“Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain,” according to a story in Farmonline.
Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.”
But they are already drinking it.
At least Victorian dairy farmers have been feeding their cows various amounts of GM soy — a product that has been imported into Australia from the US — for years.
This was a finding in an independent report by Professor Peter Lloyd commissioned by the Victorian government some years ago.
According to the spokeswoman for the mothers, Glenda Lindsay, “There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products.”
But there is no difference in milk from cows feed GM soy and non-GM soy.
I was wondering how some Australian mothers — presumably educated women — could be so ignorant. Then I remembered comment from a colleague some months ago, made in the context of all the global warming hysteria, he said, “Most people are too busy to think, so they ‘buy’ opinion.”
There is a campaign to maintain the current moratorium banning the planting of GM food crops in Victoria. The ban was introduced some years ago, following Greenpeace campaigning, and is set to expire in February 2008.
Ms Lindsay also said, “It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don’t want GM foods.”
————-
Comments from Glenda Lindsay are from a story in this week’s Stock & Land. Also available through FarmOnline http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“I was wondering how some Australian mothers — presumably educated women — could be so ignorant. ”
Jen – just focussing on education and psychology – let’s assume there are no health issues with GM –
So it’s just another one of these “yucky” factors like drinking recycled water. You talk about education but have today’s mothers (or fathers) really been educated about genetic engineering – probably not. Most would have a simple view that you’ve grabbed the genes of one organism and somehow placed them in another. Without knowledge one can easily think “who knows what is does”. “Is it really safe”. “Of course the corporations will say it’s safe – but why would you trust the corporations. They’ll tell you things have been safe for years and look what happens with medicinal drugs.” Example: NEWSFLASH
“The company has decided to recall VIOXX based on new information from a recent clinical study which showed that there was an increased risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke beginning after 18 months of treatment, in the patients taking Vioxx at a dose of 25 mg once daily.” “And didn’t CSIRO stop a GM trial recently because of problems”.
So you have no real education on the issue. You essentially have the assurances of the corporations.
So you guys attack them decrying modern society just buys in its opinions.
But green groups have you on toast from day #1. If you don’t know about this issue in depth – on what philosophical basis do you make a decision?
Now your argument takes a big philosophical pounding at this point. You’re essentially saying stop all the voodoo hysteria and trust the science. Let’s be rational.
Well you obviously don’t on global warming. You regularly say we have to air alternative points of view. So where are the GM sceptic, contrarian and denialist posts. Surely we need equal time for both. Don’t worry that the literature volume for GM is huge in comparison to the against literature.
But THAT science is no good they’ll scream. But how does Mr and Ms Jill and Joe average work it out. All too hard isn’t it. SO why change things – also the anti-AGW line. Let’s just keep doing what we’ve been doing.
So we should trust the establishment literature on GM should we? Well you guys don’t trust the establishment literature on AGW. It’s all a big conspiracy and a gravy train. Well gee perhaps GM technology is too?? Can’t have one CSIRO division being angels and one out of control can we?
So can’t have it both ways. Dissent is healthy Jen. The technique of course would not be to win outright – greenies need to just pound away every day creating uncertainty – just make it look like the science is still VERY unsettled. Anti-AGW rule 101.
And horror of horrors. Don’t some of these companies come from Europe. As the blog knows you can’t trust Europeans. Some are even spivs.
The expiry of the ban in 2008 leaves the “unsaid possibility” of just legislating that’s it’s OK. But gee that wouldn’t be very libertarian would it. Sounds like totalitarian state rule. Wow neo-marxists telling us what we have to eat now !!
What is common between anti-AGW and GM issues though is big money. And really this is what it’s all about in lobbyist HQ. A gravy train for lobbyists?
Meanwhile Mum’s still not sure about that milk and not of the above discussion moved here one step closer to working it out. So be very worried, be very very safe and say NO ??
The journalist involved is either lazy or a green shill or both.
MAdGE is not “a newly formed coalition.” It’s been around for years.
