Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[Tigerlily]

Does anyone have any links to good, UNBIASED, websites talking about Genetically Modified Foods, organic agriculture, etc?

Google doesn't give out a lot of clear, unbiased material.

[eve]

Tigerlily, seems that you are asking for the impossible. I went to a few more search engines for organic vs GMOs, and all the organic farmers are against GMOs, and countries that have a moratorium against importing GMOs have similar views. Those using gmos, are sceptical of organics. In other words, nobody is really impartial, either you are in favour of GMOs or in favour of organic.

[veganblue]

Does anyone have any links to good, UNBIASED, websites talking about Genetically Modified Foods, organic agriculture, etc?

Google doesn't give out a lot of clear, unbiased material.

This article (http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/mexicanmaize/) is interesting in the way it follows the release of studies and their follow up response in a historical manner. It is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which is our national free-to-air broadcaster and usually has a well researched balanced view.

Any material you comes across is going to have a bias as for the most part, those presenting it will have already made up their minds. It is up to you to weigh up the arguments and counter arguments and if there is something you don't understand, there is always the opportunity to learn more.

There is a GMO thread here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370) that has a range of views and some useful links to both sides of the discussion.

There is a fair amount of information here (http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/crop_coexistence.htm) that suggests that the organic and GM crops can co-exist. Part of the idea of GM is to develop crops that can be grown organically, as the benefits of organic farming are great for the long term health of the land.

[Mystic]

Google doesn't give out a lot of clear, unbiased material.

I agree and this topic confuses me too :( - Sometimes I wonder if it is worth my money and effort to get organic food. Of course the organic advocates are going to tell you that organic is essential for good health, but would it really make a difference if I ate conventional versions of wholefoods, like brown rice, bread, vegetables, beans and fruit? Because so many people close to me have died from cancer, I am scared not to eat organic. But could I be just sucked in by a gimmick?

[eve]

Not easy to make decisions is it? As for whether it is worth getting organic food, well just speaking for myself, organic fruit and veges are rarely available where I live, and when they *do* appear at the supermarket, their prices are way above what I can afford, plus the veges just lie on the shelf the whole week. Whereas the conventional stuff moves fast and is fresh every day.

Sometimes I go to a weekly market here, thinking that 'home grown' stuff would be better, but in talking to the stall-holders, it seems they all spray with Ready Roundup!

As for rice, beans, etc, I've never seen organic products, but I do buy organic bread as all the other breads seem to contain too many iffy ingredients. And yes, I *do* think there's a certain amount of gimmick involved with organic, because even when it is marked on the shelf as such, there is no label giving the name & address of the farm, and also the organic farmers grow their veges in blood & bone, and bullshit (in more ways than one).

[Tigerlily]

This is very confusing for me too.

I can't afford to buy organic food, except for a few staples which are organic by "default" (my soymilk, my brown rice...).

[eve]

We can't all be superhuman Tigerlily! We can just do the best we can under whatever circumstances prevail.

[Mystic]

That is true - it is impossible to be perfect. I wish I could afford everything organic but I can't. I do my best and that is all I can do ;)

[eve]

ABC on-line today reports that Australia's largest GM food producer is playing down the significance of crops found to be contaminated. Bayer Crop Science says canola seeds to be exported to Japan have been contaminated. Bayer says it is not responsible for the contamination of pure grains and that the level of contamination is insignificant.

Opponents of GM crops say it will mean reduced sales for farmers who are GM free.

Australian Barley Board (ABB) corporate manager Maggie Dowling says people should not over-react to the contamination. "It's an issue in terms of the moratorium that it shouldn't be there, but it is extremely low trace levels, so from a trace perspective we're confident we can meet all customer and international regulator requirements," she said. However, it is still unclear how the contamination occurred.

The Victorian Government says the gene was most likely imported accidentally from North America. Several trials of genetically modified crops have been run in Victoria, but are quarantined from other stock to stop GM strains of grain spreading.

Anti-GM groups say the contamination is proof of the risks involved with genetic modification.

