Guest guest Posted July 30, 2004 Report Share Posted July 30, 2004 > Genetically_modified_scam > " GM_WATCH " <info > Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:10:16 +0100 > > GM WATCH daily > http://www.gmwatch.org > --- > An excellent piece from Julie Newman, National > Spokesperson of the Network of Concerned Farmers who > looks at GM crops from an Australian farmer's > viewpoint. > --- > Genetically modified scam > > by Julie Newman > Fri Jul 30 '04 > http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=44200 & group=webcast > > Genetically modified crops are little more than a > scam. Farmers and consumers are being misled as the > truth is being modified more than the genetics. We > can not ignore risk management. Foods are not > adequately tested and yet consumer and farmer choice > will be denied. > > The hype promoting genetically modified canola crops > is little more than a scam as the truth is being > modified far more than the genetics. In all honesty > I have the right to claim that statement as I have > dedicated years of research in the GM debate > amounting to more time than one would need to obtain > a degree with honours. > > Quoting Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Director of the Institute of > Science in Society: " There is no 'anti-GM brigade'. > There are ordinary citizens angry at the lies > they've been told, and the undemocratic way in which > GM crops are foisted on them. " > > GM canola is not going to feed the hungry world but > the intention is to feed the demands of hungry > multinationals with their greedy eyes on the unique > patent rights, corporate control of the foodchain > and the ability to manipulate plants to require > overuse of their particular brand of chemicals. > > Remember the one about how GM crops yield so much > better and our industry will be doomed without them? > Well the reality is that all evidence shows that GM > canola yields less than conventional Australian > varieties. > > There is more evidence to believe the latest > advances in Non-GM biotechnology will continue to > feed the world more than adequately. GM technology > is comparatively old fashioned and " crude " and > superseded by advances in non-GM biotechnology that > will allow quick and efficient trait selection in > future crops. > > Perhaps you remember the claims of how GM food is > rigorously tested by our regulatory process and is > deemed to be safe? Sorry to disappoint consumers but > our regulatory process does not test GM foods, they > rely on the GM industry themselves to provide this > data and there appears to be no long term food > testing beyond 28 days. It is worth remembering the > quote from Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of > corporate communications. " Monsanto should not have > to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food... Our > interest is in selling as much of it as possible " . > > Australian consumers must be wondering why our > regulatory process approved Roundup Ready canola > when the EU rejected it claiming there was > insufficient explanation to why liver weights > increased by 17%. > > Other consumers must be doubting the validity of the > sacking of Arpad Puztai after he went public with > his scientific data revealing GM foods he tested > caused smaller organ weights in developing animals. > After all Monsanto was found to donate 140,000 > pounds to the university in the same week. > > It is no wonder the majority of consumers worldwide > do not want to be guinea pigs. > > Of course we have been reassured that consumers will > be able to have a choice as coexistence is possible > and farmers can market as non-GM if they want to. > Wrong again! It has been proven that farmers can not > avoid unwanted GM contamination in our crops. Rather > than expect the GM grower to contain their product, > the GM industry expected farmers to all market on > the consumer rejected GM market to remove opposition > and deny consumer choice. > > For those of us farmers wanting to market on the > consumer preferred " GM-free " market we were expected > to tolerate the costs and liabilities involved. We > were expected to break the law and market > contaminated produce after signing guarantees and > indemnities declaring no contamination. > > The coexistence plans were based around definitions > that were illegal yet it was announced in Senate > that industry had prepared coexistence plans. The GM > industry may have accepted them but those not > wanting to grow GM crops certainly did not. Why > should we accept contamination of a product that is > not accepted by consumers and markets and why should > we accept liability for a product we do not want? > > Almost everything we have been told by the pro-GM / > anti risk management activists is based on > misleading information. > > If the GM companies believed their own propaganda, > they would not be refusing to participate in > independent trials and they would not be refusing to > accept liability for the consequences of GM > introduction. > > Why would our current Federal government be > supporting such a scam? America is experiencing > difficulties with exporting GM contaminated produce > and subsidies to farmers have gone up in direct > proportion to the area of GM crops grown. A farmer > recently said that our current Federal government > cares more about President Bush than the Australian > bush. Perhaps the support for GM is because our > government has made a promise to US to " level the > playing field " and remove our uncontaminated GM-free > status and deny consumers a choice. > > Farmers are demanding accountability. It is time we > looked seriously at the truth behind claims of > benefits and if we can manage the risks involved > with GM food crops. At the very least some of the > identified risks should be managed. > > 1. Prior to the commercial introduction of GM crops, > GM proponents must demonstrate widespread industry > support for the canola stewardship > principles/protocols and proof of widespread > acceptance. No sector of industry must be faced with > unmanageable problems and no sector of industry must > be faced with additional costs and liabilities > without approval from that sector of industry. > Although the GTGC claim they have had approval, the > motion moved by this committee was that they pass > the problems on to another committee that has no > mandate to deal with the problems and has not even > met yet. Unless changed, this means that the GM > company was to be entirely responsible for the crop > management plans and they have no intention to allow > non-GM farmers to market on the opposition GM-free > market. > > 2. The definitions of the Canola Industry > Stewardship Principles should at least comply with > law. The ACCC and independent lawyers have confirmed > that in order to make a positive label claim of > either " non-GM " or " GM-free " , there must be no > contamination present, not 0.9% as claimed. > > 3. An end point royalty on a major patent means that > fees could be deducted when farmers deliver the > product. We should ensure there is a safeguard to > prevent low amounts of unintentional contamination > triggering a deduction of Monsanto's patent user > fees from a non-GM farmers income. It should not be > up to the farmers to sue Monsanto to recover our > fees which is a far worse scenario than in Canada > where Monsanto must sue the grower. > > 4. If GM varieties are accepted, all farmer or > government funded plant breeding projects must not > be able to withold non-GM varieties from farmers. > eg. All new crop varieties can not have " deals " with > Monsanto where the Roundup Ready gene construct is > applied which would make the new variety GM without > the same variety being available without this RR > gene in the form of a non-GM variety. This would > maintain our independence for our own research and > development funding away from the corporate > controlling influence of patented varieties. > > 5. As a matter of priority, there must be legal > changes to ensure liability for GM crops is imposed > on the GM company that owns the product, not on the > non-GM growers that do not want to grow it. > > We need to take advantage of statewide moratoriums > on GM canola and get the rules right. As with any > scam, the truth is coming out but will our Federal > government wipe the fairy dust from their eyes and > address the risk? > > Julie Newman > National Spokesperson > Network of Concerned Farmers > www.non-gm-farmers.com > address: P.O. Box 6 Newdegate 6355 phone: 08 > 98711562 > julie > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.