91������̳

Re Terminator seeds. They do indeed exist, although it is correct that they are not currently commercially available. This is only really because of the existence of the Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement, however, which stipulates that farmers using Monsanto seed "will not save or sell the seeds from their harvest for further planting, breeding or cultivation". Despite the public outcry leading to a moratorium being imposed by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity there is nothing to suggest that Monsanto is itself opposed to their commercialisation, only that the political conditions currently preclude their being able to do so. The development of such a technology itself indicates the potential negative impacts and incentives of the GM industry, and the need for tight regulation. More importantly, Monsanto's regular GM crops are already contaminating the wider industry and environment, and Monsanto's lawyers are following the breeze-blown GM pollen like vultures. Contamination of non-GM crops is an ongoing and significant problem, with perhaps more immediate implications than the potential environmental or health impacts that GM may or may not pose. It means that organic farmers risk losing their certification, that wild and commercial non-GM species in the broader environment may be infected (with unknowable long-term impacts), and that customers may be forced to consume GM crops without their knowledge (actually already happening in Australia as highly processed food products containing GM, or products of animals fed on GM are exempt from labeling laws). It also means that many farmers will increasingly face legal battles with the likes of Monsanto because if they continue to use an infected crop without a Stewardship Agreement they may be in breach of intellectual property law. A large number and variety of cases have been launched on this basis (as Nikolas has already pointed out). The impact of both approaches to GM use and ownership have particularly significant impacts on farmers in the developing world, who are much more reliant upon saved seeds for replanting then their western counterparts (who are more likely to use purchased hybrid seeds). Widespread contamination of crops in countries such as India, Pakistan, Brazil or many African nations could leave those countries' food crops at the mercy of Monsanto's legal department and undermine national food sovereignty in times of growing climate uncertainty. Just on the question of food lost in storage, etc, I ought to point out that GM crops really *aren't* required to bring about an increase in yield (and it's contestable whether they do). Other methods - more sustainable, less dependent on chemical fertiliser and pesticide, and more nuanced in their understanding of the relationship of crops to their surrounding ecosystems - exist, and research and development is continuing to plow these methods a productive furrow well ahead of the GM rut. And global social inequality - the key problem underlying world hunger and malnutrition - is likely to worsen as a result of GM crops, not improve. The GM "answer" is little more than a profitable technofix that will function - at best - as a bandaid, not a cure. Regarding the "safety" or otherwise of GM food crops, there are simply no published peer-reviewed studies showing the safety of GM foods for human consumption. What research has been done with animals is far from conclusive, not always reliably conducted, and sometimes indicates serious negative health effects. What there *is* a lot of is opinion and corporate spin, and the very dodgy mechanism used to allow GM food to be sold commercially by declaring it to be "substantially equivalent" to regular food - a largely unscientific concept, that is imprecisely defined and lacks binding oversight and regulation. Basically, it presumes GM food to be safe until proven otherwise - effectively making society as a whole one large, unwitting, guinea pig - and makes a mockery of the scientific method. *Arguably* the CSIRO was in fact doing more or less what should be done - proper scientific research, human testing, minimal genetic modification, etc - and that Greenpeace's actions undermining an example of applied science of just the kind I am bemoaning the lack of. I'd counter that Greenpeace's actions represented an example of the precautionary principle in action. There is a significant public interest in the impacts of GM crop development that ought to override any corporate interests (Greenpeace's FOI request regarding these trial crops was refused on the grounds of "commercial in confidence" two weeks before they destroyed the crop). From their statements, Greenpeace denies being anti-science - highlighting the potential risks of GM crops, and the concerns around corporate influence and control over food safety regulations and future agricultural developments - rather than a total rejection of gene science. To my mind - given the currently uncertain nature of GM impacts - these are valid defences (moral, if not legal). They have also placed the question of GM crops in the public eye, where hopefully a truly honest, open and scientific discussion can be had. That this has not been the case thus far is a matter for concern in itself. I have no doubt that it is *possible* (if perhaps not currently necessary or desirable) to produce GM crops that do not pose any risks. It is also useful to distinguish in public discussion between transgenic and non-transgenic modifications, the various mechanisms used in genetic modification, the risks that may exist, and the possible benefits GM foods might pose. But such a debate needs to follow the peer-reviewed science and the scientific method, while actual GM crop cultivation needs to be tightly regulated firmly in line with the precautionary principle. On this, I also recommend this recent piece by John Hepburn. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/08/02/genetic-engineering-science-and-climate-denial/ - Duroyan Fertl