Not a one-off, not just one farm and not just India Jane.

Have a squizz at the Cornell SRI site for an idea of what and where they're working...http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/

But you are right in that feeding enormous urban centres requires a range of social and economic infrastructure that must be considered as an integral part of the production process.

The nice thing about SRI though is that it provides a substantial increase in yields with reduced inputs and associated costs. Doesn't bugger up the soil as much either - in fact in combination with the sort of things being done in Bihar, soil productivity and fertility actually improves over time. In particular there is a substantial reduction in the water wasted in flood planting and paddy techniques. You can do it where water is a limiting factor in cropping by more conventional techniques.

So SRI is not as you say a silver bullet - but it is a nice shiny weapon to have in the arsenal - particularly when we're looking a changing rainfall patterns and the like.

As for feeding urban centres - that comes down to urban agriculture I suspect ... in the absence of an affordable transport and distribution system.

By the way Bihar is anything but "ideal" farming country - the largest export from the region is unskilled day laborers - Biharis provide a good proportion of the raw muscle power (men, women and children) that is building the Indian economic miracle... all on 80 rups a day (that's about $2.20) ... less after you've bribed the contractors to get work for the day.

Bihar has regular famines and crop failures and one can see little vans driving around the villages buying children. It's a tough place to be born and this is probably the best bit of news they've had for a century. Don't just dismiss it as hippy nonsense - it works if you are poor and often hungry.

sorry ... buggered up the link: http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/

ASs a matter of fact Tim i haven't got respect for 'modern farming' if by modern farming you mean the unlimited use of poisons . I submit that this is not modern farming and that practiced by organic biodynamic and multifunctional farerms like Jel Salatin is, as all the reports show, the real modern farming.

The post WW2reliance on petro-chemical fertilisers and -cides is outdated and dangerous.

And you claim that Dr Stapper has never published? Hmmm. Where are your peer-viewed papers?

Tm - the following statement is from Chris Carpenter, a scientist - biochemist – and biodynamic farmer. Chris runs the vineyard but his parents - aslo both scientists - are involved in the biodynamic farming.

I have been farming using Biodynamic Principles for five years at time of writing, coincidently five years of deepening drought. In that time the Lark Hill vineyard has gone from strength to strength, showing amazing resilience in harsh conditions. We now have no chemical inputs into the vineyard, yielding amazingly strong wild-yeast ferments in all the wines. We have incredible juice nutrition – there is enough nitrogen to support full length ferments without additions in the winery (an enviable rarity). We have replaced herbicides with deep mulching as weed control – and gained water efficiency and drought resistance as a bonus. The soil is alive with microbes – mushrooms flourish throughout the vineyard in spring for the first time in 30 years – and the biodiversity in both insect and bird life increases every season. Additionally, we are now seeing the fruit achieve flavour ripeness at lower sugar levels – giving better acid balance, more vibrant colour and flavours and lower alcohol levels.

Finally, the Lark Hill vineyard is being conserved– and with sustainable, Biodynamic farming, I can be certain it will continue to flourish for future generations.

I am sure many of the successful biodynamic farmers i know - including Patrice Newell (whose partner, Phillip adams, is a member of the sSceptics society) would be interested in your views.

As Patrice Newell says "feel my soil"

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

No, it means that perhaps science cannot explain why certain phenomena do work. There is no doubt that biodynamic farming works. It is practiced increasingly around the world. Perhaps the way it works has yet to be understood.

On Saturday i was in a chinese herbal medicine shop with a Chinese western doctor. I asked him did he use his traditional medicine in his practice. No, he said, it's not that it doesn't work, but we don't know the side effects. A herbalist who was in the conversation said you mean after thousands of years of prescribing you don't think we know the side effects?

I have a great deal of respect fr the scientific method. But I also know of many systems that work in defiance of science. Perhaps sciences has to figure out why.

Tim have you ever visited a biodynamic farm? Have a look at Max allen's biodynamic wine site http://www.redwhiteandgreen.com.au/ and you'll find a long list of biodynamic vineyards, including 14 in WA, where I believe you are based. I see from your lLinked In profile you work in agriculture at the University of WA. As a professional don't you think you have a duty to have a look at this phenomenon up close?

