http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430

Joyce If I had resorted to using newspapers as evidence at uni i would have failed the course. This trial brings the monarch butterly scandal into my mind. Mayo Just what were these abnormalities? I have tons of evidence that shows that DNA is broken down in the stomach in minutes, and very little actual DNA (not enough to constitute even whole genes) survivies to enter the blood stream or get taken up by gut bacteria. The CaMV or other viral promoters used in some cases are also harmless for this reason. In any case, we have been eating these viruses (and indeed millions of molecules of DNA) for years; how come we havent all grown a third arm? I think the technology will unfold much as pesticides did. The use of pesticides when used correctly does not damage human health. On the contrary, pesticides are good for you; since they make food much more availible and cheaper.

Hi Mayo. I agree 100% on the part about pesticides. The sooner people realise this the better, I appreciate that on the odd occasion there may have been insidents of mis-use, however, you would not ban motor vehicles just because one was involved in an R.T.A. I think the "Organic Brigade" need to take a long hard look at some of the "prinsiples" that they practice & preach. Regards. Phil.

Mayo, re "Just what were these abnormalities?" Would you not agree that it would be a tad helpful if the Monsanto would release the whole paper? According to the paper the abnormalities concern liver size / function among other things. Nothing to worry about then. Re Monsantos' brushing off of the results. When a company wants to prove a particular GM maize is safe to feed to cows they run a study for 8 weeks or whatever; and then, when none of the cows have keeled over, the results are deemed to be proof the product is safe to eat/feed. ( I am referring to the Reading University trial you were quoting last year.) And when another trial shows some unfortunate results, this is due to normal statistical variation!!!! re Monsanto are afraid of conceding competitive advantage by publishing the full results. Oh pleeease do me a favour. "We fed our rats MON abc123 with special genes TOP SECRET. The Gm fed rats developed abnormalities D, E and F, compared with the control group. But these results can be explained by normal sample size variance of analysis etc. etc." Exactly WHAT POSSIBLE competitive advantage might Syngenta et al derive from this paper??? (Apart from taking solace from the fact that they are not the only f£$kwits on the block.) I could go on and on, but is there any point? Kind regards, Slejpner

Slepjner I am not about to enter a slanging match based on some evidence to which neither of us is party. You and I do not know sweet FA about that research other than what the paper has said (I might remind you that you commented on my use of 'unreliable' references) and so you cannot say that it would not confer a competitive advantage to their rivals. I dont know what your problem is with GM, since you dont seem to be happy with the conclusions of either the FSA, EPA or FDA. All organisations with more clout than anything I can give you. You werent happy with my references in the past either, and then cue the black swan nonsense; a way of thinking that I was already employing- I have always looked critically at any evidence I have come across. To be blunt, I find the irregularities found in much of the 'anti' research disturbing. To be honest chap, I cant be bothered arguing with you any more. If you are unhappy with the technology or the way farming is going, give it up. Perhaps the deadly Monsanto are indeed trying to kill us all. Maybe you could provide some 'reliable' peer-reviewed references to support this theory. In any case, it makes no difference whatever myself, you or anyone else can say. 'Nobody gets to vote on whether technology changes our lives' [BILL GATES]. I am entirely satisfied that the technology is safe. Precautions are being taken where deemed necessary, such the ban on one of the BT gene proteins that reportedly 'had characteristics similar to known allergens'. We are also stopping the introduction of this technology despite there being millions of acres grown worldwide. Clearly you know better than the myriad of high-qualified geezers who allowed the use of the stuff in the US etc. Or do you mean to suggest that Monsanto et al have bought the lot of them? Goodnight Mayo

Phil As ever, an injection of common-sense is required. Its all too easy to slate something without looking at the bigger-picture. Mayo I find your point of view (as an organic farmer) highly interesting. An organic farmer slipping from the fold? Heaven forbid!?

