News 
 State News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 Grains 
 ALP breaks promises on GMs: Gene Ethics 

ALP breaks promises on GMs: Gene Ethics

31 Jul, 2009 04:33 PM
KEVIN Rudd promised stronger laws on GM foods and crops before the last election, but the ALP's proposed platform would now break Rudd's promises and dilute existing ALP policy, according to lobby group Gene Ethics.

"This betrayal will fast track GM into our crops and foods without the checks and balances that Rudd promised," Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said in a statement, timed to coincide with the national ALP conference.

"We want the ALP to adopt as part of its platform, the promises that Rudd made on November 6 2007," he says.

Then Kevin Rudd promised that, if elected, his government would:

• Ensure GM crops are not released unless there is whole of community consensus.

• Establish a meaningful labeling regime that enables consumers to make informed choices about what they are buying.

• Ensure accurate information on GM products is provided to consumers and the community.

• Maintain consumer and environmental safety through strict enforcement of national standards as the principal policy consideration.

• Undertake continued research on the use of foods containing GMs, to better understand health, safety and environmental risks and benefits.

• Introduce a rigorous and transparent process based on environmental and safety considerations, for assessing and approving or rejecting research proposals which require release of GMOs outside the laboratory.

• Preserve the right of the states to implement and manage moratoria on the commercial production of GM crops.

• To ensure our food is safe and of high quality.

• Ensure all issues pertaining to import, export, production, distribution and use of GMs are overseen by a strong national body that is independent, scientifically-based and whose processes are transparent.

"The ALP should adopt these promises as policy, and reject the proposed new national platform that would gut existing ALP policy," Mr Phelps says.

"Rudd implements Howard's policies and will not deliver on his own promises.

"For instance, government has allocated $38.2 million to develop and promote biotechnology and nanotechnology. This is public money for private profits, spent on technologies that falsely claim solve new problems like global climate change, the end of oil and food security.

"The products of GM and nanotechnologies will worsen, not resolve, new crises," he says.

"We call on the ALP conference to reject proposals 95, 96, 97 and 98, and incorporate Rudd's promises into the platform instead," Mr Phelps says.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
All I want to say is you have got to be kidding Bob. Please explain exactly how GM and nano techs will worsen not help resolve the various crises you outlined? The problem is when asked the hard questions he has not peer reviewed facts. GM has helped farmers reduce their dependence upon fossil fuels because they don't have to drive over the paddock so often spraying out toxic chemicals. Simply look at the pin up example of cotton. BT cotton has meant farmers don't have to spray inseticides every day. That is a huge savings on fuel let alone inseticides going into the environment. Bob relies purely on fear and misinformation to push his barrow. When asked to debate the facts with the educated his true colours come through.
Posted by Your Kidding Bob, 4/08/2009 9:49:57 AM, on Stock & Land
All those comments of Mr Rudd's are current government policy because they are the responsible way of dealing with new technology.
Posted by Meg Parkinson, 4/08/2009 11:26:44 AM, on Stock & Land
US scientist Don Lotter has two papers detailing the flaws in GM http://www.donlotter.net/New_Farm_index.htm

The problems with the science are: • The ideas on which all current GM is based: one gene one protein and independent genes are wrong. This was shown by the 2003 Human genome mapping and by ENCODE in 2007 • Both methods used to create GM plants (infection by bacteria or shot in on a tiny bullet) cause massive disruption to the genome which are a biosafety risk. • The toxicology studies done on GM are totally inadequate His opinion on why we haven’t heard about these issues is: • University science programmes have changed from the “public good” to “academic capitalism” dependent on private industry funding • “deficient scientific protocols, bias and possible fraud” • Political and commercial manipulation of science • Suppression of dissenting scientists • Media bias – “Biotechnology industry reports which are widely circulated in the agricultural media often contain no citations, while well-cited reports from anti-transgenics groups are routinely rejected” • Underfunding of alternatives to GM Please stop ignoring what we know about the dangers of GM

Posted by Fran, 6/08/2009 6:39:02 PM, on Stock & Land
So far it seems all 9 have been broken or neglected in favour of incentives? Labelling, a farce, FSANZ approvals, again a farce, they do NO testing whatsoever, relying on company funded and selectively produced info is NOT good enough. As to public money funding these multibillion earning companies - sheer lunacy! If they want to develop and foist this muck on us, I see NO reason why WE should have to be supporting them in any way, do they repay the "assistance" No, never! As to Nano, well eg Zinc in sunscreens normally is not dermally absorbable, however , in Nano form there is concern among many scientists that it may be a health risk, especially to children/babies that have it applied. Until it is PROVEN Safe not GRAS (big difference) then a moratorium on its use also should be in place. Bt Cotton may be the ONLY GM product that has managed to allow a small, yield gain, however the oil, and the meal from processing has never been assessed for safety for animals OR human consumption. NOT ONE GM Industry person, should ever be allowed on any panel to assess safety. Google ANNISTON get an idea!
Posted by amicus curiae, 6/08/2009 8:03:14 PM, on Stock & Land
Farmers are coming out and saying GM has not helped them. They are getting the lowest prices for their GM crops because people are rightly wary of consuming them. With BT cotton the pests are getting resistant to the 24 x7 exposure to BT. The plant and its pollen and trash are all a long term poison in the environment, plus the seed is so costly that the cotton advisors are saying "plant the old non gm varieties you'll be financilly better off". The fact that the main crops subsidised in the US are GM crops should tell us something...they are not profitable. We've heard great stories about GM.....the higher yields, less pesticides used, they will feed a hungry world etc etc . The truth is exactly the opposite... yields are less and 15 times more spray is used on GM crops. Organic farming is proving the best way to increase yields and lower input costs.
Posted by Merri Bee, 6/08/2009 11:12:50 PM, on Stock & Land
Nobody has the right to say that GM is a good thing, just look at what happened in Canada. So much went wrong and people are paying the penalty for it now with the destruction of the environment.
Posted by fighter, 7/08/2009 1:49:07 AM, on Stock & Land
Sorry what do you mean Meg Parkinson when you say those comments ARE current gov policy??? I think the only promise of those listed above relates to states managing their own moratoria, but even that is debatable. I would especially like to see the promise of "a rigorous and transparent process based on environmental and safety considerations, for assessing and approving or rejecting research proposals which require release of GMOs outside the laboratory". Currently FSANZ and the OGTR DO NOT require or conduct any independent testing, in fact it is near impossible to get Monsanto's permission to test the saftey of their GM products. I am not against GM technology per se, I am against a dodgy product introduced into our food and environment which has yet to be independently proven safe for consumption and the environment. I am also against our choice being stripped away from us. My family avoid anything containing canola, cotton seed or vegetable oil these days because of the poor labelling regime. We only eat organic and GM-free labelled food - that takes alot of choice away for us.
Posted by BoycottCanola, 7/08/2009 10:56:07 AM, on Stock & Land
Remember Thalidamide; Tobacco; excessive mobile phone use (see latest health reports); organic phosphates; Dieldrin insecticide, and of course ASBESTOS. There are many more, and they were all passed as not dangerous to health. Do we want to take such a chance on more lives? Imagine the legal suites out of this one!
Posted by somatf, 8/08/2009 4:33:29 PM, on Stock & Land

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.

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



Stock & Land







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...