Here is what leading Australian wine writer and judge Max Allen has to say about biodynamics:

'I have been writing about wine in Australia for 15 years. I have been buying and cooking and eating organic food for longer than that because farming without chemicals not only seems like common sense, but also because organic fruit and veg often taste better.

Like many other consumers of organic produce, I used to be quite sceptical about many aspects of biodynamics - stirring fermented cow poo in water and spraying it on your vineyard under a descending moon, or picking grapes on ‘fruit days’ when the moon was in a ‘fire’ constellation all sounded like wacky nonsense.

But then I noticed that, more often than not, well-made biodynamic wines were sending a chill down my spine with their intensity and complexity of flavour. They not only tasted better than most ‘conventional’ - even organic - wines. They tasted different.

These were wines with an extra vitality and liveliness on the tongue, wines that were incredibly satisfying to drink, wines that made the flavour descriptions tumble out of my brain when I came to writing tasting notes.

Because of what was happening in my nose and on my tongue when I tasted these great BD wines, I went back to the biodynamic winemakers with an open mind and asked them to explain their thinking and their methods. I even went back to the source and read (and re-read) the series of lectures that Rudolf Steiner gave to a group of farmers in Germany in 1924 on how to improve their soils - the manifesto that started the whole biodynamic movement. And the more I heard and the more I read and the more I tasted, the less wacky it all sounded.'

So Tim, open your mind and inspect that which you ridicule. you may be the one to find the scientific underpinning of the method.

And by the way, Peter, you'lll find a lot more than 'hippies' running biodynamic farms and vineyards - a biochemist, a brain surgeon, and of course many highly-skilled winemakers running profitable businesses

Tim, do you believe that there are varying levels of both ignorance and uncertainty in all sciences? That our ignorance of complex systems is in fact significantly greater than our knowledge? You make it sound as though soil science and agricultural sciences are 'set' fields. For decades geneticists referred to genes about which they knew nothing as 'junk' genes - a typical although extreme example of the hubris of some sciences and some scientists - to think that anything that can't be explained must therefore be dismissed. When you say it is simple in agriculture, it is hard not to believe you are not doing the same. By the way, I'm not arguing for a particular set of 'facts' - I'm only reacting to a level of certainty in your statements that the condition of modern agriculture belies.

Tim, John's comments have consistently referred to outcomes. You have focused on the techniques/methods as being unscientific. The claim of results superior to those of conventional and industrial agriculture are common - and yet in this field, as in so many other sciences, both anecdotal and individual experiences are dismissed by most (not all) scientists.. How a particular science deals with ignorance and uncertainty includes how it deals with the experience of people at an individual scale. I have known a number of scientists who try to use indigenous knowledge for instance in helping to broaden the understanding of the behaviour or marine species - knowledge that is regularly and instantly dismissed by scientists determined to uphold a singular view of the nature and scope of acceptable science.

Tim, I'm with you on the cow horn stuff, but organic yields are not quite as stark as 30% deficient, all situations considered. This recent Nature review and meta-analysis gives a more nuanced summary.

"Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535250

As far as environmental impacts are concerned, it depends on which variable you measure, but there is no doubt that organics have considerable ecological advantages in specific areas - biodiversity and fertility for example. See some of these studies here;
http://tinyurl.com/a24hkqc

I'm not suggesting that organics has all the answers, but you probably need to be a little more appreciative of the wider organic scientific literature rather than always take the "bitten by a hippie" approach, as suggested by another poster.

So you won't examine it first hand? Not very good science Tim

And as a matter of fact biodynamics does replace nutrients - but you'll never see that. You'll just keep on criticising from afar