I like that one Mayo,excellent synopsis of the situation. With millions of kiddies in the Third world desperatly short of food it is difficult to understand the extreme hostiliy of some sections of our society to the wonders of the new food growing technology,unless of course their objections are based on their hatred of capitalists firms like Monsanto and the American way of creative free enterprise in general, if so it would be nice to hear them admit it so the rest of us know where they are coming from. Dick

Dick, There always was an element of the anti-multinational large company syndrome in the opposition to GM. I knew one campaigner, great radical fellow who was very much of that ilk. I think it is not such a factor now, but will always appear again, rightly or wrongly. As I have always campaigned for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I think it would have been more transparent if Monsanto had published fully. I appreciate that always gives the opposition press the opportunity to create distorting headlines, as for instance on the farm scale trials when they trumpeted the fact that there would be less weeds(surprise, surprise), ergo less wild life, ergo environmental disaster. No account was taken of environmental benefits, and there were many. It would seem to me to be yet another example of Monsanto handling a good case badly. They do have a hell of a job though, as the negative hypothetical case is always that much easier. Fact is difficult. Jack Caley.

Trust the FDA or FSA? I don't think so! Plenty of drugs get passed and then withdrawn. Joyce

Joyce If you cant trust these people then who are you going to trust? I'd like to think that if the FSA or FDA DO have their own agenda, its probably in my best interests when compared to that being operated by FOE or greenpeace. Besides, drugs get withdrawn for all sorts of reasons. Not just because they might be lethal. Mayo

Jack/Dick Thankyou for your comments. I think it was Kennedy who once said 'a fifth of the people are opposed to everything all of the time'. The GM issue is a classic case for activists to have a go at the large multinationals. These people have a completely different agenda to what we are led to believe. It would be interesting to see just where their substantial funding comes from. It seems very obscure for them to suddenly have attacked Land Rover when there are any number of 4X4 manufacturers. I smell foul play. They are completely out of touch and only use every piece of research to their own aims, for any number of reasons, whether they are opposed to the technology on moral grounds or whatever. The fact that the bosses of monsanto etc probably earn the total GDP of a small nation every year should not come into it. I have stated before that this technology is not cheap to develop and takes considerable brainpower and capital. I cannot GM anything in my old mans greenhouse. Opposing big business is a foolish errand these days. Even in communism the cards are all held by the government, who are no different, and only acts in its own interests. Whoever said politics should have been kept out of science was right. Nonetheless, the tragic thing is that on our country at least, Greenpeace and the like have a louder voice than any scientific body known to man, despite the fact their evidence is doubtful in the extreme (monarch butterlies?). If they were really interested in the truth about GM they would pay for their own research, but there is no job security in it; they are better off attacking everything they can to gain funding, and the truth would probably be too hard for them to bear. Personally I liked the way the French dealt with them. You blockade our submarines; we sink your Rainbow warrior. As for those who are opposed to global capitalism, I would happily pay for them to be shipped to N Korea. I dont think that would be very 'groovy' once you realise what life really is like on the other side of the fence. I will also re-iterate that it is all too easy to oppose GM or even pesticides when ones belly is full. The world will benefit from GM even if the whole western world opposes it. Indian Bio-tech is developing the technology with the aid of the public purse and they are handing it out for free. Of course the activists aren't interested in the third world really; nobody over there can pay their annual membership fee. Mayo Sorry to rattle. Oh, and could those in charge of the weather please decide what is going on. Our mower-man is becoming very agitated.

Dick I reckon you'll like this, should suit your way of thinking: 'Globalisation [big business, If you like] is a product of free will' Discuss. Just found it in a load of GCSE work of mine. Currently reading a good deal about the old philosophy and society/politics etc. It seems to me that people need to feel that they fit in some sort of order. It is impossible to create a classless society (is this not a socialist claim)? Multinationals are just another form of hierarchy and simply the product of people with freedoms? Feel free to correct me. Not my specialist subject by any means. Mayo

Mayo. Steady on - I was never a "convert". Went Organic on 200 Acres of P.Pasture as the L/lords were already restricting the use of "in-puts" on the land ! [;)] Phil. PS - You make a good point - "Its all too easy to slate something", I have done this myself a couple of times, with "people" that post on this Forum - My sincere appologies to all concerned.

Afternoon chaps, whether or not I am a disenfranchised, unhappy ex-hippy farmer with a 'globalisation' problem is not relevant to the debate. Any debate with a foundation based on such a presumption is likly to end up in a cul-de-sac as quickly as I can respond :- This year i have mostly been using Latitude (MONSANTO), Atlantis (Bayer), Tracker (BASF), AN from a bag (take your pick) on my Einstein (Nickersons) and Gladiator (MONSANTO) winter wheats. And while i'm at it my parents did not repay the highest arable mortgage per acre on Midland / HSBC's books (84-01) by being slouches with modern technology either! What is relevant to the debate is the quality of the science in terms of methodology, rigour, and ethics. And this of course is where the conflicts start, particularly when huge companies with a lot of money invested / at stake.

