what about GM crops meant to reduce the application of pesticides, which have adverse effects on marine biology as well as health effects in humans? Or crops designed to be more drought-resistant? The idea that 'holding GM crops back has no downside' isn't right - if these could potentially benefit food security in third world countries, or reduce the use of dangerous chemicals, then holding them back will perpetuate these problems.

Can you explain hoe GM crops reduce the application of pesticides? Yes, GM cotton, apart from its disastrous effects on the Indian sub-continent is designed to subdue the boll weevil - but no other GM crop does so. Indeed, in some 20 years of genetic modification about all that GM does - as opposed to what is promised by the biotech industry gut so far has failed to eventuate - is allow farmers to use as much glyphosate on their crops as they wish - with predictable results.

"My major issue with Mansanto's range of plants that are resistant to their herbicides and pesticides is that we are already causing great damage to our ocean resources and increased use of pesticides and herbicides is not going to help that problem."

Glyphosate-resistant engineered crops are not just resistant to Monsanto-brand glyphosate, they're resistant to cheap generic glyphosate from any other manufacturer equally.

Replacing certain selective herbicides such as atrazine which are more toxic and more environmentally concerning with relatively non-toxic glyphosate is environmentally beneficial.

"GM cotton, apart from its disastrous effects on the Indian sub-continent"

Disastrous effects, like what?

In answer to your previous post - why do you think it would be bad business to put GM on your product? If you closely follow some of the studies done on GM products - Pustzai et al - there are very good reasons to avoid them.

As for GM crops avoiding weed immunity, once again, if you follow developments the oposite is the cae - so called 'superweeds' immune to glyphosate are now confounding farmers and biotechs alike.

As for 'health risk of organic and non-organic foods we found to be n an equal level' suggest, once again, delve into the literature. Far from 'health risks' as the organic industry becomes wealthier and is able to fund research the exact opposite is being found: considerable health benefits for humans added to the environmental benefits for the land

As superweeds are indeed a growing concern, that is why people are developing crop rotations instead of outright trying to strongarm and create an entire field of GM crops. It's almost like the logic behind how antibiotics work on bacteria - the difference is in bacteria you shouldn't stop your dosage till you've overcome it.

In the case of GM crops, you minimize the likelihood of superweeds appearing by making the weaker weeds seem like the more capable strategy by having a plot of land without engineered defenses.

For the health risks, I've found the contrary in the literature. The more people delve into organic research, there seems to be just as much health benefits and environmental costs in either method.

I think the extremes in both organic/non-organic and GM/Non-GM have shown me anything, it's that if an avenue of research/development is pursued then one can find:
A) Damning information for the opposite
B) Damning information for the path one is developing
C) Technological advancements and improvement in efficiency for the path one is developing

End of the day, there will be inefficiencies/issues/conspiracies/controversies surrounding a new potential field of research and development. There is just as much potential in developing GM goods if there is investment. Old research and findings quickly become out of date with the advent of new scientific models and tech, and using outdated literature such as Puzstai's work on GM foods around the year 2000 is not a powerful weapon to outline the risks of GM foods compared to the technology/discoveries on hand in this decade.

Genetically manipulated (GM) broad-acre crops are not the boom industry portrayed by the GM industry. In 1996 Monsanto launched four GM crops – soy, corn, canola and cotton – with only two traits – herbicide tolerance and inbuilt insect toxins. GM sugarbeet is also now grown in the USA. This is a poor performance after 30 years and the investment of $45 billion by taxpayers and industry. The empty promises of drought and salt tolerant crops, and more nutritious, healthier or longer shelf life foods, will not arrive soon, if ever. The industry-booster Prof Rick Roush the fixation of nitrogen in grains will arrive in the distant future or never, though it was promised in the 1980s by former CSIRO Plant Industry Head and Chief Scientist, Jim Peacock.

The reason is clear: GM techniques are crude and inexact and only capable of cutting single gene traits between organisms. For instance, the following informed comments on single vs multigenic traits suggest that GM techniques cannot deliver on most of their promises.

http://theconversation.edu.au/top-five-myths-about-genetic-modification-2664 “GM technologies are generally only suitable for the single gene traits, not complex multigenic ones. Over time, GM may contribute to factors such as grain yield and drought resistance as we learn more about the basic biology underpinning these traits and identify the key genes to optimise.” Richard Richards, Chief Research Scientist Plant Industry at CSIRO, and

Weekly Times, Beef CRC chopped, 11/9/11 “… the dramatic breeding and selection advances (that mapping the beef genome sequence) promised have been difficult to achieve because hundreds, even thousands, of interacting genes control important production traits like growth rate, feed efficiency and meat quality - not the handful that researchers had originally believed.” Dr Heather Burrow, CEO Beef CRC

You clearly have no idea of how long breeding takes.