Tim, look for" 'Change in USDA Food Consumption, Data for 43 garden crops,1950-1999. D R David, Melvin D Epp, Hugh D Riordan"
Also, from 1938 an article" Loss of Organic Matter and its Restoration" by William A Albrecht [professor of soils Uni of Missouri].
This shows the issue is not a recent one. Concern in America predates WW2.
Lots wrong with superphosphate! It certainly made huge gains in cropping yields but it mines the soils. and certainly doesn't close the cycle as you acknowledge is necessary.
Anyway it doesn't matter if yields are down say 30% using organic methods. Already we grow plenty of excess food for the world population, enough so some is diverted to biofuels and a lot to fatten cattle which don't have to be fat. They have to be healthy! Don't eat grain fed cattle, only grass fed.
We waste a lot of food, because it is so cheap.In the US only 5% of household budgets go into food, half what it was a generation ago. Lets do more to reduce waste rather than cut down more forests!
Organic soil husbandry might make the soils last longer and be around for our grandchildren's future needs.
Your comment "all evidence to the contrary" flies in the face of reality. If science can't see that then science doesn't work. May we now see you as an apologist for the obesity epidemic, the heart disease epidemic, the cancer epidemic, all because you can't admit the reality of what is going on right now all around us?
Also, there is no magnesium in the water supply. Where do you get that notion? Magnesium is in hard water. We only have soft water in our pipes now. Once upon a time we did have hard water and we had magnesium. Research magnesium, it is an amazing mineral!

Use of Glyphosate (especially on corridors and by Councils)
has produced a number of deficiencies locally, particularly Manganese. The effect is terrifying. Land slips where they never have been before and dead trees quite a distance away from sprayed verges. So I would not be surprised if Manganese deficiency was widespread.

This thread still going? I've been away a couple of days.
I can assume, Tim you don't agree with [ for example, the article "Superphosphate or N_P_K Fertilizers' by Lawrence Wilson, MD?

Magnesium distribution is not even across the country. Some areas will be well served, some not. Sydney's water supply does have some magnesium, between 4.5 and 6 mg/litre but it's a deal less than in hard water. The magnesium deficiency I was writing about is in us.

Tim, Glyphosate is a powerful chelator. In fact it was first registered for this purpose. If you were a farmer and you mixed Manganese Sulphate with Glyphosate in water, and applied it to your land, you would find that they almost counter-act each other.
You write about clays in soil. What if there is none or very little clay in the soil? Our soils are sand, sandy or light volcanic.
Our Council sprays diluted Glyphosate about every six weeks though out the year. They refuse to accept that this weak solution does any damage. I cannot say what the strength is, because it is "Commercial in confidence". We have dozens of new land slips in road cuttings which have been stable for 40 years. The roadsides have been sprayed with Glyphosate. Up here the rainfall and soil fertility, if the land is left to itself, keeps even 70% cuttings stable with fast growing foliage.
In Queensland it is against the law for anyone to use poisons within a
100 meters of a watercourse. Because Glyphosate is not a poison it is recommended by Government for use along watercourses, beside roads, railway lines etc etc. This policy is causing havoc in country Queensland.
Rivers now flow at speeds never seen before. The destruction is unbelievable.
Glyphosate, in my opinion is carried by the funghi under the surface of the soil.
It is recognised by the fungal layer as a false phosphate. Trees more than a hundred meters from the verges sicken and die. The road edges fall apart, and bridge abutments fail. Whole bridges are washed away because they have nothing beneath them. To add insult to injury Councils "Clean out"
creeks and watercourses, removing all the traces of vegetation.
The sudden impoverishment of the once "Great Green Way" is put down to Cyclones and Climate Change. The heavy rain after almost all Cyclones ensures that the forest comes back swiftly. But not any more.
Your comments sound like "The World According To Monsanto".

Tim
Oh how I wish that what you and the labels say and all the stuff put out by Monsanto was true. This has been going on since 2006.
I have written to every relevant department of State and Federal Government, Prime Minister Rudd gave me a list of names and phone numbers which I used to research the attitudes of all official Government and Non Government organisations which were and are likely to be interested or well informed.

They all sing from the same songsheet. Every one reads the labels and the assurances. The evidence in front of their eyes is never convincing.
While our country falls to pieces around us, and wild life struggles with strange diseases we stay convinced that nothing is wrong.
We have strange trails of slime in the sea. Never Never seen until a couple of years ago. Wallabies here have some disease which makes their scats look like Cow pats. When my neighbour's Golden Palm clump went yellow
and began to die, he told me "Its got a worm in the roots" His landscaper son
had said so. "It happens a lot around here". The Glyphosate he had put on the paving to kill the weeds right beside it couldn't possibly be responsible.