Mayo I do admire your faith in the biotech industry; I don’t question the integrity of most of the people working there but it cannot just be allowed to regulate itself. For example as you may know Syngenta is withholding vital information on Bt10 to allow full testing. Instead Syngenta are overseeing the process to eliminate “false positives”. I have often thought it would eliminate the risks of false positives if they did away with speed cameras, just ask driver to inform the authorities when they have been going too fast so that appropriate action can be taken. I am sure statistics would show speeding was reduced and therefore our roads would be far safer. One interesting aspect to this MON 863 story is that it shows DEFRA just as divided on the issue as we are; “the minister (Elliot Morley) worried by the findings called for more information” while the minister (Margaret Beckett) last Thursday voted to approve it. Elliot is quite right to be worried while Margaret thinks we are all just chickens. Those of us who think they look just like Mr & Mrs Tweedie may yet get to hear Elliot say the immortal line “I told you they were organised ..” More info below: ------------------------- GM MAIZE CONSPIRACY REVEALED A GM watchdog group based in Wales has today revealed the full extent of a conspiracy by UK and EC officials which has, against the public interest, enabled a highly damaging study on the safety of GM maize to be held on a secret dossier and which has gagged scientists who have seen it. The study, into the effects of feeding rats for 90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize, was requested by various EU countries as part of the MON863 assessment process, and was completed in September 2003. The results showed "statistically significant" changes to blood and to certain vital organs in the rats fed on the GM maize, as compared with those in the control group, and immediately alarm bells started to ring in scientific circles throughout Europe. The French authorities tried to cover up the scientific debate about the study (1). In the autumn of 2004 concerns were expressed about the study findings by a number of other national regulatory bodies, including Belgium and Germany. Germany actually commissioned an evaluation of the rat feeding study from Dr Arpad Pusztai, but Monsanto would not allow its 1,139 page research dossier to be examined without the signing of a "declaration of confidentiality." Incredibly, the EC and the German authorities acceded to this demand, which means that their key officials are now bound by a secrecy agreement. This would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that Dr Pusztai's evaluation was highly critical of both the methods and the findings of the study, indicating that MON863 maize by no means has a "clean bill of health." Subsequent leaks (2) from France, Germany and Belgium suggest that the maize variety may indeed be unsafe for animal or human consumption, and that a major cover-up is under way, designed to protected the corporate giant Monsanto and the regulatory authorities who have prematurely advised that MON863 is perfectly safe (3) (9) (10). The extent of the cover-up is becoming clearer by the day. In France Crii-Gen has been trying for more than 18 months to obtain sight of the full rat feeding study, national opinions and scientific advice on MON863, and other materials held on the dossier by the French authorities and the European Food Safety Authority (4). They have received point-blank refusals to their requests, on the grounds that all of these documents are covered by the "confidential / business interest" rules. However, these rules specify that the only material which may be classified as secret is data on the manufacturing process / genetic characterization of the GM variety; and that all material relating to health and safety issues must be released into the public domain. In the UK, GM Free Cymru has been trying for several months to obtain sight of the rat feeding study, the "opinions" of various EU governments, and other studies and papers relating to the MON863 application; but access has been consistently refused. The only information available to the public on the EFSA and other web sites is information which supports the EFSA / ACRE attitude that MON863 is perfectly safe; all information which might be embarrassing or uncomfortable for Monsanto and the authorities has been given a "CBI" classification (5). In pursuit of its requests to open up the MON863 secret dossier, GM Free Cymru has written over and again to EFSA, to the President of the Commission, to individual Commissioners, and to the UK government. It has also written to the German authorities and to the EC office which deals with European "freedom of information" matters. These efforts have proved fruitless. The organization has also been asking EFSA, the Commission and the German authorities for the "Declaration of Secrecy" which prevents Dr Pusztai and others from airing their scientific opinions on the rat feeding study to be lifted, in the public interest( 6). Again, nothing has been done. The last resort is to take the case to the European Ombudsman, and GM Free Cymru is committed to do this if a dozen or more documents which has requested are not released within the next few days. Speaking for GM Free Cymru, Dr Brian John said: "Our attempts to open up the MON863 secret dossier to public scrutiny show that there is corruption right at the heart of the GM approvals process. EFSA, which is supposed to exist for the protection of the European public, works instead to protect the interests of