Even standard breeding programs for relatively simple improvements take decades. Start talking about entire new traits and you can take a generation. GM only cuts a bit of time off that breeding program as genes are more quickly identified and there is less trial and error in selection. You still have to do a lot of the standard breeding practices and GM also has safety testing and other rigours applied that means 30 years and several successful traits later is actually very good.

The internationally accepted "Agriculture at a Crossroads", reports on the good prospects of feeding the world using agro-ecological systems and processes. See: http://www.agassessment.org/ I'd prefer public R&D resources to be spent in this direction, rather than on GM which has not delivered on most of its promises and probably cannot. Meanwhile, the GM crops that exist are merely propping up the 'get bigger or get out" industrial agribusiness commodity farming model focused on trade and exports. A company can spend its dollars as it chooses but exploiting public expertise and resources for profit through Private Public Partnerships, as Bayer, Dow, Dupont and Monsanto are allowed to do, is unconscionable. For instance, the federal government's National Enabling Technologies Strategy (NETS) that promotes GM and nanotechnology is a mis-allocation of scarce resources.

With oil and phosphates dwindling, water and fertile soils getting scarcer, and the climate changing, we need to transition soon away from business as usual and get sustainable farming systems in place to feed, house and clothe this and future generations. GM is a has-been.

Which is completely irrelevant to the points I was addressing. You wanted to claim that GM hadn't done anything, I pointed out that the reality of breeding programs has always been long term. You then carry on about modern agriculture, which shows your bias is against agriculture and the reality of trying to produce food to feed 7 billion people (and rising). GM is just one tool in the breeding tool box that will allow improvements in agriculture. I suggest you look into breeding and what is involved, because it is clear from your post you are currently uninformed on the topic.

If you want to avoid the "get bigger" reality of agricultural business, then I suggest you start paying more for your food and demanding better farm gate returns for all farmers. The cost price squeeze is what drives up sizing of farms, because the relative commodity prices received have been going down for 40 years, while the input prices have been going up and the farmer's proportion of end produce sale price has decreased. Stop being part of the problem with your misdirected complaints and admonishments to agriculture and the people who feed you.

The point is, Tim, that industrial agribusiness is not sustainable because its resource base - oil, phosphates, fertile soil, water, etc. - are declining and climate change is kicking in. We need a new paradigm. Hear another vision for future food production, on Bush Telegraph 23/8/12: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/08/bth_20120823.mp3

Consider, too, how the food security picture could change if we were all more careful about wasting 30% of food - 361kg per Australian pa says the National Food Plan. That's roughly 1kg per day per person which means 220 - 230,000 tonnes of food go to land fill in Australia daily - 80 million tonnes pa roughly. Rescuing and redeploying that food would be a lot better than pillaging our soils and other fragile environments to double yields by 2030 for export to Asia, as the Plan envisages.

"Industrial agribusiness"??? The term you are looking for is agribusiness, stop trying to make it sound like growing food is evil. Also your statement about sustainability is naive, as long as there is no closed loop of resources then any food production is unsustainable.

Listened to that "paradigm" and it is quite clear that the group have no idea of what agriculture is and what a farm is. The vast majority of farms are family farms. The vast majority of "corporate farms" are employing managers who live and work in the community. The reason farms have had to get bigger is because of the cost price squeeze, so unless people pay more for food, there is no way any farming will be able to "revert" to small farms (that were less productive anyway).

I could go on and on with the BS that is spouted in that interview. Suffice to say, agricultural scientists and farmers are being ignored in this discussion. David, myself, John Holmes, we're ag scientists, we work with farmers. Perhaps it is time some of these opinions spouted against agriculture were brought out to a farming community to get a reality check.

David you suggest that independent research is conducted in the EU, but aren't most GM crops and foods banned in the EU? Does this independent research suggest that GM is not yet safe? Where else is independent research conducted that is sufficiently independent that it is not influenced by Big Pharma and Big Ag?

Cherry picking the evidence again Davo? It's not fair to accuse GM-free advocates of selectively citing the literature then doing the same yourself.

I'm from HK David and would not agree as to the credibility of studies and research into GM conducted and sponsored by the Chinese govt...not what one would call independent at all!

