Dear Jennifer,
Did you see this recent article from Nature entitled ‘Escaped Chinese GM Rice Reaches Europe’ ?
The Chinese do their trialing on a grand scale. According to an industry source one million acres of insect resisitant GM rice was planted last year in China. Anywhere else this would have been described as a general commercial release of the GM rice.
If you tested Chinese rice noodles in an Asian grocery store in Australia you would find that products derived from insect resistant GM rice is a reality here too.
But more importantly, and as is pointed out in the article, the risks to the consumer of GM Chinese rice noodles are minimal. Any allergenic reaction to the rice would have been drastically reduced in the processing of the food as the food allergy expert states.
The real question is: Can GM rice coexist with non-GM rice and is there the political will to keep them separate in China?
Exports of Chinese rice noodles is not a big issue for the Chinese government.
There has been a consensus growing among scientists that when China decides to openly (or covertly) give GM rice the all clear it will have an immediate impact on the ‘GM free’ status of rice products sold everywhere on this planet.
It will undoubtedly trigger a new round of food scares and anti-GM campaigns.
But they will all be futile. Ultimately we will have to face the reality of living with a technology, which in the case of https://levitralab.com insect resistant GM rice, has clear public and environmental benefits.
Regards,
Roger Kalla.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
From the standpoint of legitimate consumer concerns, it would be far more valid to worry about whether short-grain rice can co-exist with long-grain rice. “Contamination” of one by the other would have effects on the cooking qualities of each.
The susceptibility of the rice to insect attacks has nothing to do with its cooking or nutritional qualities.
The actual question is political co-existence. The EU and its NGO shills have political/economic animosity towards North America, and therefore toward any North American food product they can manage to block, because it’s a non-tax subsidy for the CAP that is desperately needed. This makes co-existence of GM rice problematic.
China doesn’t export very much food to Europe, so blocking China’s exports won’t do much for the CAP. This means the EU and its NGO lap dogs don’t worry much about Chinese Bt rice–which in turn makes co-existence possible.
It is is far more likely that issues of Chinese rice co-existence will pop up in Asia, where trade wars over rice could generate significant economic windfall benefits in various markets. When this occurs, you will see NGOs at the forefront of efforts to distort markets in favor of various players.
Schiller interesting analysis of the ‘real politik’ behind GM crops.
Individual EU member states give out quite mixed messages though from the NGO compliant , anti GM, pro organic farming countries such as Greece and Austria to the other end of the spectra represented by countries with existing coexistence frameworks such as Denmark and soon Sweden.
China is an net importer of rice and the export Chinese rice noodles reach Europe by direct, small scale, import of specialty food to Asian grocery stores everywhere.
However for the western consumer of rice noodles this might be a problem since among them are the subset of wealthy, lifestyle conscious, middle class, inner suburban dweller that has decided that GM is bad for you and for me.
They have the ear of labour State Government politicians ( at least here in Australia at the moment) and could well influence the outcome of State and local elections.
So in this case the ‘shop locally and act globally’ catch phrase is very apt.
P.S It was I that submitted the post in the first place.
Roger,
Good to hear from you. I wonder if the “coexistence frameworks such as Denmark and soon Sweden” are actually coexistence frameworks. The framework in Denmark punishes coexistence, and the EU NGOs have announced that coexistence is an affront to “racial purity.” European groups, just like the US-bred KKK, are very conscious of gene flow, and share their penchant for violent methods. This is a vivid, and non-accidental, concatenation of themes.
To detribe, roger, chris,
Have you any comments on this statement from Greenpeace International on the eventual health impacts of this illegal GE rice?
” The illegal GE rice , genetically engineered to be resistant to insects, contains a protein or fused protein (CRY1Ac) that has reportedly induced allergic -like reactions in mice. Three independent scientists have issued a statement backing the health concerns Greenpeace have raised”.
Personally I find the possible allergic reactions to proteins one of the most serious health problems with GE feed.
Roger: “… insect resistant GM rice, has clear public and environmental benefits”.
Roger, care to explain those environmental benefits?
