Australian Organic Farmer GM contamination court case 10th Feburary

Check the substance of the post before linking hecate :lol:

The study the good professor is referring to has been retracted by the editors of the journal, apparently because it lacked appropriate scientific procedure, this unfortunately has fed the fires of the anti-GM groups who cite it as an example of industry interference in scientific research. It would have been more appropriate to request additional studies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514000039

 

It depends which bandwagon you want to push LOB.

"Grandma denied the joy of planting her own seeds" or "Terminator seeds prevent invasive spread of weeds"

 

@hecate, your response is a surprise. (Where's that sarcasm smiley? ;lol: )

I'll quote me, with some added emphasis.

So where is your scientific evidence now hecate? Have another go.

 

Depends on your agenda.

Welcome, unfortunate, life-saving, abominable etc etc etc :/

 

@dagsgarrett, thanks, give me a bit of time and I'll try to respond to your request.

 

I use therm "viral" in its old sense and which is still applicable.

 

@dags

I am a supporter of GMO because of the tremendous opportunity it offers to provide food more reliably and at a lower cost point. I'm also a supporter of substantiating statements through facts without emotive hype (which is why I am not a supporter of Greenpeace or RSPCA etc). And I'm an even bigger supporter of buying farmer's/fisherman's direct produce the choice to consumers is truly wonderful, and is something that should not be taken away.

Because of the nature (or un-nature ) of GMO, ie consistency of produce, faster maturation, resistance to pests/diseases, longer shelf life, appealing look etc these products are able to be grown and managed and distributed on a large scale at a lower economic cost than more traditional varieties. Obviously from a price and availability perspective, this is to the advantage of all consumers, but especially to those who struggle to get enough nutrition. However, there is a cost to be born from that and that is the potential loss of varieties and flavour and if they are to be believed, potential life threatening side effects.

The first potential cost is already being overcome with the growth in heritage seed distribution and by farmers, who are mainly small scale and who cannot compete with larger companies realising a market potential in growing and raising traditional varieties of agricultural products for consumers with more "discerning" taste. Irrespective of whether these small scale solutions are organic or not, the demand for such produce can only increase in the future no matter how large and widespread Monsanto and Synergen Pharma's influence extends.

The second potential cost is often the focus for all those journal articles, pamphlettes and press releases produced and the public rallies held by special interest groups. Food is an emotive topic, unfortunately it is very easy to stir up the emotions of consumers, and just like large organisations using the big stick of expensive court action to silence dissent, opponents of GMO use the big stick of fear and ignorance to pursue their ends. There a lot of anti-GMO advocates on this forum, I'm not one of them because I have not seen any scientific evidence proving the harmful effects of GMO, there is a flood of misinformation but a distinct lack of information. Take the video you posted, central to the issue is a legal debate over property rights, unfortunately it has become a debate over organic v GMO.

Take heart though dags, the rise in popularity of farmer's markets, organics etc is a powerful enough phenomena that will ensure that large corporations will never be able to monopolise the market. What we do need is choice, the choice to feed ourselves according to our own beliefs and according to our own financial capacity. Large scale monoculture and small scale diversified farms provide consumers with choice each meet a need, they provide a choice that should not be denied by any special interest group, corporate(Monsanto) or not (Safe Food Foundation).

 

As far as the organic farmer goes, I wouldn't be surprised if he loses his court case.

He is seeking reparation for damages from his neighbour because he has lost NASAA Certification. Unfortunately for Mr Marsh, the NASAA guidelines clearly state that the operator is solely responsible for ensuring his farm is adequately protected from contamination. He may be able to argue that it was beyond his control, but as NASAA has already made a decision they would probably be reluctant to back down. Of course, I'm no solicitor, just an internet loudmouth.