In the mean time, I'll take a path away from the CTax and share my thoughts on something else.
Namely, Eco terrorism.
You may have noticed this story about Green Peace 'activists' who broke into the CSIRO grounds and destroyed a GM food crop.
Throughout my blog I will be referring to multiple versions of this story in addition to the Canberra Times one above. Here are all the links in advance;
ABC News (video included)
Herald Sun
Greenpeace
Coffs Advocate
First; the facts.
Three women in Hazard suits jumped the fence onto the CSIRO grounds in the early morning and used whipper snippers to destroy and subsequently dispose of the wheat.
This came in response to a rejection of a Freedom of Information request from Greenpeace to the CSIRO (a government research organisation) about the GM food crop. Keeping this denial in mind, Greenpeace has claimed that the CSIRO has been 'bought out' by Monsanto and other GM foods corporations. It claims two of members of the CSIRO board at the time of the experiments approval were also working indirectly for Monsanto.
A day later, the network of concerned farmers (an anti-GM foods interest group) sided with Greenpeace, citing concerns for Australia's wheat export industry.
Now, lets look at the debate;
Greenpeace claims that the GM foods would 'contaminate' Australia's food supply and that GM foods were 'never proven to be safe to it'. Throughout their article, they also use words like 'untested', etc. One wonders where GM foods should be tested, if not at an organisation like the CSIRO. Indeed, it seems to me that if Greenpeace will not allow testing and experimentation to occur, that they are instead completely against GM foods on principle, that principle being that it is semi-synthetic food, and not 'natural'.
If one goes to the Food Standards Australia-New Zealand website FAQ about GM foods, we learn the following;
"FSANZ has established a rigorous and transparent process for assessing the safety of GM foods. The safety assessment is undertaken in accordance with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission".
So what we're seeing is that the World Health Organisation and the OECD among others have approved of FSANZ's GM approval standards. Of course, we should not accept what the foremost organisations in the world think of Australia's approval process because Greenpeace says so? Well, a panel of experts were fine with FSANZ. The entire FAQ explains thoroughly and cogently, with no emotional appeals and only evidence, why the GM foods approval process, safety standards, etc, are fine.
A brief investigation landed me at the WHO website. Wherein it explains that no marketed GM foods have failed the health or safety standards, that these standards are monitored and quality of GM foods is updated regularly. it also pointed me to the CAO which sets and updates international food standards.
These standards include 'subastantial equivalence', nutritional analysis, and toxicological analysis (included allergenic testing). Now I'm no expert, but it looks pretty strict to me. It is also full of references to tests and study, of which the emotionally charged Greenpeace whining is nearly absent.
So, given that they seem to be flying in the face of science, it seems that Greenpeace is an interest group all on their own. Maybe Greenpeace should tell us if they receive donations from Concerned Farmers Australia or any other groups determined to close down revolutions in food production.
Ultimately, regardless of the validity of GM foods in and of themselves, and even if human consumption tests were due later in the year, there seems to be no conceivable justification for destroying the crop at its experimental phase aside from desperate scaremongering. Greenpeace should apologise for its endorsement of these actions, and compensate the CSIRO for the damage done not only to it, but the delay in progressing development which will affect all Australians.
Lastly, to clarify, I call it Terrorism because immediately after destroying the crop, Greenpeace starts on a tirade about the dangers and uncertainties of GM foods. It is undeniably attempting to scare people through its illegitimately gained publicity into opposing GM foods and supporting its criminal activities.
EDITS:
Greenpeace have released a FAQ about their activities' justifications, reasoning etc.
Croplife Australia have released a powerful and scathing media release in response to the destruction.
Both sides' stories essentially. A very interesting read, both documents.
Tim its not about their immediate toxicity or harm to health. Its about their cross polination and the monoculturalistic traits that GM crops have. They are in essence a huge bully, killing biodiversity and forcing themselves to the top of whichever food group. After gaining victory they are much more susceptable to simple bugs and disease, because of a lack of biodiversity and ability to fight as there arent strains which are better at 'this' but 'not this'... it is all the same. As stated they cross polinate across farms, across lands, across anything. Beyond this they require fertiliser and treatments which are provided by no other than the MNC that makes them. Scratch the surface Tim, your being sold some pretty large chucks of shit. Its been around for 20+ years. Im all for innovation and progress particularly in society, but when it comes to food... we still havent figured out why cancer is so much more prevalent these days than 100 years ago (detection/lifestyle/food/radiation). These concerns are all the more important when considering the companies at play, profit over all else. Terrorists, please... wheres the election over the use of this. The opinion poll. The 'Australian' article. Interest group they are (the greens) but thank god their interest sparks debate, otherwise no one would have known nor cared. Fuckheads like bush use emotive terms like terrorism, you create 2 sides. Your either with us, or against us this does not help... luckily we live in a healthy democracy albeit questionable at times. Try and be more impartial :P, i respect your rightist views but ill always give you a smack from the left. Cheers tim.