Sorry, my link to this statement has disappeared into the ether… but you can find the link on GPI’s website!
Dear Ann,
My general understanding is that Bt proteins are not highly allergenic. In fact a search of PubMed failed to turn up a single study where allergic reactions to Bt were created by exposure to the protein. I did come across two papers suggesting occupational exposure to Bt spores can increase IgE antibodies. However, it is unclear from the study whether that was leading to allergic reactions. That work also noticed that the workers additionally had Bt cultures in their nasal passages.
I have done a search through PubMed and came up with no references to Cry1aC and allergies. I did find a series of papers from the lab of Lopez-Revilla who exposed mice intraperitoneally, intranasal, intragastrically or rectally and observed immune responses. My understanding is that immune responses do not equal allergy. Most allergies result in increased IgE; however, the work of Lopez-Rivilla and co-workers found elevated IgG, IgM or IgA depending on how they exposed the mice. The authors in no place indicate a possible link to allergy. They do make the claim that: “Administration of recombinant Cry1Ac to mice intraperitoneally (i.p.) or intragastrically (i.g.) induces systemic and intestinal antibody responses of similar magnitude to those induced by cholera toxin.” A comment that Greenpeace uses as part of their claims. However, cholera, while dangerous, is not allergenic. This work was really looking at the possibility of using Cry1aC as a carrier of vaccines for mucosal infections.
I should point out that allergenicity is not my speciality and am happy to be corrected by an expert in the area. I have read the papers, but may have missed some crucial points. However, I would suggest that if the authors that Greenpeace is quoting make no mention of allergy in their own papers, then perhaps Greenpeace is taking their work out of context.
By the way, Cry1aC is the Bt in cotton marketed since 1996.
Ann Novek has obviously overlooked an “unknown side-effect” of genetically engineered crops–the possibility that the pollen from them could cause whales to sneeze.
This unknown side-effect would seem rather obvious.
Whales are mammals, and have lungs. Imagine yourself, a half-mile below the surface of the ocean, trying to hold your breath, and sneezing.
A sneezing whale would inhale probably enough water to fill a bathtub, or maybe a moderately-sized back-yard swimming-pool.
Which would result in death by drowning.
Greenpeace scientists are not doing the planet any favors if they are not investigating the impact of GM crops on whale sneezing.
Since Schiller has posted a total off topic comment I may continue on this thread!
For those interested in whaling I have posted a comment back on the whaling thread on Icelandic sales of whale meat to the Faroe Islands.
Island has also no current plans to continue the “scientific whaling programme” . Compare this to Japanese statements on “research” whaling!
Sorry Swenglish again, Island is of course Iceland!
Ann, I thought you said you were going to keep quiet on GM because “I know nothing?” Shoulda known better.
Yes Rog, I think whaling issues are less complicated – damm GMOs you have to be a farmer, agronom,have knowledge in cell and molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, politics and God know what else to really understand the issue and make a reasonable statement!!!
However , now I think I understand a bit more, read an excellent link from the Essex University on benefits and risks with GMOs.
Chris,
This is what I recall on immunoglobins:
Immunoglobin M ( IgM) is the first class of antibodies to appear in the serum after injection of an antigen, whereas immunoglobin G (IgG) is the principal antibody in the serum.
Immunoglobin A (IgA) is the major class of antibodies in external secretions, such as saliva, tears, bronchial mucus and intestinal mucus. Thus IgA serves as a first line defense against bacterial and viral antigens.
The harmful effects of immunoglobin E (IgE) in mediating allergic reactions are clearly established.
It is also important to note that antibody molecules are just one component of a vast integrated network of molecules and cells that recognizes foreign substances and elimanets them,for example macrophages.
We were discussing in some earlier posts what natural and unnatural food actually means?
Maybe an unnatural food can be described as a food that mediates an immune system response, allergic reaction by antibodies or by macrophages eliminating a pathogen etc( se above)
Friends,
As I predicted (see above), the activists are now spearheading a campaign to manipulate the Asian rice market.
