Biotechnology

Hello Jennifer,

We had a very lively GMO [genetically modified organism] Reference Group Meeting [in Perth, Western Australia,] this morning and I had the opportunity to lay a few concerns on the line with the Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, particularly with respect to the Animal Feeding Study by Judy Carman and colleagues in Adelaide. Among the key points to emerge from the exchange were the following:-

1. The Minister refused to disclose the protocol for the feeding study; the list of scientists (local and international) who allegedly approved the protocol; and the members of the review committee who will address milestones.

He was reminded that this is his own Ministerial Reference Group; Western Australian taxpayers money is involved; the study never went out to tender; and is not a state mandate anyway given that WA is a signatory to the Inter-governmental Agreement on Gene Technology Regulation wherein Human Health and the Environment are a Federal jurisdiction.

2. He was also informed that his action could easily be construed as undermining public confidence in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and FSANZ, when the independent review of the Gene Technology Act of 2000 has already published its findings (2006) showing that Australia already has one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world.

3. He was also reminded that going back to December 2005 Professors Graeme Robertson (Muresk/Curtin Univ.); Stephen Powles (UWA); and Mike Jones (Murdoch/SABC) had written to him informing him that Judy Carman could not be seen as independent and she and her group have no track record in conducting animal feeding studies.

He was also reminded of international concerns for the study (expressed in writing, and responded to in Parliament); and two letters from AusBiotech (Anna Lavelle / Ian Edwards) expressing concerns, and also (in the case of Ian Edwards’ letter) calling for the studies to be halted.

4. The Minister made it clear that only when the results of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals will he release the protocols. He contended that Bayer and Monsanto do not release details of the protocols for studies that they are currently undertaking so why should he? He said that if there is indeed a flaw in the studies then this will also be revealed upon completion! He also explained that since the commissioning of the studies was by approval of Cabinet he was not obliged to go to the tender process. He assured the Group that the studies were taking place in Australia, and specifically in Adelaide.

5. When asked whether he really believes that the study will answer the outstanding questions that he thinks the “public” still has in their minds he acknowledged that the study is unlikely to provide these answers and it may in fact raise more questions for future work. He also acknowledged that the amount of funding was very small, but “maybe Judy Carman may have other sources of funding to contribute to the study”.

6. He further maintained that ‘consumers’ are confused about the anomalies that have occurred in feeding studies; that our health regulators have a duty of care; and that they have not explained differences in feeding studies to consumers. He further claimed that “only 2 or 3 out of 137 feeding studies presented any details of the protocol involved” and posed the question “Why is there so much unanswered un-answered public information?”

7. He was challenged on this, and attention drawn to the “Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plans” prepared by the OGTR in 2003/04 in response to the Bayer and Monsanto canola submissions that received regulatory approval. These documents were then attacked by the NGO members (Network of Concerned Farmers and Organics). A summary of the key findings of the Bayer Risk Assessment was then given to the Group and I explained that Judy Carman’s claims of there being “little or no feeding studies and no allergenicity studies” did not square with the facts.

Julie Newman will be seeing Judy Carman tomorrow and will notify her that these “preposterous allegations had been made against her”. Julie also informed the meeting that Judy Carman “has a room full of files on Monsanto at her home”.

Best regards,
Ian Edwards

————-
I have previously blogged on this issue here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001067.html

“Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain,” according to a story in Farmonline.

Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.”

But they are already drinking it.

At least Victorian dairy farmers have been feeding their cows various amounts of GM soy — a product that has been imported into Australia from the US — for years.

This was a finding in an independent report by Professor Peter Lloyd commissioned by the Victorian government some years ago.

According to the spokeswoman for the mothers, Glenda Lindsay, “There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products.”

But there is no difference in milk from cows feed GM soy and non-GM soy.

I was wondering how some Australian mothers — presumably educated women — could be so ignorant. Then I remembered comment from a colleague some months ago, made in the context of all the global warming hysteria, he said, “Most people are too busy to think, so they ‘buy’ opinion.”

There is a campaign to maintain the current moratorium banning the planting of GM food crops in Victoria. The ban was introduced some years ago, following Greenpeace campaigning, and is set to expire in February 2008.

Ms Lindsay also said, “It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don’t want GM foods.”

