GM and SCIENCE

Wes Jackson, a renowned scientist and plant breeder once said to me, “My question is: what is the guarantee that there is not an environmental problem equivalent to the size of the ozone hole waiting for us at the end of this technology?”

I can whole-heartedly accept the second part of this proposition. If the general population was more science literate, we would likely be protecting the environment better, and farming more sustainably. I personally admire the science that creates genetic modification, and I don’t object to it when it stays in the laboratory.

I don’t think we are ready to let it out of the bag yet, for a variety of science and non-science reasons.

As in every field of science, dissent among scientists is common.

There is a body of reputable peer-reviewed research that raises concerns about GM, as there is a body of peerreviewed science in support of GM.

Peer-reviewed science may be wrong, of course, and much accepted science is later disproven, through the demonstration of contradictory evidence generated through further research, but peer-reviewed, evidencebased science is the best standard available and to present the findings or the researchers as anti-science is to trivialise the process of science itself.

Clearly the scientists who developed ozone-depleting processes did not think they were creating a global scale

disaster either

Some scientists who have reviewed GM research warn us that there are significant gaps in our knowledge about dietary effects and allergies for humans, and that pollen-escape and transfer of characteristics such as herbicide-resistance does happen in the field.

There are also many related discipline scientists, who have not specifically worked on GM, who would advocate extreme caution before introducing GM into the environment or the food chain.

I think that the idea I should not even be informed on the packaging, to allow me to exercise a normal right of choice, is completely

unacceptable.

Wes Jackson, a renowned scientist and plant breeder who appeared in Time-Life magazine’s list of the 100 most important Americans of the last century, once said to me, tion

Clearly the scientists who developed ozone-depleting processes did not think they were creating a global scale disaster either.

Instead of denying that there is science that legitimately questions the benefits of GM; pro-GM scientists should specifically refute it, in publically available, peer-reviewed, evidence-based research reports.

This would be infinitely better than just using their media clout to scorn the dissenters, which is really a nonscientific approach. The scorn comes, of course, from a state of mind that is at least as ‘emotional’ as mine, more so, I would say.

Is it science, or non-science reasoning, that when it comes to the food I eat, I want to be safety-minded to the highest practical extent?

The Australian government’s food safety advice emphasizes contamination from disease-causing organisms.

Having suffered an occasional bout of food poisoning, in Australia and in remote tropical places overseas, I can readily agree with food hygiene.

The tropical environments that I have trekked through contain some parasites that are difficult to get rid of too, but I did get rid of them.

In the case of GM, we could be introducing things into the field that are impossible to recall. In my view that requires extra caution.

I think a reasonable science response is to create a publically accessible research database and a regulation process that includes epidemiological studies for each new gene that might be ingested through food.

I think that the idea I should not even be informed on the packaging, to allow me to exercise a normal right of choice, is completely unacceptable.

My local organic store and supermarket are both happy to accommodate the widest range of food choices. I can hunt the labels on their products and find organic, kosher, halal, sulphur free, gluten free, nut free, free range, and freedom from all sorts of other ingredients or additives, and products that are ‘not tested on animals,’ all labelled clearly for my attention.

The stores I frequent want to be able to allow me to choose GM free too, but they might not be able to in the future.

If a farmer who dearly loves his land and profession, and cares about

his product and his downstream customers as much as Steve Marsh does, can’t keep GM out, then we have conceded a massive hole in our food safety system and in our right to choice.

Steve was the first farmer in Australia to lose his organic certification due to GM contamination. Steve lost his access to premium priced organic markets, not because of anything he did but because science released too early from the lab could not be contained on his neighbour’s farm.

Anyone who cares about choice, including people who are themselves prepared to eat GM, should be rallying to Steve Marsh’s side, and the cause of many other farmers, and consumers, who are not yet ready to eat novel, unproven and sometimes suspect gene combinations from the Franken labs and Franken farms.

Don’t even start on the old myth about feeding the starving millions. I have seen firsthand desperately poor families in undeveloped countries and in war zones. Starvation from drought or flood does occur, and deserves our assistance, but most starvation arises from loss of access to land by political circumstance, or armed conflict of one type or another. by researchers in New Zealand, Australia and Brazil, is available free at http://bit.ly/14i7pyG courtesy of The Safe Food Foundation.

Scott Kinnear, from the Safe Food Foundation, said it shows that food regulators have not tested the effect on humans of double-stranded RNA molecules which kill insects which eat them by altering genes that stop them absorbing nutrition.

Mr Kinnear says it is frightening and unacceptable that the local regulator - Food Standards Australia New Zealand - has not tested the hypothesis that dsRNA may affect the genes of humans that consume the new GM crops which contain it.

“Despite failing to check the safety or otherwise of these new GM molecules, regulators such as FSANZ are approving the GM material for human consumption in foods such as margarines, mayonaisses, chocolate and miso. FSANZ has approved at least five GM products containing dsRNA despite the scientific uncertainty over their affect on humans.

“FSANZ prefers to assume that dsRNA is not transmited to humans through food, and would be unstable in cooking or during digestion.

“According to the lead author of the new paper, Prof Jack Heinemann