“”The illegal GE rice scandal, however, may not be limited to Europe. In Southeast Asia rice is the staple diet. The Philippines is among the countries most at risk because we import rice and rice products from both the US and China,” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia GE campaigner Daniel Ocampo.”
From “Philippines at serious risk from illegal GMO rice contamination,” Tuesday, September 12 2006,
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060912012231783
The Philippines are especially vulnerable to distortions in rice trade, as they are a net importer of rice. Greenpeace activity will in the short term benefit holders of rice stocks, who will see the value of inventories rise, if imports are blocked or bottlenecked.
For info on the Philippines and the rice trade, see:
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-3/6-3-rice.htm
and
http://www.biotech-info.net/just_say_no.html
Well Ann, I guess that means Greenpeace considers peanuts and shellfish to be unnatural. You should stick to whales.
If you are talking about anaphylaxis Ann, then by your definition milk and dairy products, egg, peanut, nuts from trees (walnut, cashew, etc), fish, shellfish, soy, and wheat are unnatural.
Foods that dont cause reactions (eg steak, beer, chips) are natural
“I am Manuel, I know nothing..”
Rog, Schiller,
There is no legal or scientific definition for “natural” food.
My above statement was only speculation…
I can give you another food for thought.. Enzymes aquired their specificities in millions of years of evolution. There are in my opinion reasons to be concerned what happens in the digestive tract when we consume for example a modified banana genitically modified to contain hepatitis B vaccine.
Rog :” Meat, beer, chips” are natural food.
Hey, would only be safe with the beer!!!
I have learned that grilled beef contains highly cancerogenic substances( probably they trigger a “killer cell ” response!!!
Some years ago even chips were considered to be cancerogenic due to acrylamide content.
Who told you that Ann? They also tried the coffee = cancer scare until researchers confirmed the commonsense view that it was all hype.
The acrylamide furphy also has no scientific backing.
Dr Kalla clearly demonstrates the cynical intention of the GM industry to use the largest rice producing country in the world as a trojan horse to contaminate one of the largest global food product markets, while at the same time claiming it is the Chinese governments job stop it happening. This also reflects the argument that GM contamination means it is pointless to resist the GM industry, in his submission to the Australian Government as Director of Korn Technologies.
Schiller Thurkettle’s feverish enthusiasm for global environmental conspiracies might carry slightly more weight if he ever bothered to produce incontravertible evidence that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc. were actually receiving enormous funding from EU governments to defend EU interests.
Since they are not (unlike neoconservative, greenwashing NGOs such as the IWMC) he is unlikely to do anything more than link to a rightwing publication on its author’s website.
No doubt Dr Kalla’s implication that catastrophic Stalinist agri-policy is a forerunner of environmentalism, helps him find common cause with Schiller.
‘history warns us about the potentially catastrophic consequences of whole sale adoption of Lamarckian theories. During Stalin’s rule of terror over the Soviet Union, Trofim Lysenko, the ‘barefoot scientist’ and embodiment of the mythical Soviet peasant savant rose to the position of National leader of all plant breeding programs. Lysenko applied Stalin’s policy of ‘practice over theory’ combined with the Lamarckian ‘holistic’ pseudo science approach to Soviet agricultural genetics for over 30 years with catastrophic consequences. Lysenkoism resulted in the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and the demise of genetics throughout the Soviet Union.”
– Dr Kalla, AgBioView, 6th November 2004.
Protectionism Schiller? US steel industry anyone?
The only reason that GM chinese rice would be blocked is because it is GM, to which there is of course a very simple solution, don’t swap to GM rice if you want to export to countries where GM products are banned, works for other countries that trade with the EU.
Schiller claims that environmental NGOs are the lapdogs of European governments, Dr Kalla however claims that some European governments are environmental NGO ‘compliant’, Try to get your story straight gentlemen.
Trying to blame neoconservative, economic imperialism at the WTO on environmentalists is piffle.
Lamna: “No doubt Dr Kalla’s implication that catastrophic Stalinist agri-policy is a forerunner of environmentalism, helps him find common cause with Schiller.”