Read some UNofficial views, Tim.

no they didn't get it wrong - they purposefully hid the truth & are currently being taken to court by the french government for falsifying research results ! Tim, I suggest you look at the work of the soil scientists.such as Dr Christine Jones. Farmers switching to biodynamic methods are reporting a doubling of yields & a halfing of inputs, meanwhile Indian farmers are committing suicide at the rate of knots thanks to Monsanto's crops leaving them upto their necks in debt with a failed harvest. The people of Europe are now expected to bail out a failing Monsanto as the world starts to turn its back on this "science". Many countries have banned GM crops because of the negative health impact on insects & stock.The group of scientists assembled by the American government to investigate childhood cancers have stated that the chemical levels in American kids are way beyond safe levels & the best hope of avoiding cancer was to only eat organic produce.

Rude/aggressive aren't you !! :( My horse property has been biodynamically managed since 2006. My mentor is Pat Coleby - Natural farming/animal care expert with 70 years hands on experience (yes she still works her own farm) I'm beyond impressed with the results. My horses are beyond impressed !! My initial & subsequent soil test indicates that available minerals & CEC is improving with appropriate applications of ag lime, gypsum & dollomite. My soil is no longer repelling water.
GM is a dangerous "crock" - the reports of negative outcomes are rife - not sure what you are reading Tim but from what I can gather the negative impacts of GM are mounting & Monsanto is struggling. One country after another is banning GM & there are fears it is responsible for the dramatic decline in the bee
population, infertility, liver damage etc.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/article-gmo-soy-linked-to-sterility

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

France's highest court has ruled that US agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

I fully appreciate the scale of the chemical problem beyond farming Tim !!
I am asking the experts Tim - farmers & soil scientists - just not the chemical/corporate brigade.

Residues of Roundup weedkiller remain in the plants we eat, as the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and Food Standards Australia NZ (FSANZ), our chemical and food regulators, agree. See: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets/chemicalsinfoodmaxim5429.cfm

APVMA sets the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for hundreds of synthetic chemical residues in food, most of which have never been tested long-term or in combination for human or animal health impacts. In consultation with the chemical industry, APVMA decides how much of the active ingredient land managers need to spray to effectively kill unwanted plants or insects. From that judgement of Good Agricultural Practice they derive the MRL. The MRLs then go to FSANZ which describes its role as: "ensuring consumption of agvet chemical residues in food is within appropriate safety limits." See: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2008B00619

FSANZ separately assesses the dietary intake and health impacts of each chemical and there is little data on the effects of the many approved chemical residues which may interact to multiply their negative effects. For instance, there are MRLs for 17 approved chemicals for spraying on a carrot. In the worst case scenario (within the law) a carrot may contain over 84 mg/kg of residues. Similar toxic brews may be on the other vegetables in your salad too!

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller. So, for instance, FSANZ has approved MRLs of glyphosate in 56 different varieties of fruits, vegetables, beans, berries, milk, meat, eggs, offal, grains, oilseeds, etc. Examples of the higher allowable MRLs for glyphosate include: Adzuki bean (dry) 10 mg/kg; Barley 10 mg/kg; Cowpea (dry) 10 mg/kg; Mung bean (dry) 10 mg/kg; Poultry, edible offal 1 mg/kg; Rape seed (canola) 2 mg/kg; Sorghum 15 mg/kg; Soya bean (dry) 10 mg/kg; Sugar cane molasses 5 mg/kg; Tea, green, black 2 mg/kg; Wheat 5 mg/kg; Wheat bran, unprocessed 20 mg/kg. How much you ingest depends on your diet.

There's a lot to be said for the health and well-being benefits of organic foods which actively seek to minimise the use and residues of synthetic chemicals in their production systems and products. Savings on the cost of chronic disease to the health care system would be just one benefit. Organic food is a sensible health protection measure that should be available to and embraced by everyone.

Hi Jane,
Can I please ask how much calcium & phosphorus is in the water supply ?

You say which residues bind and result only in a simple salt? References? Have you considered the extensive literature on the teratogenic and other impacts of glyphosate and its surfactants on human cells?