Hi David
You mention the EU has funded extensive GM safety tests. Are you referring to the EU report "Decade of EU-funded GMO Research" 2001-2010? Of the 50 research projects discussed in this report only 10 refer to GMO safety and the majority of these are not based on long term feeding studies. They examine risk assessment, methods of testing for GM presence and consumer attitudes. Why did the EU spend 200 million on research projects that do not address safety issues?
There were a few feeding trials done but it is difficult to find out how many because the authors failed to reference specific studies to back up their claims: "instead they randomly list references to a few published studies in each chapter of the report and leave the reader to guess which statements refer to which studies". 3 of the studies in one of the projects show cause for concern over GM food: Poulsen 2007, Schroder 2007 and Kroghsbo 2008. For more details see GM foods: Myths and Truths section 3.2 http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf

Oh, so you're pro labelling then are you David? I'm glad to hear that, although I can't help but wonder why you'd be pro labelling given your ridiculous ending statement- "Food from GM crops is at least as safe as traditional foods."

At least you're not calling me a luddite this time. Glad to see we've progressed a little, even if it is only baby steps.

Oh dear GOD, not again! This is meant to be a forum for independent opinions. David Tribe is the most pro GM commentator in the whole of Australia.

He calls himself "the GMO Pundit" and writes almost daily rants on the virtues of this technology- http://gmopundit.blogspot.com.au/

What is really scary is that this is the guy who is lecturing our future agricultural leaders. What hope do we have?

Totally agree James. This article is a mishmash of rubbish. It slides all over the place and pretends that we know everything about genes, how they interact with the environment and therefore we can mess around with the genome and predict precisely what has been created. Except that we can't.

It ignores the fact that GM is a technological failure - it yields the same as non-GM and causes increased use of pesticides will all the attendant problems for soil, crop, farmer and consumer health. Agroecological agriculture has raised yields by an average of 79% and helps with other issues i.e. pests, weeds, climate. http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/media/press-releases (scroll down to 22/06/2010 "Agroecology outperforms large-scale industrial farming for global food security")

It is ignored possibly because it is not patentable and doesn't fit the stereotype of science meaning high tech intervention.

Yes, James. The Franken food title and the Franken egg graphic used here also show how irrational, non-objective and biased this DiaTribe really is, despite its trappings of authority and reasonableness. The Franken reference is commonly dragged out by GM boosters in an attempt to show how stupid and alarmist we advocates of GM-free futures are. But Gene Ethics has never used the term or such images. They only serve to discredit those, like David and The Conversation, who do.

It has been recognised for a long time, long before the advent of recombinant DNA technology, that novel varieties of plants and animals that have been engineered through human labour - through artificial selection, and/or techniques like mutation breeding - represent a form of intellectual property that deserves to be protected under intellectual property law.

Legislation such as the Plant Breeder's Rights Act has been around for a long time.

Thanks Dr. Dave. We haven't used the "terminator" tag, shorthand for 'Gene Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS), for some time. The global ban agreed by most governments at the UN, within the Biosafety Protocol negotiations (that do NOT include Australia, sadly), has fortunately stopped the Monsanto-owned GURTS seed sterilisation monster. As to: "cows with bizarre zebra stripes in your own images", I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.

So you are calling Golden Rice that has given sight to people in poor nations a failure??? Excuse my incredulity at your nonsense.

The report you cite on no yield difference was from a trial that tested RR canola versus its relative in a weed free environment. So of course there was no difference, the RR gene is to aid weed control! Besides that, RR is meant to aid weed control to decrease weed burdens in a rotation, thus it isn't about the yield but about the weed control.

Then you try to compare the advances made by GM breeding versus the advances in agriculture in general. This is a logical fallacy because you are not comparing the same thing, nor are you understanding what changes have been made, need to be made and what role GM breeding can bring to this. Your bias is blinding you to the reality of agricultural science.

Also, your last claim about patentable products and the allusion to corporate agriculture is flawed. There are at least 2 new varieties that will be available shortly developed by CSIRO and DAFWA. These are public organisations, developing GM products for Australian farmers with Australian farmer research money. So it appears your claims are nothing but lies and misleading statements.

Personally I can't see what the problem is with making the next generation of the seed sterile. That's already the case for hybrid seeds which many farmers already use, where they need to buy new seed every season, so it doesn't change anything there, and it completely eliminates the need for any legal enforcement of unlicensed use of the seed, and it completely eliminates any debate about "contamination", because the spreading of the seed outside of where its sown and the unlicensed saving and replanting of the seed are both impossible.

There is no Golden Rice in the global food supply. If and when there is, we'll see if it lives up to its promises.

The UN recognises everyone's human right, to a nourishing diet of diverse foods so we can all be healthy and achieve our full potential. So, in my view, it is our responsibility to remedy this human rights issue by ensuring that everyone (rich or poor) has access to fruits and vegetables which are loaded with the micronutrients that food fortification claims to provide.

