Court rules no harm from GM crops

May 31st, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Yahoo News reports:

Organic farmer Steve Marsh has lost a landmark Supreme Court damages case against a neighbour who grew genetically modified canola.

The case, which pitted Mr Marsh against Kojonup neighbour Mike Baxter, attracted worldwide attention and today’s judgment is expected to have major ramifications for farming in Australia.

Justice Ken Martin dismissed Mr Marsh’s claims. A decision on costs was reserved.

Mr Marsh claimed he lost certified organic status on his farm because Mr Baxter failed in his duty of care to prevent contamination from his GM crop. He sought damages of $85,000 and an indefinite ban on Mr Baxter planting and harvesting GM crops.

In his judgment summary, Justice Martin dismissed both causes of action against Mr Baxter – common law negligence involving the breach of a duty to ensure there was no escape of GM material, and the tort of private nuisance.

Evidence at trial was that Roundup Ready (RR) canola swathes were harmless to animals, people and land unless the canola seed germinated in the soil and cross-fertilised.

“There was no evidence at the trial of any genetic transference risks posed by the RR canola swathes blown into Eagle Rest at the end of 2010,” Justice Martin said.

The full court judgment is here.

I quite paragraph 326:

First, as is now established, it has not been shown from any evidence led at this trial that GM canola per se is in any way physically dangerous or injurious to persons, animals or to property.

A win for science. A loss for hysteria.

Tags:

64 Responses to “Court rules no harm from GM crops”

  1. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    Yet the anti science forces wont give up:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11264846

    (this isn’t even GM – it’s essentially a technique for speeding up and directing natural mutation. The “Sustainability Council” for all its official-sounding name is just a bunch of Red-green NIMBYs.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    “A win for science. A loss for hysteria.”

    Yeh right, as if science or facts has ever stopped the ecofascists.
    Look what happened with the globull warming scam.

    They have a record when it comes to intimidation and violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. duggledog (1,488 comments) says:

    Rational V irrational. I’d say there’s a bit more to it; they probably would not have got on as neighbours – different types of people.

    I do love to point out to the greenie non GM weirdos that their most favourite plant in the world – you know, the one that makes you lazy and unproductive after smoking it – is probably the most heavily engineered plant known to man. Aside from corn and spuds.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Wait for the Greens to blast the decision. Back to the Dark Ages, comrades!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Gingerly putting my hand up….can someone explain the bit about there being no harm “..unless the canola seed germinated in the soil and cross fertilized..”

    Isn’t “germinating in soil” what seeds are Supposed to do? What am I missing here??

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nostradamus (3,246 comments) says:

    I should perhaps disclose that I passed on this material to DPF.

    Kiwiblog readers may want to compare the court finding (“no evidence at the trial of any genetic transference risks”) with the Greens’ genetic engineering policy:

    9. Genetic Engineering

    The Green Party remains committed to keeping the Aotearoa New Zealand environment free of GE organisms. New information is constantly coming forward showing that the risks have been understated. The Green Party supports:

    1. The use of genetic science as a tool in diagnostics, understanding of heredity, and development of medicines, provided any genetically engineered organisms are completely contained in an indoor laboratory.

    2. The use of marker assisted breeding for crop and animal improvement.

    3. A ban on release or field trials of genetically engineered organisms in the environment and food production system.

    4. Comprehensive labelling requirements, similar to those in Europe, on current GE food imports.

    5. A ban, in the long term, on the import of GE food.

    6. The marketing of Aotearoa New Zealand and its products as GE free.

    I note, in particular, that both sides led expert evidence at trial to support their position on the intrinsic risk.

    So my question is this: now that new information has come forward showing that the risks have been overstated, will the Greens update their policy?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Johnboy (15,891 comments) says:

    Any outfit that has to rename NZ as “Aotearoa New Zealand” needs a fucking good kick up the arse.

    I suppose it’s what you’d expect from a party that allows that nutcase Delahunty to try to garble out the ridiculous murri shit when the speaker gives her the nod.

    What a fucking waste of space that poor sad women is! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,764 comments) says:

    A win for science. A loss for hysteria

    Is that the point though?

    Mr Marsh had an arrangement with his distributors where he had their “certified organic” mark and was selling his produce.

    Now he can’t because [stuff] from his neighbour’s farm has contaminated his property and disrupted his business. Tough luck, apparently…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nostradamus (3,246 comments) says:

    Johnboy:

    Wash your mouth out lad!