17 synthetic chemicals may be sprayed on a non-organic carrot, with MRLs totalling 87.24 mg/kg so in the worst case scenario these toxics may legally remain on your carrot. Approved MRLs are: heptachlor, 0.2 mg/kg; maleic hydrazide, 40 mg/kg; parathion-methyl, 0.5 mg/kg; 2-phenylphenol, 20 mg/kg; quizalofop-ethyl, 0.02 mg/kg; quizalofop-p-tefuryl, 0.02 mg/kg; tebuconazole, 0.5 mg/kg; trifluralin, 0.5 mg/kg; azoxystrobin, 0.2 mg/kg; 2-chloro-N- (4_-chloro-5-hydroxybiphenyl-2-yl) nicotinamide, expressed as boscalid equivalents, 1 mg/kg; chlorfenvinphos, 0.4 mg/kg; 4-hydroxy-2,5,6-trichloroisophthalonitrile metabolite, expressed as chlorothalonil, 7 mg/kg; dicloran, 15 mg/kg; difenoconazole, 0.2 mg/kg; total dithiocarbamates expressed as carbon disulphide, 1 mg/kg; fentin hydroxide 0.2 mg/kg; iprodione, 0.5 mg/kg. That toxic brew is on just one vegetable!

I'm a bit torn here - between yourself and Tim.

I grow fruit trees and vegetables organically - but I'm tiny. Organics can and do work wonderfully well at a small to medium scale but well nigh impossible on a broad acre operation ... just too expensive unless you've got an industrial scale plant composting and maturing your organic inputs.

I've seen some of those in operation in Asia ... helps if you don't have the sewerage in town and a lot of water buffalo, cows or pigs about. If you're clever you can run the lot through a biogas digester first and get the town cooking with gas, the put the residual sludge into your paddocks.

But our agriculture is less and less integrated - more regionally specialised - so you see nothing but wheat forever. So you end up trucking in organic matter which sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it? Sort of nothing - even the soil gets food miles added on.

One additive I do bring in is crushed granite ... absolutely amazing stuff - the changes in soil chemistry and physical properties are rapid and dramatic. Excellent for trees because you'll get at least 20 years out of the initial application.

I've also seen some nice integration efforts involving cattle, chickens and pigs... in fact I even saw one on last week's ABC Gardening Australia show ... basically running all three in a rotating "chicken tractor" sort of arrangement. There's a fella up here who uses an old caravan as a mobile chook coop and laying set-up and he just follows the cows around moving them into a new paddock after he's moved the cattle on.

Combine that with the sort of water management you find at keyline and you get actual real live topsoil down to a decent depth after a couple of years. Full of critters and chemistry.

But trying organics in isolation - as a monoculture or purely a mixed cropping operation is unfeasible I'm afraid.

Really the argument should be about the economics of integrated farming vs monocultural farming over large regions rather than organics versus chemicals. Without sufficient sources of organic matter at hand the chances of organic farming succeeding at a medium to large scale are Buckleys and none I reckon.

That's my two penneth worth anyway.

First of all, have you heard of witholding periods? Do you understand chemical breakdown rates? Do you understand spray intervals and chemical processing (breakdown) in soils and plants?

Secondly, the surfactants used with glyphosate were not the topic of conversation. And yes, of course I've read the literature on this, my wife is an expert in the field. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4042279?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101738448503 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4042278?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101738448503 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1978.tb01162.x/abstract
Surfactants are a mixed bag of chemicals, most are fine, but a few are toxic and are well known to be so. Of course, the action of the surfactant is literally to interact with the plants or soils to allow better application and absorption, thus it breaks down readily in most instances. I'm not aware of any surfactants that have witholding periods longer than a few days.

Now for your Gish-Gallop of chemicals. First off, what you have listed is the options available for various weed, pest and disease control: this is not the same thing as what would actually be applied. To suggest so is just ridiculous and shows a level of duplicity or ignorance. Secondly, the list you present ranges from the inexpensive to the expensive, the rarely used to the commonly used, the used prior to plant development to the dessicant. Thus, the list is pointless, as no plant would actually be exposed to that many chemicals, given any of those parameters (cost, time of use, effect required, etc). Your "worst case scenario" is just plain bullshit.

I also find it funny that you've included on your list chemicals that are actually pretty safe, yet you refer to them as toxic. Check out some of the LD50 numbers before trying to scare people, and read the labels on these.