A leading R&D organisation in food fortification HarvestPlus: http://www.harvestplus.org says: "Micronutrient malnutrition, or hidden hunger, afflicts billions of people. It is caused by a lack of micronutrients in the diet." And HarvestPlus knows the real cause and solution to the global scourge of malnutrition when they correctly say: "Fruits, vegetables, and animal products are rich in micronutrients, but these foods are often not available to the poor. Their daily diet consists mostly of a few inexpensive staple foods, such as rice or cassava, which have few micronutrients. The consequences, in terms of malnutrition and health, are devastating and can result in blindness, stunting, disease, and even death." And “The WHO states that limitations to food fortification may include human rights issues.”

But HarvestPlus does not envisage tackling the real problem of access to diverse foods at all. Instead it seeks to reduce hidden hunger and provide micronutrients through the staple foods that poor people eat by genetically manipulating key staple food crops to produce higher levels of micronutrients. Biofortification is not, and does not intend to be, a solution to the core problem of access to a good diverse, balanced, healthy diet. They concede: "Although it is recognized that food fortification alone will not combat this deficiency, it is a step towards reducing the prevalence of these deficiencies and their associated health conditions."

And there may be insurmountable problems with fortification as: "Fortification of nutrients in foods may deliver toxic amounts of nutrients to an individual and also cause its associated side effects. ... the potential that the fortified products will still not be a solution to nutrient deficiencies amongst low income populations who may not be able to afford the new product and children who may not be able to consume adequate amounts."

Thus, the money poured into fortifying food staples and other partial fixes for global malnutrition is a gross mis-allocation of public resources and effort, as they will not ensure that people's human rights to food are met. The available resources should be directed to meeting the real need!!

As to the independence of corporatised public institutions, CSIRO is profoundly compromised by being required to get a large percentage of its cash (originally 40% but may be 60% now?) CSIRO Plant Industry and the Cotton Foundation developed GM cotton for Australia. Monsanto (which chipped in only $20 million to the R&D) reaps the big bucks ($315/ha for Bollgard, last I heard) because its patented Bt and RR genes were incorporated into our varieties. CSIRO Plant Industry gets paid off with over $5 million pa. Bayer funds CSIRO's online 'GM education' program online. They are in the pockets of their patrons, so being a grower and taxpayer funded R&D organisation, such as CSIRO, GRDC, etc., is no guarantee of fairness to farmers or the public.

You answer with a conspiracy theory, seriously? Research funding to an independent organisation is a payoff? Research funding that is only a minor part of the research budget of the organisation and relevant projects??

Your arguments on biofortification assume that poor people have access to these other foods that make biofort unnecessary, are familiar enough with them to eat them, that these foods will form a large enough part of the diet to increase nutrition levels. The WHO and other organisations have recognised the need for staple food fortification. Why else would there be BOTH conventional and GM breeding programs to develop fortified foods?

Golden rice has been trialled, and is now available as far as I was aware: http://www.goldenrice.org/

David, you continue to ignore my question on labelling. Are you for or against it? I know how you like to dodge the tricky questions but I think it's a fair question and warrants an answer.

Also (and this one's for you too Tim Scanlon), I would be interested in your comments on this report by the Indian Ministry of Agriculture. This article- http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/article3800463.ece provides the comments of the Chairman of the Standing Committee. This is one of the most comprehensive analysis of GM technology I have seen and it has only just been released.

There are many comments (in the article alone) worth noting, but this final question/comment was particularly telling for me-

Q: How was unanimity achieved on this sensitive subject among the 31 committee members representing different political parties and ideologies?

A: We wanted to make an objective report. We invited those in favour of GM crops including Monsanto and those who were not. We visited five States including Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. We examined 18,000 documents 1,000 memoranda and 56 witnesses. The panel members met 100 farmers’ widows and heard from lakhs of farmers their plight in each State. The arguments of those against were stronger. That is why the entire committee is unanimous. There was not a single amendment or dissent.

The full report can be viewed here. If you are truly an independent commentator on this topic I would appreciate your comments on how a parliamentary committee made up of 31 members from across all of politics can look at a subject and draw such a damning and unanimous view?

For those interested the full report can be viewed here- http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Agriculture/GM_Report.pdf

It is truly extraordinary to see anyone support the golden rice scam - a trojan horse if ever there was one. The approximate cost of meeting VAD annually using supplements is about 8 cents a year. Not only is it inexpensive, but supplements, like vaccines, have established distribution networks that allow the vaccine to reach those in need. Growing a medicinal rice (assuming - big assumption - that it works) is simply a ludicrous way to approach the problem of VAD. The best solution - and one that many people in VAD problem countries are working on - is to increase the diversity of crops in rice growing areas to include leafy vegetables. There are programs in Iran, China, India etc. that are based on broadening the foods grown in those areas. In China, for instance, irrigated rice fields are home to leafy vegetables, fish and ducks. Same in Iran. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on such as scam is a disgrace - and always has been (and David, as I said to you before, I don't know the vit a content of a serving of rice - ask the Greenpeace science unit at the Uni of Exeter - happy to provide the contacts, but regardless, golden rice is a golden calf).

