Genetically modified scam

[Guest guest]

Genetically modified scam JoAnn Guest Sep 06, 2005 11:08 PDT

 

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.

---

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4197

 

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technology is comparatively old fashioned and " crude " and superseded by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

jul-

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.