multinational corporations like Monsanto. This is sinister and dangerous. With the connivance of the EC, it appears even to allow Monsanto to dictate the terms on which it submits research information as part of the approvals process. It is an outrage that any independent scientist should be asked to sign an oath of secrecy in order to examine and evaluate something as important as the 90-day rat feeding study (7). "What we also see here is a political determination on the part of the EC to push through GM approvals, simply because this is part of its strategy in the ongoing WTO dispute with the USA (8). It is being helped by the secrecy and obfuscation of EFSA. In pursuit of that strategy, it silences potential scientific critics, suppresses key research information, and classifies as "commercially sensitive" many documents which should be open to scrutiny. In doing that, it is breaking EU law, and is playing politics with the health of the people of Europe. Ultimately, since the GM industry apparently has so much to hide, why should anybody trust it, or want anything to do with GM crops or foods?" ENDS Contact: Dr Brian John GM Free Cymru Tel 01239-820470 NOTES (1) In the autumn of 2003 concerns were expressed in France by members of the CGB (the Commission for Genetic Engineering), whose President nonetheless submitted a positive opinion on MON863 prior to proper committee discussion. On 28 October 2003, CGB issued an unfavourable report on MON863, which has remained confidential so far. On 6 November 2003, another French commission, the Agency for the Medical Safety of Food (AFSSA) gave, for the same file, an opposite opinion. Most of the documents relating to these deliberations have been kept secret, despite strenuous efforts by Crii-Gen for them to be released. The scandal was revealed by Le Monde newspaper on 23 April 2004. The Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRII-GEN) has the role of ensuring expert scrutiny and the greatest possible transparency on the medical and environmental risks of GM. (2) Quote from Dr Pusztai's leaked Evaluation report: "The list of significant differences suggest that the authors' confidence that the genetic modification of the maize sample has induced no significant changes in the nutritional value and the biological/immunological, etc. properties of this important food/feed crop is almost certainly groundless. It is almost impossible to imagine that major lesions in important organs (kidneys, liver, etc) or changes in blood parameters (lymphocytes, granulocytes, glucose, etc) that occurred in GM maize-fed rats, is incidental and due to simple biological variability." (3) EFSA Opinion of the GMO Panel on MON863 and MON863 x MON810: adopted 2 April 2004. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_meetings/49/ minutes_gmo_09_en1.pdf) See also the comprehensive coverage of this issue in the Sunday Independent newspaper, 22 May 2005.. "Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food. Rats fed GM corn due for sale in Britain developed abnormalities in blood and kidneys" By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor, Sunday Independent, 22 May 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp? story=640402 (4) For the attempts by Crii-gen to obtain key scientific information on MON863 since October 2003, see: http://www.crii-gen.org/m_fs_cx.htm Also Le Monde, 23 April 2004 and 14 December 2004 (5) EFSA web site with details of deliberations on MON863: http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/catindex_en.html http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/381_en.html (6) Correspondence is available on request (7) In Australia and New Zealand, in contrast, the full rat feeding study was examined by FSANZ and it was decided that it did not merit "confidential business interest" classification. "FSANZ decided that the confidentially claim by Monsanto was not justified under the FSANZ Act" --Dr Peter Abbott (Scientific Risk Assessment and Evaluation Branch, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Tel. 02 6271 2230) in a letter to Bob Phelps, Executive Director, GeneEthics Network Australia, Tel: 03 9347 4500 or 1300 133 868, Fax: 03 9345 1166 Email: info@geneethics.org http://www.geneethics.org (8)GMO trade war: Europe accused of secrecy Official Complaint made to Ombudsman by FoE EUROPE Wednesday 16 February 2005 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4909 Eurocrats accused of "caving in" to US -- Eurocrats force vote on modified food http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4358 (9) It has now been claimed by a member of the EFSA Board, Professor Giorgio Calabrese, that Monsanto is in possession of other studies which have not been shown to the regulatory authorities in Europe. This has been denied by Monsanto, but in a new move EFSA has demanded of Monsanto that the company should submit "its entire research into (the corn strain) MON 863'' (La Stampa newspaper, 23 May 2005). http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/05/24/afx2049419.html newsdesk@afxnews.com (10) In the USA, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has recently alerted both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Monsanto about the failure of the company to comply with the adverse reporting requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In the view of CFS the MON863 rat feeding study showed "unreasonable adverse effects" which should have been drawn to the attention of the regulators. Failure to do this is potentially a criminal offence. A copy of the CFS letter is available on request.