[FestiveF]

Genetic modification in itself is not a problem- as I see it - but the intention behind and the reasons for modifying organisms and the whole frightening and stupid process of patenting genes does really worry me. Could there be a day where you have to apply for a license to reproduce based upon the genetherapy you have recieved so that the company that pateneted the gene does not therefore own your children because they contain a modified gene?
In that scenario it is almost Shakespearian where to get the 'pound of flesh' I would demand that they take only what is owed - the modified gene - but must not spill one drop of 'blood' to get that which they seem to demand is rightfully there's...
This could be applied to roundup ready crops that are contaminated by pollen drift. As for the danger of the crops themselves...if you insert a toxin into a plant to act as a deterrent to pests - you may find that it is also a deterrent to people and is no longer fit for consumption. In the meanwhile that gene for that toxin is making it's way around the countryside on the jet stream winds as well as in the guts of bees and other insect - and interestingly - in the genomes of bacteria. Bacteria have interesting DNA that can 'pickup' fragments of DNA in its environment and incorporate it into its own. Bacteria multiply rapidly and are also predated upon by viruses that also have overly social gene sharing habits. New inclusions that have a negative effect on the organism or virus particle - but those that have no effect or even a benefit will survive and multiply. Who is going to be brave enough to say there is no possibility that there will be a catastrophe as a result of the kinds of organisms that are currently being released?

The motivation is the key; the companies funding this kind of research are looking at greater ways of making more money - that's what they are there for and there is no limitations on their activity - so long as it is kept out of the public eye... Genetic modification has been occuring for over a decade in the labs and has been occuring possibly since DNA molecules were formed. HIV is a gene modifying virus and there are a lot of them around; it is not that genetic modification is bad - it is merely a tool. The question really lies in are we responsible enough as a society to use it wisely. I would suggest that there is not enough evidence to say that we are.

Humans have a very limited scope of values that is short term and does not consider all biota. We depend on the living systems for our continued survival and, I fear, are far too willing to put them at dire risk. Isn't it time we learnt that we need to know how to fix it before we break it, and until we do, don't break it in the first place....

I feel exactly as you do. I spent the latter part of last semester researching and writing papers on GMO products/techniques/hopes from all perspectives of everyone involved in the process for a "plants in medicine seminar" class. I do believe that GMO production is, in a certain way, a scheme of making more money by the hopes of eventually leading to a lesser production cost. While the thought of consuming GMO products is un-vegan and I feel offers no benefits to the consumer as an individual in a life such as we lead- I feel that is DOES hold promise for other world problems.

For example, scientists are implementing vaccines and vitamin products into bananas and other easily mass produced vegetation for use in third world countries. This is a great prospect as millions of people go blind and have other health problems due to lack of Vitamin A in the diet. Putting vitamin A into a plant that is to be consumed is an exciting prospect that could save and benefit millions of unfortunate people who would otherwise get sick and/or die due to lack of essential nutrients in their diet.

While I feel that this is a promising side of the process in and of itself, I do believe that we are a LONG way away from being able to successfully administer such ideas into everyday life. There is much testing and research to still be done- which is extremely tricky from a vegan standpoint anyway. Who knows what the long term side effects will be and exactly HOW are these things to be accurately tested? It is a worrisome thought no doubt...

So there is a good side to GMO to some extent, however, that extent is still to be determined...

[eve]

FestiveF, we've already read veganblue's long posting, but now you say "So there is a good side to GMO to some extent, however, that extent is still to be determined."

Where's the good side? In fact there was a long discussion on the tv in Australia, a couple of days ago. The program was entitled "Food Aid", and it showed very realistically how the main beneficiary of food aid is the USA. Their govt gives heaps of $$ in subsidies for their farmers to overproduce, then they sell heaps of maize to the UN Food organisation to give it away to african countries. There were people from the president of Zambia to ordinary farmers. You may remember when there was talk of a famine in Zambia, and many people in the west were angry that the Zambians refused to accept donations of GM maize.