    See the Maori Issues Policy Summary:

    The Green Party envisions a nation where Te Tiriti o Waitangi is accepted and celebrated as a founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand and the status of Māori as tangata whenua is recognised and respected.

    The many dynamic aspects of Māori life and culture are enhanced for the benefit of us all.

    We seek a future where tikanga is respected and enabled, where racism is eliminated, and where the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual effects of colonisation on our people are healed to create a healthy society where everyone thrives.

    Who could possibly disagree with that? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Isn’t “germinating in soil” what seeds are Supposed to do? What am I missing here??

    No opportunity for cross fertilization, therefore no risk, i.e. Marsh wasn’t growing canola or anything that would hybridize with it is how I read it.

    In other words, “No harm from GM crops in a single case where there was no risk of transfer of genetic material”

    But hey, DPF has previously promoted the addition of a nerotoxin to drinking water, so I guess you shouldn’t expect too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    @RRM well there’s the rub. Should neighbour A be allowed to grow (on his own property) a product which does no proveable harm or should he be prohibited because neighbour B wants to grow something “organic”. Should you be allowed to paint your house blue if mine is already red?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    RRM says:

    “Now he can’t because [stuff] from his neighbour’s farm has contaminated his property and disrupted his business. Tough luck, apparently…”

    The point is, there was no contamination.
    The seeds did not germinate on his property and they did not cross-fertilise.

    Or is it just the fact that seeds might have ended up on his farm?
    How far do you want to go?
    This far?
    Cafe fan banned in case smell of bacon offends Muslims

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8077906/Cafe-fan-banned-in-case-smell-of-bacon-offends-Muslims.html

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. altiora (243 comments) says:

    Have some sympathy for the argument that the guy wanted to grow “organics”; but I wonder just how realistic this is and why we aren’t focussing our attention on just what is meant by “organics” as much as we are focussing on nightmare scenarios involving GM. And why does “organics” necessarily exclude GM given the amount of manipulation of crops by humans since we first walked up right. I can’t help think that organics is some sort of Garden of Eden fantasy. That said, I do agree we should be finding ways to avoid dodgy chemicals in our foods; those chemicals are more of a concern to me that GM crops.

    Was reading recently about Green movements opposition to the “yellow rice” crop, which would have very easily remedied vitamin deficiency in the third world. But no, those children can die of malnutrition so that some western “ethical consumer” can enjoy GM-free Granola for brekky.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. greenjacket (450 comments) says:

    Altiora: “I do agree we should be finding ways to avoid dodgy chemicals in our foods; those chemicals are more of a concern to me that GM crops.”
    So what I think you want is some government agency employing lots of scientists to ensure that our food contains no harmful chemicals.

    Like Food Standards Australia New Zealand? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. altiora (243 comments) says:

    Greenjacket: I’m not sure how you read that into what I wrote, which says nothing of the sort. But carry on, don’t let fact get in your way.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    In October 2012, a fourth study done at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand reinforces the “altered genes survive digestion” theory. In this study, Professor Jack Heinemann found that the double stranded RNA (dsRNAs) present in genetically engineered wheat were able to withstand digestion (even after cooking) and circulate throughout the body, where the RNA amplified into more and different dsRNAs and “alters gene expression in the animal.”

    http://gmo-awareness.com/2014/01/20/does-your-body-absorb-genetically-engineered-dna/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    Grant Jacobs gives a nice account of gene editing and gene modification in a posting on Sciblogs. and gives links to reactions to the recent High court ruling on GMOs
    http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2014/05/30/gene-editing-and-gmos-in-nz-part-one/

    He says scientists should skip part one…. implying that lay people can read it and get up to speed…..
    but somehow I get the feeling that the basic facts of life are all too difficult for anti-GM folk to comprehend.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    somehow I get the feeling that the basic facts of life are all too difficult for anti-GM folk to comprehend.

    Basic facts like the politics of GMO, you mean?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/new-fda-food-label-rules-_b_5022900.html

    In 2007, on the campaign trail in Iowa, then-Senator Barack Obama told supporters “We’ll let folks know if their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying.” He has not honored that campaign promise.

    In 2012, during the high-profile California Proposition 37 campaign, a citizens’ initiative that would have required mandatory labeling of GMOs in foods, nearly 208,000 people signed our petition to Michelle Obama asking her to remind President Obama of his campaign promise, and to support GMO labeling. Mrs. Obama did not respond.