Well put, taking a leaf out of Mayo's book I've had a look at my (USA) university notes about US/EU trade disputes, which we were told are cultural, scientific and political, i.e. the proof of harm(US)v proof of no harm(EU) for science to be allowed into the marketplace, Science v culture - low cost v quality of life, innovation v tradition and history, and politics which in the US is seen as being producer driven and in the EU as consumer driven, but on most counts new labour seems more like the US than EU. It is worth remembering the old one about the US and Britain being 2 nations seperated by a common language, and without taking sides on GM it should be remembered the US depends on the courts (proof of harm)to sort out whether a product is safe or not, whereas in most European law products are expected to be safe before hitting the market (proof of no harm).

Mayo , To further assist; J F Kennedy also quoted " The only constant in the art of management is CHANGE!" "Change is the LAW of life, those who choose to ignore it are sure to miss the future" Rob

Tom I do have faith in science generally, I dont feel that we need to move back to the dark ages or try to oppose progress. One cannot go through life thinking the whole world is trying to win one over on you. Despite a few of mankinds set-backs, science has done a lot for us. Biotech can also do a lot for us. We are now healthier and longer-lived than ever before. There is certainly inequality in the world but time can correct this. I see no reason to oppose anything without the facts in front of me- in black and white. Obviously we dont want any industry with such a powerful technology in its hands regulating itself. Thats the point of having things like the FSA etc, who have a good grasp of the science behind the technology and let them decide what is approved and what is not. What we dont need is a load of half-informed people affecting this process. This 'GM-free wales' nonsense is completely luddite in nature. They obviously have no knowledge of the benefits this technology can provide. I regard attempts to dismiss it out of hand as almost a crime against humanity. The same can be said of many politicians. Quoting them, listening to them or relying on them is a waste of time. They will do whatever is in their own self-interests. If they knew they could gain the support of the entire electorate tomorrow, they'd plant GM crops in their own gardens and shovel the stuff into their children. The only people we should be listening to are SCIENTISTS. And by scientists I mean those that operate within their own channels, independantly, using the peer-review process. We have seen what the media and a rogue scientist who doesnt use this process can produce as shown in the monarch butterfly scandal. I have a list of peer-reviewed evidence from tonnes of sources that argue the safety and benefits of this technology. Nothing that could be described as reliable has surfaced proving the contrary. I will happily denounce GM and become an anti when the FDA and the like (who are in a better position to make INFORMED judgements) say that this GM organism is dangerous etc, this should not be approved etc, and then decide that the whole technology is too hot to handle. I will not however, listen to anything from any of the pressure groups or anyone linked to any sort of political faction. Opinions are just opinions. Facts are facts and cannot be argued with. I see you are fond of quoting politicians and various pressure groups. I only wish I had your faith in them. Frankly, I do not. Perhaps you should consider asking them to perform their own research. Perhaps then you will get the evidence you are looking for, using researchers that monsanto havent bought. Is it any wonder Monsanto and the like aren't giving anything away, when the slightest hint of evidence is set upon by FOE and the rest, only to be used to hinder the progress of the technology still further. I am happy when all the regulatory bodies are happy. Unfortunately this doesnt seem to be good enough for some. The allegedly adverse trials may well show rats dying, but without details of the actual testing process and results I fail to see how anyone can draw any conclusions. Only once our own regulatory bodies are happy will the organism in question be approved. Most of the GM debate is crazed nonsense from those who are not in the know, but do have considerable powers at their disposal, and obstruct the wheels of progress anyway. Hence it has delayed our chance to have the technology. Mayo

Junglebill That seems to make sense what you say about the US VS EU system of science and its adoption. Are there any countries that operate the same principle as us, and yet use GM commercially? Mayo