That is a completely misleading and erroneous statement. Median wages in the countries you are talking about would find 8 cents a large amount of money to find. As such aid programs fund and provide these supplements. The entire reason why there are breeding programs (not just GM, conventional as well) is because aid agencies were having problems reaching enough of the population. They wanted it in the food supply so that the food was being grown locally and distributed through the community and reaching the entire population.

Also citing Greenpeace's claims on this matter is laughable. They have led attacks against the science that they claim they need to inform the public. For example, the food safety trials they wanted on GM, they slashed them. For example the chemical safety report they wanted, they rejected it and wrote their own, they even rang up an expert I know and insulted them because the expert cited the science on the chemical in question and wouldn't allow GP to misrepresent their science. But of course you would know that wouldn't you, being the political advisor of Greenpeace, and trying to hide your vested interests by labelling yourself an Extispicist - what are the animal entrails telling you about science, not much, didn't think so.

Firstly Tim, I no longer work for Greenpeace and haven't for over 6 months. The issue of median wages is probably not relevant as these programs are generally a function of aid - but assuming that poor countries have to pay for dealing with VAD, tell me where they are going to get the money to pay for an entirely new distribution system (and one that will threaten export markets) for golden rice. I asked this of Phillipine scientists and they had no clue how this supposed solution was actually going to be distributed in the real world. I didn't cite a Greenpeace claims - I simply said I don't know (in response to a comment from David) what the vitamin A levels are in golden rice and that he should speak to the science unit and have the argument with them. Personally, I don't care - the entire golden rice project is a disgraceful sham and always has been. By the way the CSIRO trials were not safety trials - they were commercial trials and for CSIRO to be involved in the commercialisation of ge wheat demonstrates what a compromised organisation CSIRO plant industries has become.

Your former colleagues destroyed more than one trial Jeremy. And you are still promoting the Greenpeace ideology and pretending not to have a vested interest (i.e. I bet you are still a member of GP). And extispicy isn't a science, it is superstitious nonsense.

Also please retract your entirely false and ad-hominem attack on me. I am a scientist, not a religious fundamentalist, I am not advocating GM based on ideology, in fact I don't advocate all GM products because that ignores the fact that each product is different. And whilst doing your attack you have not addressed the key points of my argument, but instead distracted from them and used anecdotes (what one Philippine scientist knows is not relevant unless they are in charge of distribution). You have failed to address the fact that conventional breeding programs are developing staple foods with increased Vit A. You have failed to address the fact that Vit A doses were found to not be reaching enough people and that this lead to the idea of breeding Vit A boosted staple foods. And you have also just made a very strong accusation against the premier science organisation in this country based upon biased perception and ignorance, rather than looking at the actual quality of the research and science performed.

Everyone has a human right to a nutritious, balanced diet of fresh fruits and grains to keep them healthy and functioning well. "Vit A boosted staple foods" do little more than misappropriate funds needed to deliver on this human rights goal. See my more detailed post elsewhere on this site. I'd welcome your scientific comment on this conundrum of social priorities and scientific orthodoxy in conflict.

David

You told us: "The simple answer is -- Don't buy their products if you don't like them. There are alternatives."

Knowing full well how difficult "finding alternatives" is. There is no or very little adequate labelling, yet when asked if you are against labelling you try to slide away with claims that this request is "not on topic".
Then don't make snide comments.

Overall watching your responses to contributors' queries, I gain the impression of someone who is not interested in people's concerns regarding GE food, that you are in some way better informed than everyone who has the temerity to challenge you.

Apart from promoting GE food - why was your article posted? - if you can't handle the questions, then provide someone who can, someone who can answer questions without overreacting.

Hi David,
You know MADGE has gone into the science of GM. Here is a page about why GM is different to ordinary breeding and cannot be compared to naturally occurring changes to DNA : http://www.madge.org.au/what-ge-or-gm-food
We also debunked the list of studies on your website you claimed showed the safety of GM:http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/MR-phantom-studies-280109.pdf
We showed the inadequacies of the studies used by FSANZ to approve GM RR canola: http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/Rev-GM-RR-Canola-Animal-Studies-for-Tony-Burke.pdf We also showed this canola was approved on false grounds as Monsanto could not identify one of the new proteins it had created:http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/madge-release-2008-11-14.pdf

Likening biological processes and interactions in nature to genetic manipulation in laboratories is disingenuous. It is similar to the PR trick the nuclear industry tries to pull. They claim nuclear power reactors are safe as there is a natural nuclear fission reactor - a uranium deposit where self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions have occurred, a phenomenon discovered in 1972 at Oklo in Gabon, Africa, by French physicist Francis Perrin.

