Hello Jennifer,
We had a very lively GMO [genetically modified organism] Reference Group Meeting [in Perth, Western Australia,] this morning and I had the opportunity to lay a few concerns on the line with the Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, particularly with respect to the Animal Feeding Study by Judy Carman and colleagues in Adelaide. Among the key points to emerge from the exchange were the following:-
1. The Minister refused to disclose the protocol for the feeding study; the list of scientists (local and international) who allegedly approved the protocol; and the members of the review committee who will address milestones.
He was reminded that this is his own Ministerial Reference Group; Western Australian taxpayers money is involved; the study never went out to tender; and is not a state mandate anyway given that WA is a signatory to the Inter-governmental Agreement on Gene Technology Regulation wherein Human Health and the Environment are a Federal jurisdiction.
2. He was also informed that his action could easily be construed as undermining public confidence in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and FSANZ, when the independent review of the Gene Technology Act of 2000 has already published its findings (2006) showing that Australia already has one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world.
3. He was also reminded that going back to December 2005 Professors Graeme Robertson (Muresk/Curtin Univ.); Stephen Powles (UWA); and Mike Jones (Murdoch/SABC) had written to him informing him that Judy Carman could not be seen as independent and she and her group have no track record in conducting animal feeding studies.
He was also reminded of international concerns for the study (expressed in writing, and responded to in Parliament); and two letters from AusBiotech (Anna Lavelle / Ian Edwards) expressing concerns, and also (in the case of Ian Edwards’ letter) calling for the studies to be halted.
4. The Minister made it clear that only when the results of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals will he release the protocols. He contended that Bayer and Monsanto do not release details of the protocols for studies that they are currently undertaking so why should he? He said that if there is indeed a flaw in the studies then this will also be revealed upon completion! He also explained that since the commissioning of the studies was by approval of Cabinet he was not obliged to go to the tender process. He assured the Group that the studies were taking place in Australia, and specifically in Adelaide.
5. When asked whether he really believes that the study will answer the outstanding questions that he thinks the “public” still has in their minds he acknowledged that the study is unlikely to provide these answers and it may in fact raise more questions for future work. He also acknowledged that the amount of funding was very small, but “maybe Judy Carman may have other sources of funding to contribute to the study”.
6. He further maintained that ‘consumers’ are confused about the anomalies that have occurred in feeding studies; that our health regulators have a duty of care; and that they have not explained differences in feeding studies to consumers. He further claimed that “only 2 or 3 out of 137 feeding studies presented any details of the protocol involved” and posed the question “Why is there so much unanswered un-answered public information?”
7. He was challenged on this, and attention drawn to the “Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plans” prepared by the OGTR in 2003/04 in response to the Bayer and Monsanto canola submissions that received regulatory approval. These documents were then attacked by the NGO members (Network of Concerned Farmers and Organics). A summary of the key findings of the Bayer Risk Assessment was then given to the Group and I explained that Judy Carman’s claims of there being “little or no feeding studies and no allergenicity studies” did not square with the facts.
Julie Newman will be seeing Judy Carman tomorrow and will notify her that these “preposterous allegations had been made against her”. Julie also informed the meeting that Judy Carman “has a room full of files on Monsanto at her home”.
Best regards,
Ian Edwards
————-
I have previously blogged on this issue here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Given the terms of the US Free Trade Agreement, I’d bet good money that Monsanto are making their presence felt in their quest to open up Australia to boost their dividends.
A recent documentary on SBS gave a gritty portrayal of life on the land for many smaller mid-western farmers struggling to survive on their Monsanto regulated cash-cropping properties. It wasn’t hard to see parallels with the Dust Bowl times of the 30s which saw millions of sharecroppers dispossessed of their land when banks foreclosed on bad debt. This gave the Banks and Agribusiness access to large areas of marginal land for some quick and dirty cotton operations which rendered the soil barren. I guess the beef farmers took over then.
Monsanto looks like the same deal.
Slim, Monsanto can only boost dividends if they sell something farmers wish to buy.
You will find many smaller mid-western farmers struggling to survive through sheer lack of profitability, irrespective of who they purchase farm inputs from.
With regard to the dust bowl exactly what parallels exist, will monsanto cause a severe multi-year drought coinciding with another great depression?
Denialism sure is a broad church. Judy fits right in there, as do the politicians who listen to and support this rubbish based on their own ideological bias. For the Right it’s AGW, the Left it’s GMOs. Peas in a pod, they are.
At least other states now appear to be (slowly) moving on.
Jennifer; we see this line on your blog so often but let’s have another look at what’s behind this theme. We are essentially what we eat so people and their governments have an obligation to vet sources, processes and in particular lobbies.
Simply IMO those who swing with the GMO pundits fall into bed with the global manufacturers.
Beware; manufacturers versus consumers is an old issue of mine starting with the labs on the factory floor.
This week the Canberra Times ran a front page article headed “Dramatic increase in food allergies” concerning the health of our youngsters This follows a now familiar story in the Australian Medical Journal by Professor Mullins.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=597339&src=topstories
As canola features heavily in these discussions lets relate another story. I reckon it involves good observations about deciding what we want in the first place. In the heyday of margarine advertising I went straight from a job in the petroleum refineries to a short project in vegetable oils and was astounded by the similarity of the manufacturing plants. This experience immediately raised the question of using ‘grunge versus ghee’ in the domestic environment. Gourmet cooks will know what I mean.
Housewives and young mothers beware; I say we don’t get an artificial spread without additives. We can also finish up living on glucosamine, flaxseed oil and vitamin D from a bottle if we don’t watch it.
We must always ask why a manufacturer creates demand for unnatural products including those that start back in the dairy. From example flavored cheese is a cover up for excess pasteurized bacteria and some of that was green. Product resistance is quite natural in most cases.