Yes APVMA sets rules and puts them on labels, but where is the monitoring and enforcement data? And what of dimethoate, fention and a host of other actives now finally and belatedly banned because of their toxicity. Your references to work showing binding of chemicals in soils is not relevant to MRLs and food. Debunk this Tim!

Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on
Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling
Alejandra Paganelli et.al. Laboratorio de Embriologı´a Molecular, CONICET-UBA, Facultad de Medicina, UniVersidad de Buenos Aires, Paraguay 2155, 3° piso (1121), Ciudad Auto´noma de Buenos Aires, Argentina Received May 20, 2010. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 10.1021/tx1001749  American Chemical Society

The broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate is widely used in agriculture worldwide. There has been ongoing controversy regarding the possible adverse effects of glyphosate on the environment and on human health. Reports of neural defects and craniofacial malformations from regions where glyphosate based
herbicides (GBH) are used led us to undertake an embryological approach to explore the effects of low doses of glyphosate in development. Xenopus laeVis embryos were incubated with 1/5000 dilutions of a commercial GBH. The treated embryos were highly abnormal with marked alterations in cephalic and neural crest development and shortening of the anterior-posterior (A-P) axis. Alterations on neural crest markers were later correlated with deformities in the cranial cartilages at tadpole stages. Embryos
injected with pure glyphosate showed very similar phenotypes. Moreover, GBH produced similar effects in chicken embryos, showing a gradual loss of rhombomere domains, reduction of the optic vesicles, and microcephaly. This suggests that glyphosate itself was responsible for the phenotypes observed, rather
than a surfactant or other component of the commercial formulation. A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the
phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development. The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields.

Plenty more good work like this. Tell us again that glyphosate is completely safe?

The APVMA are just the data collectors. There are regulatory teams that travel around the country all the time, testing the air, water, residues, etc, etc, etc.

Yes the references are relevant, or do you not know what organic matter is?

The paper you just referred to is another example of drowning embryos in a salt solution and being surprised that adverse affects arise. Besides the fact that there were no controls to adequately assess what was causing an effect. Where was the salt control? Where was the phosphate control? Where was the injection control? That paper is another example of lazy and deliberately biased science.

As my wife said, I'd like to see a developing embryo injected with water and see how well it handles that situation.

As a public servant you do appear a tad dogmatic Tim, about the absolute safety, sanity and rational basis for everything. I'll be back on 18th and happy to hear from you and your partner then.

Bob Phelps
Executive Director
Gene Ethics
Level 2, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053 Australia
Tel: 03 9347 4500
Email: info@geneethics.org
WWW: http://www.geneethics.org

THINK, CARE, ACT!

Tim your most used insult is "unscientific". What does it mean?
Science, after all is a collective term. No more specific than Philosophy or Engineering.
"Unscientific" for you seems to mean any statement which disagrees with Monsanto,Syngentia et al, all of whom directly profit from the "science" they rely upon and publish. The sad fact that most Government Departments will agree with you does not make your assertions true. But few scientists will come out to discredit the cherry picked "science" relied upon by conventional sources. Why?

Monsanto has endowed many "Not for Profit" Companies around the world. They employ young scientists. Any science graduate will testify to the difficulty in getting a job in their chosen profession.

All employees of these NFPs are required to sign an agreement not to work on any of the Companies' products without permission FOR THEIR WHOLE LIVES.
Of course permission is not given. Renegades are regularly sued in Boston USA .
Millions of $ are spent every year ensuing compliance.

In this way Monsanto et al have stifled the voice of reason and the progress of proper enquiry all over the world. Horrendous environmental degradation is the result.

The "Paper" from your Western Australian "Researcher" is the strangest lot of irrelevant "facts" I have ever read. Cobbled together lab tests and glass house trials combined with generalised statements which have nothing to do with Australia. If this is what passes for a "Review" of any aspect of the use of Glyphosate on Western Australian farms, Heaven help us all.
The "author" is simply an apologist for Glyphosate and will use any means at his disposal to defend it.
I was in Western Australia a few weeks ago, out in the wheat and sheep country 400ks East of Perth. The farmers out there have used Glyphosate for years, like you they say they can't do without it and Superphosphate.
Cancer is very common. Many of the farmhouses are empty. Many work off farm to make ends meet. But no-one wants to change. They were talking about one of their neighbours who planted his crop and nothing came nothing at all. But then you would know about "TakeAll".
No wonder Syngentia has concentrated on selling its "Harmless Herbicide" to Governments, Councils and anyone else who does not own the land they destroy with regular doses of Glyphosate.