David - I think many of us would not worry about a gene from one variety of wheat being put into another, but when we heard about a fish gene being put into a tomato ...... then you think, 'what the hell are they doing?' It's too unnatural to easily accept.

Has always had me puzzled, when pro GM people claim that ALL their GE is the same as we have done for centuries - bred for required characteristics, except that the process is faster.

The combination of DNA from animal into vegetable (and quite probably vice versa) will never occur with traditional breeding practices.

Nor can we expect to know, at this point in time, the ramifications of release of such genetic combinations into the natural ecosystem. And I hope we never do. As others have noted, we have already done significant damage with known applications such as cane toads.

David, I wouldn’t be so quick to declare Jeffrey Smith sprouts false stories. Rather I would say Jeffrey exposes (what appears to be deliberate) misrepresentations in Chassy’s and your critique of Genetic Roulette in articles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/biotech-propaganda-cooks_b_675957.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/throwing-biotech-lies-at_b_802862.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/throwing-biotech-lies-at_b_802872.html.

I think Jeffrey speaks volumes about the disingenuousness of Chassy’s and your critique of Genetic Roulette in the final section of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/throwing-biotech-lies-at_b_802872.html under the heading “What's Chassy and Tribe's real motive?” I’m sure you are familiar with this.

I also think the following points made by GMWatch puts more nails in the coffin of Chassy’s and your critique of Genetic Roulette:

“It's a collection of scientific studies - many of them peer reviewed and published - showing negative findings on GM crops and foods. There are also cautionary statements by conservative, careful, and experienced scientists, based on solid data… As Tribe and Chassy want to rubbish Jeffrey Smith's book, they also have to rubbish the work of the scientists who carried out these studies, along with the judgment of the editors and peer reviewers of the scientific journals where the papers were published. Tribe and Chassy will also have to prove that all the scientists within the US government who expressed warnings about the dangers of GMOs, and who are quoted in Jeffrey's book, were out of their minds when they spoke or wrote those words.”

And of course there were many other points made by Jeffrey Smith in his presentation to the Connecticut legislative task force on labelling that you did not respond to such as the conflicts of interest and corruption within regulatory bodies, the secrecy within the GM industry, the crude nature of the genetic modification and cloning process, the massive increase in allergies, infertility, digestive problems, etc. that have occurred since GM was introduced into the food supply, the multitude of reports of health improvements of both humans and animals who have swapped from diets containing GM to GM-free diets, environmental problems with GM crops, etc.

Jeffrey has done an excellent job of compiling information on GM from sources including independent scientists (many of whom have been fired or defunded, silenced, vilified, intimidated, had property damaged and been subjected to physical attack by the GM industry as revealed in the documentary, Scientists Under Attack), doctors, patients and farmers. As a researcher and compiler of information, it’s largely irrelevant that Jeffrey is not a scientist. And not all scientific understanding and knowledge resides with people wearing lab coats. God gave us a brain so we can research and analyse things for ourselves. I may not be a scientist, but I have acquired a good understanding of incredible complexity of genetics, which confirms to me that GMOs should never be created. For example, a typical cell can have billions of DNA units, which form to make extremely complicated, intricate and varied biomechanical machinery. The biomechanical machinery performs very complex functions including cell reproduction, the generation and consumption of energy by the cell, the production of correct quantities of correctly built proteins for which that particular cell was designed to produce, its ability to interact synergistically with other cells in the organism and many other functions. So to think it's possible to shoot DNA with a gene gun or virally attack it in order to insert a foreign gene and then clone the result without there being unintended consequences is illogical.

Furthermore, the amazing complexity of genetics destroys evolution theory, which genetic engineers use to justify their manipulations. The following are some examples of documentaries, lectures and articles proving the impossibility of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77xr-OgizBg, 9 part series starting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y55p1Qg9Bs, 2 part series starting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9ue1P50L48, 4 part series starting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35fulERIUnU, http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-uncovered and http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update. Since creation is a 100% certainty, who are we to think we can play God with DNA using limited human knowledge of genetics and crude manipulation processes?

Jerry Bergman PhD covers variations in DNA and DNA mutations in the 2 part series starting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9ue1P50L48. In the case of DNA mutations, Jerry Bergman PhD reveals very, very few, if any, mutations recorded in the databases are truly beneficial for the host and no new information is being added and therefore this provides no justification for genetic engineering.