Is this really the truth Dr Kalla???
Never heard of such a distortion of environmentalism in whole my life!
Tell that to our Greenpeace Nordic Campaigner Dima Litvinov, now US citizen, who together with his father and mother fled from the Soviet Union due to communistic prosecution.
Detribe,
Sorry for posting under wrong thread but just wanted to tell you that Greenpeace has promised to make a statement on your questions regarding their position on Golden Rice II.
Nasus,
You’re rather poorly informed on a number of points, and confused on others.
The US GM rice at issue was developed by a corporation. The Chinese GM rice at issue was developed by government scientists. For these groups to conspire to create “Trojan horse” contamination is imaginative, but not credible. China might have a financial interest in “leaking” germplasm from field trials, especially given its proven benefits; but the US corporation is facing major financial losses. Nobody has forgotten StarLink.
The Dutch Postcode Lottery forks over bagsful of government money to Greenpeace. If you go to the Lottery website you’ll find the money accounted for, right there. And anyone familiar with how the Tides Foundation works will realize how easy it is to launder corporate payola and turn it into green money, quite anonymously. On their own, activist groups launder government funds primarily through diversion, such as taking grants, shuffling them through several accounts and using them for unintended purposes. The US has this problem, but it is far worse in Europe, where transparency is nil and accountability nearly absent.
Historians familiar with environmentalism know that its birthplace is Nazi Germany. Lysenkoism is related only to the extent that it was in part a reaction against “bourgeois” theories that underlay Germanic/Western biological science.
And you yourself appear to admit European trade protectionism is at the heart of the attempt to manipulate Asian rice markets with a GMO scare, when you suggest, “don’t swap to GM rice if you want to export to countries where GM products are banned, works for other countries that trade with the EU.”
There’s no contradiction between the notions that “environmental NGOs are the lapdogs of European governments” and that “some European governments are environmental NGO ‘compliant’.” Governments and their lapdogs intend to get along well. It’s how they do business.
You misapplied the term “neoconservative.” Neoconservatives are, essentially, new conservatives. Conservatives, in the sense that they’re fundamentally reactionary, opposed to change, and basically right wing; new, because they are “green.” It used to be that “green” was primarily Leftist. As expected, neoconservative groups work hard to erect and enforce trade barriers which work to the benefit of local vested interests that view change as a challenge to capital resources and markets. Neoconservatism has become so common and widespread that the anti-globalist movement has actually become global. It is not surprising that such conservatives oppose free trade, while demanding that governments rule trade instead, under the guise of calling such restrictions “fair.”
Accordingly, what you call “economic imperialism at the WTO” is not the work of neoconservatives, but of neoliberals who actually *oppose* imperialism as the work of oppressive, coercive government policy. In sum, your rant is piffle.
Rog :”Who told you that Ann? ” ( on grilled meat).
Actually this information has been around for a decade in medical science. It is only the burned part that is cancerogenic, not the meat in itself… and cancer cells trigger a “killer cell” respons. Killer cells are T-lymphocytes, as opposed to antibody molecules which are secreted by plasma cells and derived from B-lymphocytes.
neo-imperialism, then.
Lamna nasus (perhaps we should call you Jaws in honour of the Universal studio animatronic shark that scares little children)aka the porbeagle (what an appropriate name ) is a wide-ranging, coastal and oceanic shark according to the encyclopedia. ‘Low reproductive capacity and high commercial value of mature and immature age classes makes this species highly vulnerable to over-exploitation and population depletion’.
What you are not saying is that my writing on Lysenkoism wasn’t used to put down environmentalism per se but a particular form of environmentalism originating from a parallel universe inhabited by Mae Wan Ho.
I was unfortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dr Ho at Melbourne University during which she was knocking Darwinism, Watson-Cricks discovery of the double helix, modern genetics and all forms of biotechnology.
Instead she offered numbers of conspiracy theories, new age philisophy, and healing powers of crystals.
