Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

GM growers outed.

It seems that ethics aren't that important in the charter of the Gene Ethics manifesto.

"An online map has been released identifying farmers who are growing genetically modified (GM) canola across Western Australia.

The map's creator, the anti-GM lobby group Gene Ethics, said the map would enable farmers growing non-GM canola to protect their crops from contamination.

The online map pinpoints 14 farmers who have publicly said they were growing or intended to grow GM canola this year."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/map-reveals-gm-canola...

As growing GM canola is perfectly legal in WA, I fail to see the common good in speculating as to whether or not a particular grower has planted GM canola based on public statements the grower has made. What does that prove exactly?

I can understand Gene Ethics being upset that they aren't taken as the final word on GM crops , but really identifying 14 of 317 growers is highly discriminatory. Growers who are doing nothing wrong, and for all we know have good working relationships with their neighbours anyway. Growers left open to actions from the lunatic fringe simply because they believe new technology to be beneficial.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Madeleine Love on July 31, 2010 at 2:29pm

There is that common saying... That one's freedom to swing one's fist ends at the beginning of another's nose.
Already the introduction of GM canola has interfered with the freedom of many.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Madeleine Love on July 31, 2010 at 3:55pm

Alan,
I am providing a way for you to indulge yourself in the science you claim to believe in, with "devotion" and "unshakeable faith". I notice you haven't tried to contact us yet for the Monsanto data. Surely you're not scared to have your religious faith in GM shattered??
This GM system is sadly, 'one in, all in'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Madeleine Love on July 31, 2010 at 4:32pm

Alan, I understand you have withdrawn, but we would probably both understand that all I have to find to counter Roger's statement is one point where I agree. As gentle as you have decided Roger's statement to be, it is extreme, and sets up for other readers, such as yourself, a frame that is wholly unrepresentative, at my expense.

It is important to investigate the truth of statements made and this is what has led me into the black hole of the GM issue. On a GM forum such as this I only have time to challenge statements I know to be untrue. This doesn't mean that I don't credit many of the statements made. For example, I am prepared to believe without investigation these statements of Roger's (just grabbed a couple of paragraphs above):

"There is some interesting work going on with the brassica family especially mustard.
"They are even looking at improving, by crossing, at 'wild' radish and others.
"Looking for a perrenial brassica.
"Wild Radish is a major crop weed in WA.
"Don't underestimate the effect if a RR wild radish got away.
"Bit of 24D would fix it up but it would also fix up the canola!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on July 31, 2010 at 4:40pm

Oh dear, I know I said I would stay away but I am sure you understand but you are playing semantics with those who don't.

Insects are capable of developing a resistance to a compound over time. Sometimes in just a few generations. There are also at the same time, some individual insects within a population that are more resistant to the compound than the majority.
Rates of application are set just above the level that will kill the most resistant insects.

So, if you under apply you allow the most resistant insects to breed and this happens at the same time as they are building within themselves a defence against the compound. The result is that the insecticide doesn't work. It has a short life. Ask farmers about blowflies.

The first classic case of insect resistance was with synthetic pyrethroid. We had never observed it with natural pyrethroid as there had never been enough! Farmers in the cotton country under applied and the insects nearly ruined the industry, permanently.

What happens in the plant kingdom is similar but not the same.

Within any plant species there are some plants that are resistant to a compound, a weedicide. Some more than others some may be completely resistant but it may only be 1 in 10,000,000 or more. The big difference is that plants do not develope(as I said) a resistance, it is already there in their genes.

So, say with wild radish. I resistant plant, with the resistance in it's genes survives an application of Roundup sets seed and drops say 200 seeds that are all resistant to Roundup. Spray again and again, year in year out with the same product Roundup and you finish up with a 'crop' of RR wild radish.

This time I am off!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Madeleine Love on July 31, 2010 at 5:07pm

Now what you're saying is really interesting so I'm going to head into the databases to find out what's known.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on July 31, 2010 at 9:11pm

a Vic apiarist had his honey refused this year, due to GM contaminant. I will see if I can find the item , it Did make the Msm reports though.
Sure the smart guys will trial, but the issue them for them , if they decide agin it is eradication the volunteers, which would mean eithe pasturing it? or non related crops with a harvest time that would beat the GM seed ripening.
I read that the test areas in Tassie took many years to be declared safe and some took over 10 years to be so declared, thats bloody scary. but then there are known cases of 20 plus year seed coming up in pasture paddocks that then got ploughed, natures staggering sometimes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on July 31, 2010 at 9:17pm

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_print.asp?ID=2073

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on July 31, 2010 at 9:26pm

however to gain Organic standards No Gm is permissible.
http://www.capilano.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...

maybe some of us are fussier? My apiarist friends will not go within coee of any commercial crops gm or not due to the farm chem. residues.
the hives and bees are too precious to risk. and that even includes to BT sprayed organic crops, as when they did trial it, the bees that were run on those crops, deteriorated soon after. it took some weeks to show, but it did show up. bees get upset tummies just like humans, fertility drops, and while thats normal in ageing queens , these were not aging, and had been producing well until then.
I'll ask one of my friends if> hes willing to join in here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Mulligan on July 31, 2010 at 9:43pm

Madeleine,

Madeline whether Monsanto restricts research or not will hardly deter the likes of Greenpeace from doing as many tests as they can to prove danger. The obvious fact that they have not reflects reality.

Despite the probability that research has improved since Asbestos was used by the ancient Greeks, or since PCBs were created in the 1800s what health problems do you actually expect from GM canola consumption?

The Thalidomide tradgedy stemmed from the belief that drugs couldn't cross the placental barrier and presumably wasn't tested as well as it should. It was the turning point toward the stringent testing regimes of today. Testing that has Thalidomide back on the drug shelf.

Thalidomide was introduced in 1957 and withdrawn by 1962 - 5 years
PCBs noted as causing serious disease within 6 years of commercial production.

GM food, around for over 12 years, facing the most focused observation of any product release that comes to mind - unscathed.

At what stage would you say it's safe to progress? If the answer is never we'll leave it at that.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colin J Ely on July 31, 2010 at 9:58pm

Does anyone know of any farmer growing Broadacre crops organically?

What of someone growing vegetables organically at the bottom of a hill. with non-organic growers higher up. What about the non-organic fertilizers traveling downhill?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Mulligan on July 31, 2010 at 10:42pm

laurel, crop rotation- it has many benefits. Canola is susceptable to chemicals wheat is not for one. Other chemicals are available during the fallow phase and seeding time if you are growing back to back.

Well we know from various anti-GM sites that once out of the bag GM can never be stopped, so 10 years is quite good then really.

As your apiarist friends won't go near a commercial crop they won't be affected then by GM crops. And as organic apiarists can't use conventional crops either they shouldn't lose to much sleep about GM.
I would be very interested to hear their opinions, and would encourage them to participate.