The president and others explained that in the first place there *was* no famine, and a US rep asked to explain, and she said words to the effect - why wait until people are starving? Now it's the custom in these developing countries to save seed for the next season, and you *can't* save GM seed, you have to pay and pay and pay, plus the growers have to buy chemical fertilisers. Moreover, that particular country is an exporter of maize to the EU, but the EU will not buy maize that is GM. Sadly, the US never told Zambia that they have received GM maize previously - meaning, "so you may as well take it now!" Now the local african farmers understand why succeeding crops did so poorly. They do not want anything to do with GM, and all the other people on the program expressed the view that we don't know what the ultimate effect will be, though the Americans on the program quite aggressively stated that the US population has eaten nothing but GM corn for a number of years, and they are all right!

[librahi]

http://www.soyfoods.org/locating/RetailProductListByCategory.pdf


found this link, lists Boca as natural and non-gmo. I eat some Boca products and was scared when I saw the link that lists them as a company to avoid... any new updates? can anyone help? this is my first time reading about this, vegan for only 2 months now. thanks!!!!

[FestiveF]

Much research is going into incorporating excess vitamins, antibiotics, and vaccines into transgenic plants. Instead of a drug or a shot, the person would just eat the modified plant. This would allow for much higher production at a drastically reduced cost. Plants are already a valuable source of leading compounds for the pharmaceutical industry. According to Melanie O'Neill of Glaxo Wellcome's Medicines Research Centre, 8 of the top 30 medicines are natural products or semi synthetics with a value of $15.9 billion in 1999. However, there is a continuing drive to discover new medicines for diseases that are poorly treatable and compounds with novel mechanisms of action (Actin NP).

Vitamin A deficiency causes half a million children to become partially or totally blind each year (NAP NP). Researchers have introduced three new genes into rice- two from daffodils and one from a micro-organism (NP). This new yellow rice shows to have extremely high amounts of beta carotene as a precursor to Vitamin A and will hopefully be an aid in the prevention and treatment of Vitamin A deficiency in young children living in developing countries. Transgenic rice has also been produced with elevated levels of iron. This was created due to the fact that about 400 million women of childbearing age suffer from iron deficiency and anemia; which has been identified as a contributing factor in over 20% maternal deaths in Asia and Africa (NAP NP).

There is great potential for producing vaccines in plants due to their cellular ability to combine very complex proteins. Vaccines are a common commodity for the people fortunate enough to live in developed countries such as the United States.
Infectious diseases are still a significant cause of death globally, predominantly in the developing world where access to vaccines is limited (Note NP). To those living in underdeveloped countries, vaccines are very expensive, require refrigeration, and must be administered by trained professionals- of who are few and far between in such desolate places. Researchers are investigating the potential for genetically modified technology to produce vaccines and pharmaceuticals in plants (NAP NP). This would allow easier access and cheaper production making it a feasible option for the underprivileged. A vaccine against tooth decay has set the pattern for producing monoclonal antibodies in plants (Note NP).

Hepatitis B virus infection is probably the single most important cause of persistent viremia in humans. The disease is characterized by acute and chronic hepatitis, which can also initiate hepatocellular carcinoma. The prevalence of this disease in developing countries has justified beginning efforts to express HBV vaccines in plants.Currently, two forms of HBV vaccines are available, both of which are injectable and expensive: one purified from the serum of infected individuals and the other a recombinant antigen expressed and purified from yeast. Plants have been introduced to the gene encoding the hepatitis B surface antigen; which is also the same antigen used in the commercial yeast-derived vaccine. Trials conducted on mice with the plant-derived material have demonstrated that the vaccine retains both B- and T-cell epitopes, just as does the commercial vaccine (Blake & Arntzen NP).

Not only are such vaccines being researched for use in developing countries, but for use in established countries as well. In this situation, the uses of transgenic plants are being introduced for advancements in medicine; not just simplification of an already established process of immunization. Henry Daniell, a molecular biologist at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, is studying the use of a genetically modified tomato plant as a way to create and deliver medications (ABC NP). Currently, it is estimated that Interferon, a drug used by liver patients, costs up to $40,000 per year for each patient. With genetic modification, Daniell believes that production costs for this drug could be reduced by as much as 97%, which would reduce the cost to the public by over a half.