Ann an uncle of mine went to the USSR during the Russian revolution with his family to help build up Russia. He and his wife were sent to a Gulag and persihed while their two daughters were released after 20 years in camps and were finally allowed to come back to Sweden in the 1970 ies. Yes I regard Lysenkoism/ Stalinism/ Leninism as inherently evil but I don’t claim that all environmentalists are in the same category. Just a select few fit the bill. Jaws is rapidly approaching this class IMHO. But then he ( or she) suffers from low reproducibility and is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Hi Roger,
I have never mentioned this before on this blog, most people think maybe I’m Norwegian but I’m half Swedish and Estonian…. as you know you never have to tell an Estonian about Stalin and Gulag since about a third of my people / population ended up in Gulag!!! And you can speak Finnish with me if you want to….
I did a quick google check and The Dutch Postcode Lottery’s money appears to come from private individuals gambling in the hope of striking it rich, not the Dutch government, which is probably why Schiller didn’t post a link.
I’m surprised he forgot to mention that Nazi Germany was the first country to introduce postcodes in 1941 at which time it was also occupying Holland, and 117 countries now use postcodes and have environmental groups, what clearer proof could there be that the whole thing is a Nazi (except of course for the communists that Dr Kalla has indentified) conspiracy? :o)
‘in the sense that they’re fundamentally reactionary, opposed to change, and basically right wing; new, because they are “green.” It used to be that “green” was primarily Leftist.’ – Schiller
Ah, its all becoming clearer now environmentalists used to be communists but now they are Nazis, how frightfully sneaky. :o)
No surprise that in the absence of evidence, Schiller claims that most of the funding for his conspiracy theory is being done ‘anonymously’.
Jaws = Great White Shark = Carcharodon carcharias.
Disappointing that Dr Kalla prefers shoddy tabloidese to scientific rigour.
Nasus,
“The Dutch Postcode Lottery’s money appears to come from private individuals gambling in the hope of striking it rich,” just like property taxes come from private individuals who buy real estate, hoping to benefit from ownership. In other words, the government levies a tax on gambling and gives the money to Greenpeace. Surely this is clear enough.
You probably were attempting to be humorous when you said “its all becoming clearer now environmentalists used to be communists but now they are Nazis.” It’s not entirely humorous, as these two political movements have hybridized to a great degree and their ideals form the core of the neo-conservative movement.
Anyway, more from Africa http://www.enterprise-africa.org/Publications/pubID.2774/pub_detail.asp
“Enterprise Africa! has released its third research publication Seeds of Hope: Agricultural Technologies and Poverty Alleviation in Rural South Africa, a study examining how the Combi-Pack, an innovative product of the Monsanto Company, is helping to combat hunger and poverty in rural South Africa.
“The farmers call the Combi-Pack, Xoshindlala, a Zulu word that means ‘chase away hunger,’” reports the study’s author, Karol Boudreaux, “because they believe the product helps them chase away their hunger by offering them higher crop yields on their small holdings….”
‘Surely this is clear enough.’ – Schiller
Clear as mud, the Dutch government does not run the Dutch Postcode Lottery. So the Dutch government’s gambling tax revenues stay firmly in the Dutch Exchequer and are not given to NGOs.
Since the current Bush administration is described as neo-conservative, I am sure Donald Rumsfeld, et al would be extremely surprised to discover that they are ‘greenies’.
Holland has a long tradition of lotteries going back to the 17th century when the state lottery was established to finance extra expenses for the battles at sea against England
The Dutch Postcode Lottery (Nationale Postcode Loterij) supports organisations working to create a more just and green world and managed to pay out €210M in 2005.
The BankGiro Lottery (BankGiro Loterij) supports charity organisations in the areas of culture and heritage and in 2005 to paid out €52 million to 19 charities, working in the field of culture.
Novamedia runs the lotteries, under license to the Govt.
http://www.novamedia.nl/web/show/id=55319
Nasus,
The ecos agree that the Bush administration is neoliberal, not neoconservative. You must be out of the loop.
Come back after you have studied what taxation is.