And if you want to look at studies, there’s volumes out there that say milk from cows causes everything from diabetes to colitis to cancer to fill-in-the-blank.
These are mostly “green” studies, by the way. But they’re the green animal activists, who claim cows are “raped” in order to produce milk.
Bottom line, greens don’t want you to have milk, or energy, or any more money than it takes to pay taxes.
Luke suggests it’s wrong to “stop all the voodoo hysteria and trust the science.”
That’s totally weird. Then he suggests, “Let’s be rational.”
But the rationality he suggests regarding cow fodder includes:
education
psychology
recycled water
the corporations
medicinal drugs
heart attack
stroke
global warming
big conspiracy
gravy train
…and so forth.
Luke has only this much right:
“The technique of course would not be to win outright – greenies need to just pound away every day creating uncertainty – just make it look like the science is still VERY unsettled.”
That’s the standard greenie technique, and as you can see from Luke’s litany above, he’s doing it.
Not very well, I might add. At least, not well enough to get on the Greenpeace payroll.
“There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products.”
This outright falsehood is disconcertingly the strong suit of groups like this. Your readers may be interested in the attached paper, freely downloadable from the AgBios website.
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/02-232-001.pdf
And of course you and your contributors would have seen David Tribe’s comments on the >100 papers on the safety of GM food and feed.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html
Unease with something one doesn’t understand is understandable, and acceptable, but falsehood and distortion isn’t.
Try reading again Schiller with your eyes open this time. Did you finish primary school English?
But if this was AGW we’d wave around the CSIRO GM study that was stopped
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Monsanto-CSIRO-Peas18nov05.htm
and every drug withdrawn from the market. As we know with contrarian campaigning – one unfavourable result neutralises 150 favourable results. And all those papers were done by people on bit fat salaries paid by sympathetic causes. A gravy train of vested interest. Some were even EUROPEANS !! (or had European genetics).
Let’s have open minds and let dissenters have more than their say. Actually make it EQUAL say. No MORE THAN EQUAL say. Let’s not persecute the non-believers.
Luke,
Schiller can read.
And I must say I think your comparison between AGW and GM to be misguided – at least what you assume to be why someone like myself supports one issue (GM) and sometimes doubts claims in the other area (AGW).
There are many things I have no opinion on because I don’t believe I have any expertise in the area. In other areas, for example aboriginal health issues, I may have a strong opinion, but will not comment publicly because I have no first hand experience or expertise and have not spent any time ‘checking data’ etcetera.
If a mother is to comment publicly about ‘GM milk’ then there would be an expectation that she has done some reading and thinking and checking?
OK – I retract – pls replace “you” with “they/them”.
Mum may have done lots of reading though and still be a GM Milk sceptic.
from what I have seen Schiller can read and type, but actually has a very limited ability to understand wither what he reads or what he types… which is beside the point I know, but fairly valid I feel.
Surely there is significant commercial risk from GM as a facilitator of increasing the concentration food production market power?
The Neo-cons, if true to the truth of their ideology should be up in arms about creating two tiered markets, barriers to entry etc etc. Surely free markets and fierce competition is the cornerstone of a healthy economy/market
ps: Anon – none of your links were to a peer reviewed paper saying drinking milk from cows fed GM feed is hunky dorey so not sure how you have falsified a claim they don’t exist. If I have missed something in your link, please direct more closely…
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Heartbreak-In-The-Heartland21jul02.htm
either this is an elaborate lie (which seems doubtful) or reveals a pretty important commercial side effect of GM
Anthony, It would be fair to say that most of it is an “elaborate lie”. Percy Schmeiser makes a number of untrue accusations in his statements.