Biosafety guidelines would need to be established, along with official approval for field testing and release of transgenic plants being carefully reviewed on a case by case basis. A “Containment Glasshouse” covering about 1,200 square feet for transgenic plants has been established in Hyderabad, India by the international Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT NP). The fact that such efforts are being conducted to isolate the transgenic plants shows great responsibility and should be considered as a fundamental foundation for further knowledge acquisition regarding the lifecycles of these new innovative plants.

Such revolutionary technologies are at a very early stage in development and obvious concerns about human health and environmental safety during production must be investigated before such plants can be approved as specialty crops (NAP NP). Whatever their policies may be, developing countries will inevitably be affected by the development of genetically-modified organisms in industrialized countries. While many maintain a cautious attitude, most of these countries should keep their options open, thus protecting themselves from the risk of being deprived of future technologies that might allow them to achieve self-sufficiency in food production, to resolve certain problems confronting their most vulnerable populations and to preserve the international competitiveness of their products. Despite the long road of research and clinical trials that awaits, the development of transgenic plants to produce therapeutic agents could prove to change the lives of millions of people and provide a significant advance in medicine.

Ok....so there is just some of the research that I have gathered, and while I truly do understand that everybody does have an opinion on the issue, mine is medical based- and maybe this is due to the fact that I am a pre-med student and come from a very science and research oriented family. I get excited at prospects where millions of people could POTENTIALLY benefit. While I do understand the downfall of GMO, I feel that the potential must be explored for the advancement in medicine. How do we know what we have if we never try? I'm sorry if I have offended anyone- as that is the last thing I want to do...but this is just my opinion.

Resources:
ICRISAT. 20 Apr. 2005 <http://www.indiaagronet.com/indiaagronet/technology_upd/contents/contanment.htm>. (ICRISAT)
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, . Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. 11 Apr. 2005 <http://www.nap.edu/html/ge_foods/ge-foods-reportbrief.pdf>. (Safety)
Actin. 25 Apr. 2005 <http://www.molecularfarming.com/plantigens.html>.(Actin)
Non-Feed Agriculture Core Group. 23 Aug. 2004. 16 Apr. 2005 <http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/subgroups/nfa_23084_note.shtml>.(Note)
Transgenic Palnts and World Agriculture. National Academic Press. 15 Apr. 2005 <http://www.nap.edu/html/transgenic/examples.html>. (NAP)

[eve]

FestiveF, the problem with
Much research is going into incorporating excess vitamins, antibiotics, and vaccines into transgenic plants. Instead of a drug or a shot, the person would just eat the modified plant. ... Plants are already a valuable source of leading compounds for the pharmaceutical industry.
is that I may not want to assist big pharma by ingesting their excess vitamins etc in my food. And we've all heard the story about the yellow rice - who is growing it? Nobody. If someone wants yellow rice, let them add some saffron. All this blab about researching - they always say it is to rid the world of starvation, or blindness, or poverty - just to get the funding, so they can waste more time researching.

And yes, we get it that you are studying the subject, and like veganblue, you think GMOs are great!

[Korn]

Much research is going into incorporating excess vitamins, antibiotics, and vaccines into transgenic plants.
If people need vitamins, why not give them food with natural, healthy levels of vitamins in? GMO is probably interesting for people who are into ways of growing plants fast (more profitable) using artificial fertilizers that reduce vitamin levels. It's probably also a useful way to keep the underpaid workers in the third world poor: the Western world pays so little for the tea, rice and cotton we buy from them, and instead of paying more, let's give them some semi-synthetic plants that will boost their vitamin levels. Why is there so little research on natural antibiotics? It's probably not profitable enough to invest in. The whole GMO industry seem to be very focused on fast way to keep our planet out of balance. When our bodies are out of balance, our immune systems are down, and when they are down, we have a greater chance of getting ill. The natural way to treat illness (remove the causes, heal the wounds with 'non-synthetic' methods whenever that is possible isn't very interesting for the pharmaceutical industry.




