News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Alarm at plan to allow three more GM foods 

Alarm at plan to allow three more GM foods

08 Apr, 2010 08:59 AM
GENETICALLY engineered foods using technologies that have been rejected in Europe and India due to health concerns are to be approved for sale in Australia.

As debate continues over GM food labelling laws, Food Standards Australia New Zealand plans to accept three more GM applications for insect-resistant soya beans, drought-tolerant corn and an enzyme designed to produce super bread. Based on testing data provided by the producers - Monsanto and DSM Food Specialties - the agency said it found no cause for safety concerns. But anti-GM lobbyists expressed fears about the possibility of the transfer of bacteria and antibiotic genes to humans.

The corn crop contains antibiotic-resistant genes that scientists fear could pass to humans, and the European Food Safety Authority called for its phasing out in 2005, said Laura Kelly of Greenpeace. Ms Kelly said there were also concerns about an E coli bacterium in the corn.

The chief scientist of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Dr Paul Brent, said the risk of antibiotic resistance transference was ''effectively zero''.

''If there is any transfer at all, it's going to occur at extremely low frequency,'' he said.

The soya bean crop contains the same toxin as a GM eggplant that the Indian government rejected in February after it was linked with liver and reproductive damage in rats.

Bob Phelps, director of Gene Ethics, said tighter scientific benchmarks were needed to test the safety of GM foods.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Strewth! What's going on down under? the rest of the world is waking up (albeit too slowly) to the non-natural garbage the American Corporations are foisting on us and what with the problems with soy products generally, somebody must be making money under the counter to allow those GM products into Australia.
Posted by luigi, 8/04/2010 11:43:20 AM
The genetic manipulation process is crude, random and genetically damaging. A typical cell (which is tiny) can contain billions of DNA units or 'nucleotides', which have an astoundingly complex chemical structure. If the nucleotides are not aligned in a very specific and precise sequence then the cell will malfunction. So to think it's possible to shove or blast DNA from one species into another without there being unintended consequences is ridiculous to say the least. Since the introduction of GM into the global food supply in the mid 90's, rates of allergies, infertility, cancer, and immune and digestive system related illnesses have skyrocketed. This is exactly what FDA scientists warned could happen, but their concerns were ignored by policymakers. Australia's regulators and governments are fully aware of these facts, but they are sold out to the advancing the interests of the mega agrochemical corporations.
Posted by Ian, 8/04/2010 4:51:29 PM
Dr Paul Brent told WA state Liberal MLA Peter Abetz recently that there are nO toxicology reports to show that GM foods are safe. That is the head of the food regulator in Australia speaking! And yet he can say that there are no problems with eating it. Based on what? Clearly we do not have the proof so let's adopt the precautionary principle uNtil we can show that this is not a risk to our health.
Posted by Hebe, 9/04/2010 12:18:25 AM
A real scientific system of food regulation is essential. But Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) does unscientific assessments of novel foods (see Food Standard 1.5) that have no history of safe use. FSANZ uses a so-called ‘science-based’ and ‘case-by-case’ approach that allows ad hoc data collection and assessment methods. FSANZ does no testing. Instead, the law should require FSANZ to specify the design, scope and scale of all relevant scientific experiments required. The onus for proof of safety must rest on the applicants. The benchmarks, standards, Quality Assurance systems and protocols needed for the systematic collection of high quality safety data should also be in enforceable regulations. Data from contemporary, controlled experiments conducted in Australia should be the basis of assessments. Instead, FSANZ (also, OGTR, APVMA, AQIS, etc) accepts an ad hoc suite of data, often from out-dated, non-peer reviewed, company-generated ‘trials’ or ‘tests’ (not experiments). All the data and information from the scientific experiments should also be public so it can be independently evaluated and monitored. Much is now hidden by commercial-in-confidence claims.
Posted by Bob Phelps, 9/04/2010 12:25:35 AM
Who is Food Standards of Australia working for? To make our food safer or to make the corporations richer!! Recent research has concluded GM DNA is detectable in the animals that eat it, it is yet to study humans but are we no a animal too?
Posted by Mike, 9/04/2010 7:33:08 AM
This is a classic example of lazy journalism. The majority of the article looks very much like a Greenpeace press release. Sensationalised claims about health concerns quoting widely discredited studies that raise health concerns Even FSANZ has openly discredited these studies. The only one who can't accept that they are bogus is Bob Phelps. Melissa should have done her homework better. The reason that these products were banned in India and Europe were for political reasons. The same reason that S.A is the only state still banning GM canola - its political.
Posted by John, 9/04/2010 8:29:38 AM
And they wonder why there is an explosion in disease!! Vote with your feet (or dollar!!) and don't buy anything with canola or soy, or any other genetically engineered product. Eat fresh and natural, don't buy manufactured or processed. If everyone did this they would force the companies out of business.
Posted by Concerned Northerner, 9/04/2010 8:34:26 AM
If we can't stop the "money under the table" deals our polies subject us to, we need to fight like mad to have great big "GM" labels on any food that has even an iota of GM product used in its manufacture.
Posted by Kerrie, 9/04/2010 8:55:55 AM
Thanks Ian, Oh well, it seems Tony the Minister for agriculture ,- *now Minister for population has everything under control. If we get too many people in Oz we will just feed em plenty of GENETICALLY engineered foods. You can be sure to see heaps of it served up in nursing homes especially when ALP introduce laws to force our elderly to sell up and be relocated in one. ( All for their own good- of course) Dont forget also the elerly wont be taking up beds in hospitals under this Rudd Government. If it wasnt so serious it would be funny. It is isnt it. Minister for food and popultation. hilarious.
Posted by pm in waiting, 9/04/2010 9:48:58 AM
Plants that can reproduce from their own seed are to be the basis of our food intake. They are known to be good for us. My understanding is that GM foods cannot reproduce from their own seed - if my understanding is incorrect please show me.
Posted by towardswellness, 9/04/2010 10:03:59 AM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
07 April, 2010
06 April, 2010
POLL
Q: Should non-mulesed wool command a premium at the market?

Yes
(46.7%)

No
(53.3%)

Total Votes: 460
Poll Date: 04 April, 2010

Most popular articles



Straight Furrow







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...