause recycling of waste food products or food products passed there used by date can also be used to make fuel. Rubbish can also be used to make fuel.
Currently the world used 84 million barrels of fossil fuel or crude oil a day & there is talk that in 10 years time there will be none left. That is why there is a rush to clear land for oil crops or graizing animals. The problem with graizing animals or annual oil crops which are not trees is that they change the face of the enviroment, remove native vegetation & can cause soil to become saline or dead over time. Cars, trucks, planes, motor boats & other vehicles are very handy & useful in the moderen age, but they do change the face of the enviroment & change the way people live there lives, permaculture has often been called a more wholistic alternative to agriculture where people live amongst nature & live better lives as opposed to living like animals in a rat race.
Re: Latest News on GM (December 3rd)
Sunflower oil is better . . . . .
But I think they want us to use Canola so eventually we will all die, they dont care if we die, as long as the country is in there greasy hands, they dont care.
Why not just grow Sunflower oil its better . . .
Re: Genetically Modified Food given Green light Despite Broad Op
Specific Conifer trees can also produce fuel when treated properly there are many trees which can be used to produce fuel such as methanol or bio-diesel, ethanol is produced from annual crops while methanol from trees & trees are generally better for the enviroment, of cause the oil palm can also be called a tree as well. We need fuel, for heating & cooking & transport but in regards to transport many have suggested that walking is better, is it not better to walk to the shop or to a friends house, many say horses should also be protected & used for transport or farm work, but then again horses suffer stomach ulcers when they are not fed fresh green crops, horses are not like cattle or sheep they need fresh green crops to eat otherwise they suffer stomach ulcers & sickness, they have different stomachs to cattle or sheep. Of cause it is better if we learn to become more human as opposed to embracing everything industrial, permaculture & arcology can allow people to live better lives, note is it not better to have your own culture live a better life as opposed to tending to the needs & wants of other cultures. Shouldn't people strive to look after themselves as opposed to looking after someone else, note 10 percent of the worlds population have european origins for example this is because europeans choose to live industrial lives, try to tend to the needs & wants of other cultures, refuse to live traditional lives embracing arcology or permaculture for eg and also rely on products produced by other cultures, such as clothes, tv,s, computers, mobile phones & countless other products from asia or the middle east, note petrol for eg: from the middle east means that after awhile we will eventually look like people from the middle east or asia because we use all there products as opposed to adopting traditional lives & looking after ourselves & not rely on work done by other cultures we all need to work for ourselves & our own communities.
Re: Genetically Modified Food given Green light Despite Broad Op
Maybe there is more to this than just cooking oil, margarine or biodiesel, maybe plastic can even be made by this stuff. That means we dont need arabs anymore.
Note: this is a pretty good report that gives a overall picture of the subject.
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/50418
Australias lost wheat trade
It has been said that we are losing our wheat trade to the middle east to countries like Russia which is moving in heavy on Australias wheat trade.
Yes there are reports of drought in certain areas but these cases are not everywhere, Australia must continue its wheat trade to the middle east but the new destination port is to be Dubai not Iraq. Rudd has done nothing in regard to trade relations to the middle east.
Also with a large proportion of diesel vehicles being sold in the market place it has been said that it may be better if we just convert our wheat trade over to producing biodiesel along with our canola crops & there is room for expansion of both these crops also to produce biodiesel, as opposed to export to arab countries in exchange for crude oil. Of cause many say we still must continue sending wheat & other crops & animal produce to the middle east in exchange for crude oil as this is our traditional trading relationship for decades but it has been said that due to peak oil the crude oil we do receive needs to be used to create permacultural landscapes & ecological villages as well as planting oil palms & maybe expanding canola plantings it is to be debated if wheat plantings should be increased.
Re: The dangers of GM
Here it is all here
This will tell you all you need to know about the dangers of GM in simple terms so you can understand what it is really about.
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/video/genetically-modified-organisms-unnatural-selection-part-1
Re: The dangers of GM
The below all explain why GM is bad & wrong
Genetically Modified Organisms - unnatural selection Part 1
The above all explain why GM is bad & wrong
Post new comment