Vitamin A deficiency causes half a million children to become partially or totally blind each year (NAP NP). Sure. So let's move money from the rich part of the world to the poor part of the world, let's help people in poor countries understand that processed food (white rice, white sugar, white flour, white salt - which many Asian countries are rather obsessed with in spite of problems with poverty and malnutrition) lacks vitamins: they are removed in the processing. Let's change the school systems in the Western world, and teach the kids about natural nutrition instead of telling them that they need meat and milk and sugar, and let's inform adults about the difference between the amount of nutrients in organic, non-processed food, and non-organic, processed food. Why remove the nutrients from peoples food, and later use the miserable situation this leads to as an excuse to manipulate nature, in order to get plants with vaccines and antibiotics in? Imagine what this could lead to, if/when these plants by accident spread and start to grow in the wild? Of course someone will promise that this won't happen, just like some people say that airplanes or nuclear power plants are safe, or that chemical industries have developed systems that will prohibit that chemicals accidentally will leak out. And ships who transport oil never leak oil, right?


This was created due to the fact that about 400 million women of childbearing age suffer from iron deficiency and anemia; which has been identified as a contributing factor in over 20% maternal deaths in Asia and Africa (NAP NP).*Yeah, wouldn't it be nice not to have to actually pay the people in this countries for all the goods we practically steal from them? We want to import anything we want from these countries almost without paying anything, we even offer loans to the poor countries at interest rates that ruin them. They can't afford food.They lack iron and vitamin A and a lot of other things. Do they lack this because they haven't gotten enough gene modified food? NO! They haven't got enough normal, natural food!!!!


Vaccines are a common commodity for the people fortunate enough to live in developed countries such as the United States. This isn't fortune, my friend. The economy of USA and other rich countries, like Norway (Where I come from) is to a large extent based on imperialism, exploitation of nature (oil), and business with people in the countries that we want to believe that we 'help' because they are not as 'fortune' as us.


This would allow easier access and cheaper production making it a feasible option for the underprivileged.

Cheap is the keyword here: less expenses, more profit.


A vaccine against tooth decay has set the pattern for producing monoclonal antibodies in plants (Note NP).
Tooth decay is NOT a result of lack of having eaten too little plants with monoclonal antibodies. Tooth decay is a result of too little of certain nutrients combined with too much sugar, among other things.

IMO, all use and development of GMO should stop immediately. Humans have been 'playing God' for too long already. We know a lot about causes of most diseases, we know a lot about immune systems, antioxidants, the health risks associated with junk food and animal products, but instead of actually investing some research in how to help Average Joe to understand why he should live healthier and how he can do it, we keep teaching kids bad food habits, and healthy, natural food can't even be found in hospitals or in the canteens of the corporations and governments that rule this world.

As an example, increased meat intake is associated with increased cancer risk. If you are concerned about cancer risk, more plants=good, more meat = bad. This is based on studies comparing meat-eaters with people who don't eat meat. Most of these people have been eating meat as kids, but have decided not to at some point in life. Wouldn't it be very interesting with some research on people who have never been eating meat or other animal products? If people who have been eating meat 75% of their life and avoided it 25% have a 35% increased chance of getting some types of cancer, why isn't there a lot of research on people who have never had meat or animal products. Based on statics (and knowledge of the nature of the cell growth functions of B12, which meat contains a lot of), isn't it likely that people who NEVER have been eating meat or cow's milk are very unlikely to develop cancer? (Cow's milk also stimulates rapid growth, cancer is a 'too rapid growth'-problem). As far as I know, the scientists that could look into this, and raise the funds needed, probably haven't even tried to look at where they can find people who have been raised on a plant based diet.

Why research into synthetic, potentially dangerous ways to heal wounds that often just are results of our unnatural, unhealthy lifestyle, instead of starting to actually USE all the knowledge that already is available, but which most people ignore?