As someone with an analytical background and mind, I use probabilities and weight of evidence to form a viewpoint. And it’s statistically impossible for all the adverse evidence against GM compiled by researchers like Jeffrey Smith and the nutritional doctors that I’ve personally been in contact with to be incorrect. In fact, going by the secrecy of and the malicious attacks committed by the GM industry, the corruption within the regulatory system, and even the hatchet job Chassy and you have done on Genetic Roulette, any reasonable person could only conclude that the vast majority of the enormous amount of evidence against GM is correct. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that GM is harmful.

Thank you Ian for this comprehensive response to the lies and misinformation that David Tribe is attempting to spread in this article.

Dear editors of the Conversation. Please consider this response in detail before allowing "Dr" Tribe to write another piece on this website. When this technology is eventually shown out for the failure that it is, NO ONE in the world will look stupider than Mr Tribe. He has his entire career invested in this subject, whether or not he receives money directly from Monsanto is irrelevant. His ego will never allow him to see any criticism of biotechnology rationally.

To claim he is unbiased, quite frankly brings this entire publication into question. The fact that this guy has a position of influence in a key University is a big enough problem, without you giving him the platform to influence others under the guise of being an impartial scientist.

Given the outrage that this article has clearly (from the comments) created, it might be a good idea to go out and find a scientist on the other side of this debate. You will struggle as the money is a lot thinner on that side, but Jack Heinermann springs to mind as someone who has written decent pieces for you previously.

See here for example- https://theconversation.edu.au/why-would-australia-want-to-grow-genetically-modified-wheat-3755

Pleasure and thanks very much James.

I think it may be worth asking David Tribe if he believes the Earth is over-populated and if he would like to see a decrease in the number of humans on Earth?

If David Tribe answers this truthfully, then we may obtain the real reason why he supports GM crops.

Aris and Leblanc's work was merely one example I gave of FSANZ' dismissing some research papers that challenge their core assumption - that all genetically manipulated food products are safe to eat. FSANZ critiques are at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/gmtableofstudies.cfm

Your elucidation of FSANZ' rejections of these findings would be valuable, especially on their response to Prescott's findings about CSIRO's field pea.

I thought the paper by Zhang et al., "Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA," Cell Research, doi:10.1038/cr.2011.158, 2012 found at: http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v22/n1/full/cr2011158a.html would also have been worth a FSANZ critique, as well as other papers, but they said no.

In your learned opinion, why is FSANZ so selective in critiquing those who challenge its assumptions? And why will FSANZ not apply the same critical questioning of methodology etc. to the papers that applicants submit in support of their claims that GM foods are as safe as conventional foods?

PS: as to ignoring the lessons of earlier work, recall that TJ Higgins at CSIRO Plant Industry continued to develop the weevil resistant field pea with an inserted bean gene when he probably knew it would be unacceptably toxic. TJ worked in Arpad Pusztai's lab in Scotland during the 1990s so should have known that Pusztai's GM research potatoes were toxic.

Have you any comments on this David?

Mercola and his ilk are far more powerful than is acknowledged. They make a lot of money defrauding the public and then spend their ill-gotten profits trying to stop science.

Whoa. Are you two being serious? Monsanto just donated $4.2 million to this campaign. Similar amounts have come in from all of the usual suspects. It is predicted that the say no campaign will outspend the proponents of proposition 37 by 20:1.

And yet you are highlighting the one major donor on the side of the people. The 1 million Californians who want the right to decide whether or not they eat GM foods. You are ignorant beyond all belief.

Ignorant?? Actually acknowledging reality, that there is a campaign funded by pseudoscience aimed at overturning GM and other sciences, how is that ignorant? You are quick to raise one side of the argument with no comparison to the fear mongering on the other. That is you being ignorant and insulting.

Really Tim, where is the big money in this debate? And don't confuse technology - particularly that driven by big business - with science. They are entirely different creatures.

Here's how the $ pie is sliced in GM industry vs citizens, Prop 37 California USA: http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/utr/1/IUOYSATQJV/MRTZSAUDVQ/8622316146 These are official figures disclosed under state laws on prop funding.

And at least three of those supporters of Prop 37 are pedalling pseudoscience. Can tell that they don't have a sound understanding of agricultural science since they reject it in all their own products.

Unlike GM products which are force-fed to humans and animals without consent, no-one is handcuffed to Mercola’s recommended products. No-one is deprived of the right to choose. Mercola the “quack” (as you would have us believe) is a fully licensed physician, authorized to prescribe drugs and perform surgery.

Unlike multinational GM corporations, Mercola has not been charged with criminal negligence, bribery, falsifications, biopiracy, pesticide and chemical poisoning, human experiments, fatalities, health and environmental violations etc.

I haven't noticed seen anyone being held down and force fed anything, let alone GM. Needless scaremongering is not the same as the deliberate charlatan behaviour I was discussing.