On the question of stock feed and pet food manufacturing our pets are generally not so gullible. Yesterday I returned three out of five small blisters of VIP roo mince to the chain store after the gas knocked us back on the second trial. Additives don’t make up for freshness it seems. My three cats also avoid those plastic cubes that come from various tins of pet food stuff. It seems real solids don’t go through the salvage mesh under extreme mechanical pressure.
On the question of infant foods from manufacturers; it was my late wife who discovered the link between processed foods, lack of taurine leading to potential infant blindness while managing a large cat colony in medical research facility for a number of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurine
It’s my guess after looking up taurine, standards for synthetics versus organics in the food chain are still evolving and that’s only one instance over a long time. My present partner had a similar practical experience with medical research back in the UK with animo acids and chemical attachments.
Before considering GMO this question remains: are we wise enough not to grow our own food or continue to take it from the wild?
Processed roo meat leading to gassy problems for the doggies? Dammit, all those roos I shot for dog meat, with our poor muts becoming socially unacceptable for a day or so afterward, must have been chomping down the GMOs. How else could you explain it?
I saw the commentary over at GMO Pundit.
“Secret GM Feeding Study?” Bosh and excremental buffoonery! The greenies complain about “no transparency” and “secret studies by [shadowy multinational conglomerates allied with the Illuminati, etc.]” and Chance can’t cough up something as innocent as a test protocol?
It bears mention that Greenpeace repeatedly finds “GMOs” in all sorts of places, and then it turns out not to be real. They’ve found GM chickens, GM beef, you name it.
Greenpeace has claimed proof that engineered crops cause homosexuality, blindness, baldness and impotence.
Well, those proofs didn’t exactly turn out real well.
Maybe Kim Chance is between a rock and a hard place, knowing that he’s working with Greenpeace science [sic] and if he admits he’s been bamboozled by shonks, the Greenie shonks will skewer him when it’s voting time.
Chance should have known better than to get in bed with greenie whackos. At least, he should have worn a full-body condom.
Now it’s too late. History will make him a footnote, if he’s lucky; a target of laughter, if he’s not.
Other important news items today are clips showing both United Dairy Farmers in Victoria and AWB are supportive of GM technology
eg
http://theweeklytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4511,21931113%255E10912,00.html
The response of the anti-GM groups is that these changes are irrelevant.
Hmmm.
Theyd say that wouldnt they.
Detribe: I like this comment on the ABC link “But Ian MacAuley from milk processing company Murray Goulburn says regardless of the vote, the company will continue to use GM free products” You can’t win them all hey……..
Once again,
Deafening silence from the greenies.
Minister Chance won’t get far with fickle friends like them.
Busted!
They’ll hang around when the wind blows their way, but when the facts show up, they’re gone.
Thing is, Minister Chance has been cooking this plot for about a year now, and has received a number of warnings about junk science and diverting public funds without permission.
Chance is a goofball, but not an idiot.
He’s going to lose his office over this miscreance, and as a result, will be forced to take a job with Greenpeace at double his former salary.
As long as Chance agrees to howl like a whipped dog every time someone mentions GMOs or Climate Change, he’ll do financially well.
Well, it’s been a while, and the silence is still deafening.
Hello!
The silence is still deafening. This signals that Chance is going down, hard, and Greenie allies are running for cover. They don’t want to go down with him, but they will.
The world is waking up to the global warming hoax, a decade of unfounded scares over GM crops is getting tired and desperate…
Mark my words, we’ve educated a generation of young people to dismiss Greenies as goofballs. The last gasp of Marxism will die with a whimper, and share its place in history with Minister Chance as a footnote, and that’s only if he’s lucky.
With the Australian farming community against him, and his mismanagement of public funds, it’s no wonder the Greenies scurry like roaches.
This comment, like many others is blatently incorrect:
“Newman will be seeing Judy Carman tomorrow and will notify her that these “preposterous allegations had been made against her”. Julie also informed the meeting that Judy Carman “has a room full of files on Monsanto at her home”. ”
I said that I visited Judy Carman when she had Monsanto’s feeding studies stacked up against the wall. By request, FSANZ forwarded Monsanto’s hard data to Judy for analysis.
As you are the PR company for GM industries such as Monsanto, I do not expect you to print this message but I do expect you to change the untrue statement.
Thank you.
Judy Carman:
Has no credentials.
Has no laboratory.
Has a website and a post office box.
Has boxes of files.
Got visited by Julie Newman.
Next thing you know, someone will compare Judy Carman to Watson & Crick.
Maybe Julie will do that for us!
How corny!
“Judy Carman:Has no credentials.” Since when does 3 degrees and a PHD in animal feeding studies been no credentials?
“Has no laboratory.” How many scientists have their own laboratories?
No, it is just a panic stricken attempt to try to discredit Judy Carman before she releases data (negative or positive) on independent health testing. What on earth are you all so frightened about?
It is the province of science and the fundamental right of scientists to
(i) give fair criticism
(ii) raise matters for open debate
(iii) repeat studies to see if they get the same results
(iv) extend the scope of studies if they believe there are reasonable grounds for concern about someone else’s findings.
So why is the Pro-GM lobby in such a huge violent sweat about scientists doing their job?
They obviously have a lot to worry about!
“2. He was also informed that his action could easily be construed as undermining public confidence in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and FSANZ, when the independent review of the Gene Technology Act of 2000 has already published its findings (2006) showing that Australia already has one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world.”
– The public actually hasnt got any confidence in the OGTR or FSANZ so there is nothing there to be undermined.
– If Australia has one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world, then the regulatory systems in the world must be in an extremely parlous state.
These threatening comments basically say nothing.