[adam antichrist]

Today 8 members of greenpeace staged a sit-in demonstration at Bayer CropScience in melbourne demanding the company take responsibllity for the contamination of non-GM canola. The activists decided the sit-in was the best way "to show (Bayer) what it's like to have an unwanted presence of contamination"
:D

[eve]

Eight demonstrators. I expect Bayer had a good laugh at that! Sadly, most people really don't think or care about the issue. The ones who will be the losers are the small farmers and those of us who *do* care, and have no choice because there is no labelling.

[eve]

The battlefront over GM crops in the US and Europe has shifted to 'molecular pharming', the use of GM crops to produce pharmaceuticals. California-based company Ventria Bioscience has been at the forefront of pharm crops development, and has planted 75 acres of genetically engineered rice near Plymouth in Eastern North Carolina.

The full article appears at www.i-sis.org.uk/MPTNB.php and also mentions that we know nothing concerning the effects of these proteins on beneficial bacteria and other organisms in the soil, on insects, amphibians, birds and mammals that interact with the pharm rice in the fields. Another aspect virtually ignored in all risk assessment is the hazards from horizontal transfer of the transgenes to viral and bacterial pathogens that are everywhere in our environment. This new development is quite disturbing, though FestiveF states that this is a good thing.

[eve]

GM Crops Lead to Herbicide-Resistant “Superweed” (Aug 2, 2005) by Roddy Scheer

British agricultural scientists have found that a genetically modified (GM) variant of rapeseed has cross-fertilized with local wild charlock plants, creating a herbicide - resistant “superweed” in the process. The transformation of a plain charlock into a superweed is something scientists had thought to be “virtually impossible.” The resulting charlock plants, which showed no ill-effects after treatment with a normally lethal herbicide, were discovered among many other unaffected plants in a field that had been used to grow GM rapeseed as part of the British government’s 3year trials of GM crops.

While British officials were quick to downplay to discovery as insignificant in the larger view of millions of unaffected plants, other experts aren’t so sure. Ecological geneticist Brian Johnson, a member of the UK’s scientific group assessing the farm trials, told reporters, "You only need one event in several million. As soon as it has taken place the new plant has a huge selective advantage. That plant will multiply rapidly."

What especially worries environmentalists is that because millions of charlock seeds can remain in the soil for 20-30 years before germination, it would be nearly impossible to remove any of the genetically modified strains. Potential problems such as these are what led many other European Union representatives, especially the French and Greek delegations, to seek an outright ban on GM rapeseed.

Sources: www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1535428,00.html and www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/25/ugm.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/25/ixportaltop.html

[adam antichrist]

What scientists described as 'virtually impossible' realists described as 'only a matter of time'
:rolleyes:

[adam antichrist]

Another contamination in australia:


More GM contamination found
By Tim Clarke
Perth
August 9, 2005

Environmentalists say Australia is facing "the most serious genetic contamination event" in its history, after the West Australian government confirmed low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola.

A spokeswoman for the WA Department of the Environment said today that tests had shown positive results of GM material but samples had been sent overseas for further testing and until more detailed results were confirmed no further details could be released.

The latest test results come after GM material was found during routine testing by the Australian Barley Board in June of an export consignment of Victorian canola seeds bound for Japan. About 0.01 per cent of the consignment contained the GM material.

It is believed the modification found in Victoria, known as Topas 19/2 and developed by Bayer CropScience, was also found in the WA sample tested.

Following today's announcement, Greenpeace Australia campaigner Jeremy Tager said state governments must now take immediate action to protect Australia's GM free status.

"This is the most serious genetic contamination event that Australia has ever faced and the response from state governments in the coming days will determine their commitment to upholding Australia's (GM) free status," Mr Tager said.

"The WA and Victorian governments have instituted rigorous testing.

"They are taking this issue extremely seriously but the lack of any response from the NSW and South Australian governments is disturbing.

"States that have not conducted testing, or taken steps to determine if Topas is a problem in their agricultural areas, are putting Australian farmers and our (GM) free status at risk."