————-
Comments from Glenda Lindsay are from a story in this week’s Stock & Land. Also available through FarmOnline http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211

“THREE years ago Labor backbencher Luke Donnellan voted for a four-year ban on genetically modified crops in Victoria. Last week Mr Donnellan invited his Labor colleagues to attend a pro-GM meeting at Parliament House sponsored by the Institute of Public Affairs …

ALP insiders say that senior ministers, especially Treasurer John Brumby and Premier Steve Bracks, regard the ban as running counter to the aim of making Victoria an international hub for biotechnology.

Read the complete article from The Age newspaper here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/now-for-the-hard-sell-on-modified-foods/2007/05/19/1179497342307.html

I will be speaking along with Rick Roush, the dean of land and food resources at Melbourne University, and Chris Kelly, a Mallee grain grower.

I will probably reiterate what I said in my The Land column of a couple of weeks ago, the text is here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/articles.php?id=127

“In the past 2 weeks there has been considerable press about a forthcoming article in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. This article ‘New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity’ by Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier and Joël Spiroux de Vendomois, purports to show that a genetically-modified corn causes damaged to the livers and kidneys of rats and hence is likely to be dangerous to humans…

Read the full blog post entitled ‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’ over at GMO Pundit: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html

And there is more information in an earlier blog post entitled ‘WA Ag Minister Kim Chance wrong on GM food safety concerns’ also at GMO Pundit including comment that:

“Quite aside from the statistical procedure used it was found that the adverse toxicology results that they reported occurred only when 11% GM maize was fed – they did not occur when 33% maize was fed. This lack of a dose response alone should have alerted them to the fact that their procedure might be wrong, but it did not stop them publishing without explaining the anomalies! Their publication also contained four totally incorrect statements that have since been addressed by several groups. What is quite extraordinary is that these anomalies were not picked up by the reviewers of their paper.”

So much for peer review and eating corn.

The campaign to lift the current ban on GM food crops, in place in most Australian states, appears to be gathering momentum with various pro-GM articles in the rural press over recent weeks.

One reason for the ban was a claim that Australian farmers woud get a premium for GM-free product, in particular GM-free canola.

I was interested to read University of Melbourne’s Dean of Land and Food Resources, Professor Rick Roush, quoted in the Border Mail (Aussie Farmers Need GM Crop Advantage, 24 February 2007) disputing the claim that Australian farmers get a premium for GM-free canola and stating:

“Ironically, there are some places where GM-crops are getting premiums, for example, in Romania farmers are being paid extra because their canola is weed-free.”

The article also included the following information under the heading ‘Fast Facts’:

“Since 1996, the global use of pesticides In GM crops was reduced by 224 million kilograms. In 2005 the C02 savings from reduced fuel use in GM crops was close to one billion kilograms. The increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil due to reduction in tillage was more than eight billion kilograms. This combined reduction of C02 emissions in 2005 equates to removing almost four million cars from the road. Farmers earn higher incomes in every country where GM crops are grown.
Source: Global Impact of Biotech Crops which can be found at www.agbioforum.org”

And Professor Roush was reported saying he didn’t believe the bans would be lifted any time soon.

A couple of years ago I spoke at a breakfast in Queanbeyan, near Canberra, on GM food crops. I explained the benefits of the technology from an environmental perspective.

At the time, bans on the commercial production of GM food crops had just been introduced in most Australian states following campaigning by Greenpeace against GM canola.

Yes, it’s now illegal to grow GM crops in most parts of Australia, with GM cotton exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre – not food.

Senator Bill Heffernan was in the audience when I spoke at that breakfast and he continually interjected, in particular, he claimed that GM technology was unproven and that GM canola would become a weed.

So, I was a little surprised to see the headline in today’s The Age newspaper: ‘Heffernan calls for a rethink on GM crops’.

It seems the Senator, himself, has had a rethink as part of his push for agricultural development in northern Australia and is now enthusiastic about GM food crops.

In the article, The Senator suggests some southern farmers would be prepared to move north and that our attitude to GM needs to change if “the water-drenched Top End” is to be developed as the nation’s “food bowl”.

But, agricultural development in the north doesn’t need southern farmers or the Senator and his federal government committees.

It needs less, not more, government interference and in particular:

1. A lifting of the bans on GM food crops in Western Australia,
2. A lifting of the ban on cotton growing in the Northern Territory (yes, it is illegal to grow any sort of cotton in the Northern Territory), and
3. Queensland legislation, in particular the Wild Rivers Act and Vegetation Management Act, needs to be changed so there is potential for some land development and some water infrastructure development in north Queensland.

There is always more information on breaking GM news at David Tribe’s blog at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/.