Rob I'll second that. He seemed to make some sense that chap. But much before my time. If you like quotes, i have trillions. 'You cant say that Dalla doesnt love you, Mr president' Nellie Connally [wife of the governor of Texas] seconds before the assasination [somebody shot him apparently]. Mayo

I like collecting quotes as well .. 'Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men'. - Martin Luther King. "What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches." US Secretary of Ag, Dan Glickman, under the Clinton Administration, post-departure 'When we spliced the profit gene into academic culture, we created a new organism - the recombinant university. We reprogrammed the incentives that guide science. The rule in academe used to be "publish or perish." Now bioscientists have an alternative - "patent and profit." ' - Paul Berg, Stanford University. 'If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not…To feed the world takes political and financial will'. Steve Smith, SCIMAC and Novartis (now SYNGENTA), Tittleshall Village Hall public meeting on proposed local GM farm scale trial, 29th March, 2000 'For some, talk of sustainable agriculture sounds like a luxury the poor can ill-afford. But in truth it is good science, addressing real needs and delivering real results. For too long it has been the preserve of environmentalists and a few aid charities. It is time for the major agricultural research centres and their funding agencies to join the revolution.' New Scientist, 3 February, 2001. 'If Monsanto can collect fees from farmers who find their fields contaminated with GM crops, should computer users pay licence fees to the writers of computer viruses?' New Scientist, April 28, 2001, Letters, p. 53, Paying the polluter, Thomas Ward, University of East Anglia "Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging." Robert Shapiro, when Chief Executive of Monsanto Corporation “I'm against the theory of the multinational corporations who say if you are against hunger you must be for GMO. That's wrong, there is plenty of natural, normal good food in the world to nourish the double of humanity. There is absolutely no justification to produce genetically modified food except the profit motive and the domination of the multinational corporations." U.N. human rights envoy and special investigator on the right to food, Jean Ziegler: U.N. food envoy questions safety of gene crops (Reuters, 15 Oct 2002) 'We consider the use of the South's rural poverty to justify the monopoly control and global use of genetically modified food production by the North's transnational corporations, not only an obstructive lie, but a way of derailing the solutions to our Southern rural poverty. It is the height of cynical abuse of the corporations' position of advantage.' Joint statement signed by over 40 developing country NGOs. "Organic agricultural production based upon cheap, locally available materials and technologies provides an important alternative in the search for an environmentally sound and equitable solution to the problem of food security." Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN "Biotechnology and GM crops are taking us down a dangerous road, creating the classic conditions for hunger, poverty and even famine. Ownership and control concentrated in too few hands and a food supply based on too few varieties of crops planted widely are the worst option for food security." Christian Aid report - Biotechnology and GMOs "It is argued that the Indian peasants in Chiapas, Mexico are backward, they produce only two tons of maize per hectare as against six on modern Mexican plantations. But this is only part of the picture. The modern plantation produces six tons per hectare and that’s it. But the Indian grows a mixed crop. Among his corn stalks, that also serve as support for climbing beans, he grows squash and pumpkins, sweet potatoes, tomatoes and all sorts of vegetables, fruit and medicinal herbs. From the same hectare he also feeds his cattle and chickens. He easily produces more than 15 tons of food per hectare and all without commercial fertilisers or pesticides and no assistance from banks or governments or transnational corporations." Jose A. Lutzenberger, former Minister of the Environment for Brazil "There are 800 million hungry people in the world; 34,000 children starve to death every day. There are those who consider this a tragedy, and then there are the biotech companies and their countless PR firms, who seem to consider it a flawless hook for product branding. It is an insult of the highest and most grotesque order to turn those who live from day to day into the centerpiece of an elaborate lie. ...the companies who make [GE foods], and the flacks who hawk their falsehoods, offer us a new definition of depravity, a new standard to plunge for in our race to care least, want more, and divest ourselves of all shame." Michael Manville - Welcome to the Spin Machine "All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." The Lancet

Tom Would you like some more borlaug or even some pro GM enviromentalists? Even so, they are just opinions. Mayo

Tom. The ones that risk being left behind - always have the most to say, Even if they are using other peoples words.

Mayo. Tom goes on about "Rat's fed on GM maize for 90 day's", what were the others fed on? Were the Rat's fed on just the grains - or the whole Cob. I would like to know! Regards. Phil.

I would guess Germany certainly, France most likely, and Spain probably ( for a start ).