Thankyou Jane :). I know ;- my mentor Pat Coleby does not consider herself biodynamic or organic, she says "they do some strange stuff too sometimes " - she prefers the term natural farming for her approach. It is her peers who classify her as biodynamic , probably because she focuses on addressing mineral imbalances on the land & in stock as a remedy for weeds, health issues etc. Sadly some expect us to appreciate that modern farming has evolved a great deal but do not pay other methods the same courtesy :( I have just read that the US EPA registered glyphosate based herbicides as a class C carcinogen in 1989 - do you know if it is still on that list ?

Have you any evidence to prove GM foods ARE healthy? Wot? How can they be healthy with all those pesticides which have drastically increased since the advent of HT crops?

What about the hapless Australian farmer where male farmers and farm managers 25-74 yrs had a significant 33% higher overall death rate due to all causes compared to the Australian male population of the same age.

"Cancers were the main cause of death for farmers 25-74 yrs by category."

Cancers in outback Australia? Surely it wouldn't be chronic exposure to pesticides and those nasty sheep dips? Nope not according to the multi-national pesticide corporations. So I wonder why all those pesticides have been severely restricted or banned outright - but certainly not by the pesticide corporations who poison all living things with impunity. Lol.

http://farmsafewa.org/media/1285/Australian%20Farmers%20-%20A%20high%20risk%20population%20for%20rural%20health.pdf

Hi Shirley
To ask the questions you do, you need to ask yourself the following:
Do you have evidence that non-GM food is healthy,or any more healthier than GM food?
HT crops have been around longer than the GM HT crops. Australia has been growing two HT canola crops bred by conventional (non-GM) technologies for years. How are these any different from the GM versions when it comes to pesticide use and ability to pass that HT trait to non-HT canola crops or related weeds?
ANd finally, what has Australian farmer exposure to pesticides and sheep dip got to do with Golden Rice which is being developed to be grown by farmers in regions that suffer these micronutrient deficiencies and which does not contain traits that have any bearing or relation to the issues of pesticide use?
Jason, TechNyou

Jason, few could deny that GM crops are inextricably linked with an increase in pesticide use. In addition, I am of the opinion that far fewer weeds developed pesticide resistance prior to the advent of commercially grown GM crops. Anyone who thinks the current train wreck is strictly a major problem for farmers in the US is in possession of no more than half a sensory neuron:

http://www.weedscience.org/Mutations/MutationDisplayAll.aspx

http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12

http://www.weedscience.org/Details/RecentCases.aspx

1. “The development of glyphosate resistance in weeds poses one of the most serious risks to current agricultural practices

1.1: “The resistance to several herbicides that occurs in Australian weeds shows that Imidazolinone tolerant (IT) Liberty Link® and Roundup Ready are not a panacea for herbicide resistance management practices” (10th International Grapeseed Conference).

2. Reliable data reveals that additional herbicides including “knockdown” herbicides are now required to control resistant weeds, adding to the toxicity of food and ecosystems.

3. TT yield is generally less than non-TT types. RR canola yield is similar to most non-TT canola types. Non-GM canola is permitted to contain up to 0.9 per cent adventitious (accidental) presence of an approved GM canola (DAFWA).

The self-regulated GM crop growers are free to contaminate lands across the nation with impunity including a neighbour’s non-GM crops.

Further, developing countries are massive users of pesticides, the bulk exported to poor countries by the Big Six. A couple of million peasant farmers are in revolt so I imagine the multi-national GM corporations and collaborative governments need to prepare for the meltdown that's coming their way.

Similar to “truth in labelling,” Syngenta et al appear reluctant to advise on what potential pesticides will be used in their "IPM" for golden rice.

Please inform readers of the types of pesticides that are intended for use on golden rice and I look forward to discussing the issue after your response.