A very selective red herring David. Unfortunately for you, the odd-bod "antiscience" Mercola is Mother Teresa and JC in one compared to your antiscience, recidivist felons in the biotech industry:

http://athletesagainstdowchemical.wordpress.com/dow-chemical-olympic-sponsor/

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=320#war

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/269.html

GM corporations – Truncated Summary of Violations – US EPA:

2012:

Dow AgroScience: A 17,000 kg shipment of misbranded 680 x 25 kg bags of “FORE 80 Rainshield Specialty Fungicide” - denied entry.
BASF Corporation: Illegally imported misbranded product. Penalty: $5,500.
Nufarm: Illegally imported five misbranded pesticide products. Penalty: $105,000.
Dow AgroScience: 40 x 400 kilogram bags of unregistered pesticide, 4-amino-3, 5, 6-trichloropicolinic acid – denied entry

2011:
Dow Chemicals agreed to pay $2.5 million in violation of Clean Air Act
Dupont: Stop Sale issued for potential violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
Dupont: To show cause regarding distribution and sale of Imprelis herbicide in response to widespread severe tree damage.

2010:
Monsanto: Misbranding violations related to sale and distribution of cotton seed products containing GM pesticides. Penalty, $2.5 million

2009:
Dupont: Clean Air Act violations at sulfuric acid plant. Penalty $2 million

2007:
Dupont: Clean Air Act violations. Dupont to spend at least $66 million to reduce harmful air emissions. Penalty $4.5 million

2006:
Syngenta Seeds: Selling and distributing corn seed that contained the unregistered GM pesticide Bt 10. Penalty, $1.5 million.

2004:
Dupont: EPA files new claim against Dupont for withholding results of human blood samples of individuals living near its facility in West Virginia.

There are only two global groups engaging in debate over GM products:

1) Those who would consort with known criminals

and:

2) Those who would not.

Greenpeace members were charged with one count of damaging Commonwealth property which incurred a savage penalty of $280,000. One can easily deduce who has been sabotaged by comparing a recent case in WA where a perpetrator was prosecuted for “17 charges of trespass and criminal damage to government property.” The penalty was 100 hours of community service work and compensation of $7000 to the Public Transport Authority.

Damage to “Commonwealth” property? The wheat trials are led by the commercial interests of the biotech industry and certainly not for the wealth of the commons. GP was denied FOI requests because the details were “commercial in confidence." That is despite CSIRO plus Business Partners = snouts in the public trough. Kindly advise who the corporations are in U of Melbourne’s “industry biotech collaborations.” Or is that too “commercial in confidence?”

After all wheat groups of US, Canada and Australia have agreed to work towards synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in the “new world order.” And universities are increasingly willing to enforce PVP and IPR.

The synthetic chemicals dumped on humanity by those you support in the biotech industry are now found in every living creature on earth. The chemicals have sickened, maimed and/or killed their victims and contaminated ecosystems worldwide. The irrefutable scientific evidence is shunned and obscured by lightweight sycophants whose integrity is seriously compromised by collaborating with genocidal, ecocidal greed merchants.

Your failure to acknowledge the volumes of “deferred prosecution agreements” court records and environmental catastrophes merely makes you look less credible – less trustworthy. “Agricultural scientists" - phooey.

Rachel Carson, writer, ecologist, environmentalist and marine biologist was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the highest United States civilian honor. for blowing the whistle on your associates in the biotech industry.

When Greenpeace scientists and independent experts in molecular genetics, gene expression, cell biology, pharmaceutical sciences, gene regulation, community health etc blow the whistle on your industry collaborators, we pay attention.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

To support Shirley's argument, as if glyphosate wasn't bad enough: U.S. weed resistance growing to 2,4-D herbicide: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-agriculture-weeds-idUSBRE87E13420120815

FSANZ currently has an application from DOW to allow 24D resistant crops in Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/farmers-reach-for-big-guns-as-super-weeds-refuse-to-die-20120507-1y9e2.html

The only objective FSANZ has around GMOs is to declare food contaminated with glyphosate, BT and now 24D as safe to eat. Killing you softly.

The Anti Genetic Engineering heroes are an eclectic bunch unified by their willingness to use pseudoscience for profit.

Joe Mercola, Caffeine enema advocate
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/

Jeffrey Smith, Yogic flying proponent. (Well, bouncing around on is arse while trying to levitate)
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-individuals/jeffrey-smith/

John Fagan, Vedic engineering, co-author of GM Myths and Truths
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Engineering-Solutions-Agriculture-Environment/dp/0923569189/ref=sr_1_35?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345938193&sr=1-35&keywords=John+Fagan