Someone is certainly out of the loop, doesn’t appear to be me though –
http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/neo-cons/index.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34517
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8994
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1724138,00.html
http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050112-bushneocon.htm
‘50% of the lottery’s turnover, the highest in the world, is set aside for some 50 Dutch and international non-governmental organisations committed to poverty prevention, the defence of human rights and nature conservation.’
– Novamedia.
It appears that Schiller’s tax expertise in this matter is about as robust as a chocolate fire guard.
A short comment on the EU farming subsidies and Greenpeace again.
It is absurd to believe as Schiller has claimed that European or at least Greenpeace support the CAP. Greenpeace is totally
against this policy and has the same opinion as Oxfam on this issue.
The latest news from Greenpeace and the agripolicy is that farming and not only GMOs are going to be a new big campaign area .
Lamna, you must aquaint yourself with the govt license, fees and taxes paid from lotteries.
Ann, it would be good to hear GPs views on the reformed CAP policy in regards to the emphasis on environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards.
It would also be helpful to read GP’s views on coexistence and freedom of choice.
Hi Rog,
Dutch lotteries pay net prizes – in other words, they must withhold and pay the tax…..The rate is 29%.
– Dutch Ministry of Finance, 12-04-2006.
So tax is paid by Novamedia to the Dutch government (from Postcode Lottery individuals winnings) which keeps the money and NGOs are given money by Novamedia which set up the Dutch Postcode Lottery to do exactly that.
So the Dutch government is not giving money to Greenpeace to fund lobbying for Dutch and EU interests abroad; in short, no conspiracy contrary to Schiller’s fevered imagination.
Lotteries are licensed by governments to ensure that –
1. organised crime does not rig the lottery.
2. lottery employees do not get the chance to embezzle vast sums of money.
3. The government concerned rakes off its own tax prize for the Exchequer.
If the GM industry is so concerned about co-existance and freedom of choice why does it spend inordinate amounts of time and money fighting against clear labeling of food products for consumers and get its lobbyists to advise governments that because of contamination coexistance is not possible?
Simple, because the GM industry is not interested in coexistence and freedom of choice.
‘Monsanto and its allies have created the
clunky-sounding Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law. They’ve set a $6 million spending target, 40 times the amount pro-labeling forces plan to spend.’
– St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Editorial, September 26, 2002
‘Oregon Genetically Engineered Food Label Bid Fails
Early returns showed more than 73 percent of voters rejecting Measure 27 compared with 27 percent in favor, prompting local media outlets to declare that the initiative, which would have produced the first such labeling law in the country, had been defeated.
Campaign finance reports showed the food industry and other opponents raised more than $5 million to combat the initiative.’
– Reuters, 11/12/2002
‘The giant chemical maker Monsanto has failed in its attempt to convince the state of Maine to abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program for milk, which the state adopted in 1994. Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe has informed Monsanto that the use of the seal is entirely appropriate for the Maine milk market. “Consumer choice is not impaired in any way,” Rowe told Monsanto. “Rather, consumer choice is broadened.” Monsanto had requested that the use of the seal be suspended and legal proceedings brought against Oakhurst and H.P. Hood for alleged unfair trade practices.’
– Sharon Kiley Mack
Daily News, February 26, 2003
‘Submission to Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group
By Dr David Tribe, Biotechnology Coordinator, University of Melbourne and Dr Roger Kalla, Director Korn Technologies.
We have focussed our submission on the benefits arising from the continued adoption of Biotechnology to Australian agriculture and food sector …
In a recent paper presented to the 9th Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology hosted by the International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research…. we described the results of an analysis of the economic and environmental impact of genetically modified insect resistant cotton in Australia……
The notion that Australia could protect the image of its agriculture and food export sector as being 100 % GM free (in spite of rapidly having converted to GM cotton which constituted 80% of last year cotton harvest) by delaying the introduction of GM canola has been challenged by the recent finding of minuscule amounts of a strain of GM canola mixed up in an export consignment of conventional canola and detected by sensitive forensic DNA analysis technology….
It is in the interest of private and public research organisations to carefully manage these risks due to real issues with IP management….