Shirley

I actuallly agree with you as there is ample evidence to back up what you say re:
the issue of Glyphosate resistance (and resistance in several other herbicides) in Australian weeds and the need to rethink our herbicide regime and management of their use, and their use as part of an integrated weed management system. What you have highlighted is that this is not a GM issue, but an agronomic management one. Yes, the use of RR crops has the potential to increasse the use of glyphosate overall and so strict management protocols need to be followed to manage the resistance issue. And nobody I know says that the GM HT crops are a panacea to herbicide resistance. They are no diffferent to the non-GM HT canolas in that respect. Proper agronomic management is required for all such HT crops to minimise herbicide resistance. Someone with more authority on agronomic management in this area might like to comment further on this as I am not an expert on this stuff.

As for Golden Rice. I am not privy to what is happening to future plans for this ccrop, but as it stands now Golden Rice only has the trait for increased levels of beta carotene and not for a herbicide tolerant, or any other trait, so I would gather it will be grown like any other rice. You could choose to grow it organically or biodynamically, if you wish. But again, not my area of expertise, the Golden Rice team might like to comment on this in more detail.
Jason

Jason - perhaps they can't afford to buy the foods, but they can grow them if left to grow for their own communities. what has happened in the past is that organisations like the World Bank have told farmers to stop growing for their communities and grow cash crops for export - so a community that grew for itself switches to growing, say, corn for the world market, which is fine until the corn market tanks. For an examination of this see Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel

I agree with the Authors. I am cautious about the benefits of GM foods in general and Golden Rice in particular. Syngentia is probably more interested in the millions spent in "Foreign Aid" by the USA than by the plight of anyone too poor to afford their seed.
I agree that GM rice is an "interesting" not a practical solution to blindness and lack of micronutrients in poor populations.
Strange how we can discuss crops and poverty without ever mentioning soil. GM, Syngentia and Glyphosate go together.
Dr Don Huber says that Glyphosate is worse than DDT as a world wide curse. Is it really helpful to impoverish the soil of poor countries? What is really meant by "help" is this context.
Glyphosate is a powerful chelator. Owners of impoverished soil will have to buy nutrients. Is that the point of the exercise?
Use the Aid Budget to make a market?

Asa - a couple of points

1. Insulin is a closed system. GM for agriculture releases the genetically modified organism to the outside world and as we have sene this has unforeseen consequences.
2. As I wrote above, using a modernised version of 'old-fashioned' agriculture, Joel Salatin feeds 6000 people from 40 hectares/100 acres.
3. All the bodies who have examined this problem (see my post above) have come to the same conclusion: it is not agrotechnology the world needs, but agroecology.

Jane, those are good questions. "The Green Revolution" seems to have caused more trouble than it fixed, if you don't count the multinational agricultural chemical industries. The sudden spike of cash generated by using chemicals to nourish the land was a great boon for them. Then there were more chemicals needed to kill the insects, diseases, fungal attacks, and pests of all kinds.

When their profits started to slide and GM crops did not deliver, they began to promote "weeds" as the great threat to farm profitability. And threats of world hunger. With more and more farmers leaving the land, they have turned to other land managers, Councils Governments, road and rail corridor managers to boost their bottom lines. Scientists in the USA noticed huge reductions in soil minerals. So we are sold herbicides.(which inactivate minerals). They further impoverish soils so the clever companies sell to non farmers and continue the advertising about damage done by non natives. They call this "Increasing Biodiversity " which is a sad joke if you have eyes to see the damage their chemical solutions do to the soil.(pun intended)

But the worst effect of "The Green Revolution" was the treatment of Organic, Bio-dynamic, and all other non-chemical methods. They were downgraded, damned with faint praise, or accused of 'spreading weeds' and 'wasting water'. High standards and heavy restrictions are visited upon them. Carbon farming is a good example.
As for concerns about population growth, remember powerless people have nothing but their children. The problem lies with lack of self determination, from Australian Aboriginal people to other people who have been stolen from and dispossessed, the world over.

Peter et al
you might look at this for another view of the Lynas affair. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14612-debunking-mark-lynass-gm-myths
It has the fingerprints of the biotech industry all over it. I have no idea whether Lynas was paid or not - but the myths he has tried to create are pretty much in tatters.