The first being that he has bred his own canola for 50 years. 50 years ago, canola did not exist. The crop was known as rapeseed and could not be used for human consumption because of erucic acid in the oil and could not be used extensively for animal feed because of glucosinolates in the seed. University of Manitoba scientists created canola in the 1970s after an extensive breeding program to nearly eliminate erucic acid and glucosinolates. It would be simply impossible for a farmer to do this without specialised equipment to measure erucic acid and glucosinolates. The best farmers can do is select for agronomic traits and they are not particularly good at that. In addition, the Canadian Federal Court found that he had bought new canola seed in 1993, only 5 years before, to plant on his whole farm, giving a lie to the claims of having bred his own variety for 50 years.
Secondly, Percy Schmeiser’s comments about the court case are wrong. You can read the judgement here http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html . It was the court that found it didn’t matter how the seed got on to the land, not Monsanto. The court found that Percy Schmeiser had deliberately treated a good 3 acres of canola in 1997 with Roundup, harvested the seed from that area and used this to plant 1000 acres of canola in 1998. When tested, the seed turned out to be 95 to 98% Roundup Ready.
Thirdly, farmers in Canada are not using 6 to 10 times more chemical on their HT canola fields. In fact the Canola Council of Canada commissioned a survey in 1999, which found that growers using transgenic canola were using slightly less herbicide than those growing conventional canola http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo4.htm#4.4.1 .
I could go on. For more of Schmeiser’s claims set against reality http://www.biotech-info.net/roush_schmeiser.html .
Corporations are in the business of selling product. They can only sell the product if it has value to the consumer. Of course, they are in the business of making as much profit as they possibly can, but Schmeiser’s claims are simply nonsense.
“It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don’t want GM foods.”
One interesting statistic thats emerged is the long trend in erosion of food reserves toward record current low levels of world food reserves.
See eg.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/lowest-food-supplies-in-50-or-100-years.html
Other events that may lead to worrying continuation of this annual draw down in grain reserves is the increasing use of maize for biofuel and rapeseed for biodiesel in the US and EU. This is currently putting extra demands on farming outputs, leading to high grain prices and shipments of Canadian (GM) oilseeds to the EU to burn in EU diesel cars.
China is one country saying that’s diversion of cropping to biofuel may be crazy
Thus the next year or so may lead to a revision of the widespread perception that we have “plenty of food”, and that rising food and feed prices don’t really matter. It may even trim the recent irrational exuberance in biofuel markets.
One good outcome though, is farmer incomes may rise.
GMO Pundit
Re Anthony’s Elaborate lie.
Read some more at
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/fantastic-percys-furphys-fly-again.html
. Ill think you’ll then realise that it the former rather than the latter interpretation.
In any case, The Canadian courts keep on throwing Percy’s case out, after several appeals. Either he’s got lousy lawyers or a poor case, or both.
Mum is going to pay a lot more for milk in the future … so will Luke. And the fact of the matter is this. There is only one deflationary technology available to Australia and the world that can now help to address runaway food inflation and food insecurity, and whether you like to admit it or not, that is transgenic technology or GMs.
The organic movement have been targeting young nursing mums for some time now, a soft target. When you read some of the stuff you would frightened to walk outside; Its not what you know its what you dont know that is disturbing, much like the immunisation scare.
Its the reliance on fear that is scary.
Anthony makes a good point.
He says, “Surely there is significant commercial risk from GM as a facilitator of increasing the concentration food production market power?”
Which means he, like others who pretend to be “green,” are actually wound up over something else.
Anthony, go away and do some cheer-leading at a neo-Marxist website.
Schiller, if you knew anything about economics you would know that classical and neo-classical economics rely on the assumption that competition exists and that competition delivers optimal outcomes. Therefore anything which aggregates market power is not a good thing, which is why monopoly industries have been largely regulated for some period of time.
Ant hony,
Your outdated conception of economics relies on an idealized model–it doesn’t take into consideration the lies that neo-Marxists are willing to obtrude into the marketplace in order to disrupt capitalism and to encourage the rise of a different social order.
Catch a clue.
Here, too, the Greenies have fallen silent.
At a low level, they perhaps sense the gathering storm of fact and reason which portends to crush their natterings conclusively.