ReplyDeleteNo, by all means continue to comment with your contrary views. I enjoy reading them Damo =).
ReplyDeleteI feel like I am fairly impartial though, you know, I am always going to give my views, but I try to represent the other side before I do. Not everyone does that on their blogs, you know.
Now to your points;
First of all I thought what you had to say re: GM crops was interesting, the FAO link in my blog about substantial equivalence has the following standards laid out:
""Products that are shown to be substantially equivalent to existing foods or food components: These products are regarded as being as safe as their counterpart and no further safety considerations other than those for the counterpart are necessary.
Examples: Genetically modified bakers yeast, oil from genetically modified oilseed rape
Products that are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food components except for defined differences: In these cases a further safety assessment should focus only on the defined differences. Typically, the defined differences will result from the intended effect of the introduction of genetic material that encodes for one or more proteins that may, or may not, modify endogenous components or produce new components in the host organism.
Examples: Genetically modified bakers yeast, Triticale (a wheat/rye cross)
Products that are not substantially equivalent to existing foods or food components: Up to now and probably for the near future, there have been few examples of foods or food components produced using genetic modification which could be considered to be not substantially equivalent to existing foods or food components. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that, with future developments in biotechnology, products could be developed which could be considered to have no conventional counterpart and for which substantial equivalent cannot be applied.
Examples: Carbohydrate polyesters, Kiwi fruit""
That includes the fact that anything we even a small deviation from the 'natural' crop is simply not approved. The CSIRO GM crops were all about testing and experimentation, to improve the science.
In fact the standard rating the destroyed crops had been given was 'negligible risk' which includes the notions of cross contamination. Source below.
http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/393593/csiro_gm_crop_attacked_by_greenpeace_had_negligible_risk/
Additionally, on July 7, before the Greenpeace activists charged out the CSIRO said they had absolutely no plans to begin human testing:
http://www.ethicalinvestor.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4297&Itemid=1
The development of these crops primarily helps farmers in poor and developing nations (source below). Personally I think that is why 'concerned farmers network' is fighting GM foods, because they are in it to keep their jobs, even at the expense of solving a large portion of world food shortages.
That information is available in many places but here is a CSIRO published document explaining how and why.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/samples/GM%20Crops_Sample.pdf
Oh, to clarify the following paragraph:
ReplyDeleteThat includes the fact that anything we even a small deviation from the 'natural' crop is simply not approved. The CSIRO GM crops were all about testing and experimentation, to improve the science.
Should read as:
That includes the fact that anything we even a small deviation from the 'natural' crop is simply not approved without goign through rigorous health standards tests. The CSIRO GM crops were all about testing and experimentation, to improve the science.
I just think its funny that after such significant testing and FDA approvals and regulatory authorities researching... all the while it still cant be definitively stated that ASPARTAME (diet coke - flavouring) isnt toxic to human health.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html
I know that the CSIRO is a research organisation and such research was being carried out when sabotaged by Greenpeace activists. Such testing is being carried out becuase of these big business and monoculture concerns and more, you should watch or read some stuff about monsanto and the Vietnam war (agent orange). Whats more be cautious of the examples in other nations, granted these crops are for sale to the developing world, for crop yields and famine etc. (Africa- somalia and the current drought is a case in point). But this is self interested as much as it is a help to them. What lobbyists and what is going on under the surface, fuck the facts and the official transcripts. That shit is manipulated and paid for in studies by the companies. Like i said, scratch the surface, lets not kid ourselves corporations are in the politicians pockets and vice versa. The world is corrupt and that equals profit... immauel wallerstein's world systems theory :P
If you want another reference, you simply have to type news international into google.
Damo's position can be summed up in the following few words:
ReplyDelete"There is no valid science, because all science is done by a company, a private university that gets funding from a company, or a government university, and we all know that the government is run by the big companies. Science is thus prostituted and nothing it says can be taken as true."
Such a position is absolutely absurd. Yes, studies are shown to have an increased bias when they are funded privately, and the increased bias is itself dependent on the proportion of funding from private investors (the bias manifesting in studies which answer 'yes' to the central question of the study).
Nevertheless, we've made considerable scientific progress in the period of the domination of finance capital, which makes this bias and supposed lack of validity possible: We have nukes, the internet, iPods... We've been to the fucking moon!
To deny scientific validity is to deny all of these things, or at most, to declare them ultimately harmful things that shouldn't have been done or that shouldn't exist.
Damo might protest that I've misrepresented his position, and reduced it to a strawman, but I haven't. I've just stripped away all that was particular to this topic, and shown the underlying thought behind it. It's not my fault if the end result looks like Flat-Earther bullshit.