WA's Agriculture Minister Kim Chance said he would like to see legislation put in place at a national level to govern liability for GM contamination.

Although he believed WA's GM-free status was not under threat, he was keeping a close watch on the situation.

Hew said while tests had given a positive result, there could be a number of reasons for that.

"It's certainly a matter for concern, but it is an interim test, and the nature of those interim tests is that false positives are possible," Mr Chance told ABC radio.

"So really until we get the final information from that trial, which won't be until early-September, it's really speculative to say that we actually have that problem.

"I know that the Network of Concerned Farmers have argued very strongly for strict liability laws of that kind, and I think it's something that we need to be thinking about very seriously."

Julie Newman, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, said if the contamination was confirmed, the problem must be isolated and removed because GM-free status was too valuable to lose.

[adam antichrist]

Another contamination in australia:


More GM contamination found
By Tim Clarke
Perth
August 9, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Environmentalists say Australia is facing "the most serious genetic contamination event" in its history, after the West Australian government confirmed low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola.

A spokeswoman for the WA Department of the Environment said today that tests had shown positive results of GM material but samples had been sent overseas for further testing and until more detailed results were confirmed no further details could be released.

The latest test results come after GM material was found during routine testing by the Australian Barley Board in June of an export consignment of Victorian canola seeds bound for Japan. About 0.01 per cent of the consignment contained the GM material.

It is believed the modification found in Victoria, known as Topas 19/2 and developed by Bayer CropScience, was also found in the WA sample tested.

Following today's announcement, Greenpeace Australia campaigner Jeremy Tager said state governments must now take immediate action to protect Australia's GM free status.

Advertisement
Advertisement"This is the most serious genetic contamination event that Australia has ever faced and the response from state governments in the coming days will determine their commitment to upholding Australia's (GM) free status," Mr Tager said.

"The WA and Victorian governments have instituted rigorous testing.

"They are taking this issue extremely seriously but the lack of any response from the NSW and South Australian governments is disturbing.

"States that have not conducted testing, or taken steps to determine if Topas is a problem in their agricultural areas, are putting Australian farmers and our (GM) free status at risk."

WA's Agriculture Minister Kim Chance said he would like to see legislation put in place at a national level to govern liability for GM contamination.

Although he believed WA's GM-free status was not under threat, he was keeping a close watch on the situation.

Hew said while tests had given a positive result, there could be a number of reasons for that.

"It's certainly a matter for concern, but it is an interim test, and the nature of those interim tests is that false positives are possible," Mr Chance told ABC radio.

"So really until we get the final information from that trial, which won't be until early-September, it's really speculative to say that we actually have that problem.

"I know that the Network of Concerned Farmers have argued very strongly for strict liability laws of that kind, and I think it's something that we need to be thinking about very seriously."

Julie Newman, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, said if the contamination was confirmed, the problem must be isolated and removed because GM-free status was too valuable to lose.


Is it just me or does it look like the big corporations are doing this on purpose so we all end up consuming GM stock whether we like it or not?

[rujoon]

Eh.. if the GMO food, is genetically modified with plant genes and not animal ones, would guys think its acceptable? Like lets say, theres a gene in potato which can enhance tomato production, and its put into the tomato.

[adam antichrist]

Eh.. if the GMO food, is genetically modified with plant genes and not animal ones, would guys think its acceptable? Like lets say, theres a gene in potato which can enhance tomato production, and its put into the tomato.

Then they feed it to animals, cut them up and weigh their organs to see what it does to them.

[rujoon]

Then they feed it to animals, cut them up and weigh their organs to see what it does to them.Oh..I didnt knew that. What about a cross between plant species? If i m not wrong, the wheat we r eating used to be of 2 species, but they were crossed to enhance production or smth like that..
I think it will be good to consider GM foods on a case by case basis. Lets say if GM foods which were modified to resist pest by producing certain chemicals, that we hav to view them with caution. As for those which are just introduce with eg. a vitamin precursor-producing gene, maybe it isnt gonna really that dangerous..