Likewise it is unreasonable to expect that parallel GM and non- GM canola and cereal grains supply chains could guarantee 100 % purity of bulk shipment of either type of canola.
We see a role for the Australian Government in partnership with companies involved in the determine what are tolerable levels of admixture of GM canola in any type of exported grain. The Australian position needs to be underpinned by scientific and economic analysis of cost vs. benefit of the testing regimes…
It is worth noting that forensic DNA testing is technically challenging and costly (in the order of $ 100 -250 per sample analysed if done in-house). There are also issues with standardisation of sampling protocols of bulk consignments seed for presence of GM canola seed along the supply chain….
GM CANOLA AND THE BLOCKAGE TO ITS COMMERCIALISATION
The present blockage to the commercialization of GM canola, the second Australian GM food and feed crop is unsustainable.
The projected ‘GM free’ image of Australian agriculture and food export sector based on the State moratoria on GM canola is misleading and doesn’t acknowledge the realities of the globally integrated efforts in the development of novel strains of major food and feed crops such as cotton and canola.’
‘globally integrated efforts’ eh? Now there is a statement Schiller can get his conspiracy theory teeth into. :o)
Rog,
The co-existence of GM and conventional crops is currently under discussion at EU level.
Here’s Greenpeace’s statement on co-existence :
http://www.greenpeace.eu/downloads/gmo/Greenpeace%20considerations%20on%20Coexistence.doc
There may be a newer version and if so ,I will post it here next week.
Conclusion 🙁 see above post)
· All seeds of non-GE plant varieties should be required to be effectively free of GMOs (legally and technically established as below the detection limit in the relevant seed legislation)
· A full and coherent liability scheme, which puts the burden of proof on the producers of GMOs and follows the polluter pays principle, must be established. In case contamination occurs, the GMO industry must be strictly liable. Fault-based liability should be established between producers and users of GMOs to guarantee that instructions and measures to prevent contamination are applied
· Co-existence provisions are to be established along the entire food chain
· Precautionary environmental and health protection measures, monitoring as well as risk management and nature protection measures, must be included in the scope of co-existence
· No additional costs and measures should arise from co-existence requirements to farmers, producers and consumers, who do not want to use GMOs. The viability and sustainability of conventional and organic farming must be ensured over and above the right to grow GMOs
· The acknowledgement that co-existence is not an issue of commercial interests and compensations but of long term guarantees of the freedom to consume and to produce non GE products
Rog :” Ann, it would be good to hear GPs views on the reformed CAP policy in regards to the emphasis on environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards”.
Rog , I hardly don’t believe Greenpeace have any view currently on this issue… probably they will make a statement when the farming campaign starts.
OK Rog, regarding freedom of choice.
A ruling legal principle of freedom in European and other civilisations establishes that the freedom individuals and groups enjoy are only limited by their obligation not to restrict other individuals or groups rights and liberties.
I have previously mentioned Greenpeace’s GMO labelling campaign in the EU.
This labelling , if implemented , will give the consumer the freedom of choice.
Polls have shown ( in Sweden) that a big majority of consumers support the labelling system. All big political parties, except for the Social Democrats and the Conservatives also support the labelling of meat products, produced by animals raised with GMO fodder.
It is also written in the EU Constitution(?) that the right for information is a fundamental righteousness for citizens in Europe.
Dr. Kalla:” I was unfortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dr Ho at Melbourne University during which she was knocking Darwinism, Watson-Cricks discovery of the double helix, modern genetics and all forms of biotechnology.”
Actually Dr. Kalla, Dr Ho sounds like Bush knocking down Darwinism, is there some kind of an unholy alliance between them???
GP are not supporting consumers right to choice they are advocating that GMOs should not be released into the environment.
GP have no policy on “environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards”??
Pull the other leg
Rog:
“GP have no policy on “environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards”??”
By now you must be aware of GP’s position on GMOs if that is what you are refering to(?) , but since Greenpeace is not an animal rights organisation I doubt animal welfare issues ever will come up on the agenda.
What do you call a whale?
” What do you call a whale? ”
Lunch and dinner usually depending on the sauce;)