    Proposition 37 was defeated by a mere 1 percent, only after the biotech and food companies spent more than $46 million to defeat it. A similar scenario played out in Washington State in 2013, where I-522, another citizens’ ballot initiative, was also defeated by 1 percent. Industry spent a total of $70 million to defeat those two initiatives, $12 million of which was illegally laundered. Industry has spent millions more lobbying state legislators and Congress to prevent state and federal laws requiring the labeling of GMOs in our food. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, a multi-billion dollar lobbying group, has even drafted a that would preempt states from passing such laws.

    In 1992, the FDA cleared the way for GMOs to enter the U.S. food supply, unlabeled, and without independent, pre-market safety testing. We have Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist-turned-Deputy Commissioner for Policy for the FDA (1991 to 1994), to thank for that decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mara (759 comments) says:

    I have no objection to GE foods; as in Genetically Enhanced, specially if it means that producers do not need to douse it in anti-disease shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth

    Labeling for GM is an unnecessary cost because there is no difference between GM food and non GM food.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Colville (2,239 comments) says:

    We have been genetically modifying foods ever since we used the best seeds from the best plants to grown the next crop.

    I just dont get how a farmer is allowed to let seeds blow over the boundary and damage his neighbours property.

    KiwiGreg # 4.20. You paint your house whatever colour you like but when your spraying it you are not allowed to spray my place too. Fair?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Labeling for GM is an unnecessary cost because there is no difference between GM food and non GM food.

    Even if there was no difference (and the evidence suggest that GM food can cause cancer & other diseases) there are other costs associated with GE: damage to the environment, eg bee colonies, and exposure of farmers to lawsuits when GMO from neighbouring farms cross pollinate.

    We have been genetically modifying foods ever since we used the best seeds from the best plants to grown the next crop.

    The difference is that seed selection is a natural process, but genetic engineering is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    UglyTruth says:

    “..and the evidence suggest that GM food can cause cancer & other diseases) there are other costs associated with GE: damage to the environment, eg bee colonies..”

    There is no evidence.
    Just because you and other Gaia worshippers believe it is harmful doesn’t make it so.
    I am not paying more because somebody else’s religious beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    There is no evidence.

    The two-year study, conducted by a team lead by French biotech critic Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, found that groups of lab rats fed a lifetime diet of either Monsanto’s NK603 corn (NK603 is treated with Roundup herbicide) or exposed to varying levels of Roundup herbicide in drinking water died earlier and had higher rates of tumors and organ damage than controls. NK603 is a genetically modified organism, or GMO, that is bioengineered to tolerate Roundup.

    Independent scientists, however, say the Sprague Dawley breed is an industry standard for toxicity research, and while the Séralini study is not perfect, there is no legitimate reason to remove it from scientific debate. Séralini and his team refused an offer from Hayes to voluntarily retract the study and continue to publically defend their findings.

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/20516-in-depth-journal-retracts-independent-study-linking-monsanto-gmo-corn-to-cancer-in-rats

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    Not only are GM foods beneficial for humans (Such as Golden Rice) GM foods are also good for the environment.

    GM plants have been developed to:

    1. Need less water, conserving a valuable resource.
    2. Need less pesticides and herbicides, protecting non target species.
    3. Produce a higher yield, needing less area to grow.
    4. Keep produce fresh longer, wasting less and not needing to grow as much.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    @ Ugly Truth….Oh dear… natural processes… rule me out on that one… Alas, without anyone asking me…I was subjected to a most unnatural process as a babe-in-arms. The parents had incompatible genes and I was headed for a short and nasty existence, but perhaps a place in Jehovah’s Heaven. However Dr Anderson intervened and slashed my ankles and forehead and withdrew all my nasty blood and shoved somebody else’s blood into my little wee veins. Gee, wouldn’t it have been so much better if I had been allowed to die naturally of hemolytic disease of the newborn.?
    Sorry, but I’m grateful that 61 years ago NZ doctors and scientists kept themselves abreast of new knowledge and adopted unnatural technologies that granted me a healthy life.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fentex (913 comments) says:

    I am interested in this claim…

    Mr Marsh claimed he lost certified organic status on his farm because Mr Baxter failed in his duty of care to prevent contamination from his GM crop.

    The complainant appears to think, if their crops were amenable to cross fertilization, that a neighbour is obliged to stop fertilization across their fence. Supposing the fertilization was a possibility I’m curious about what laws and principles might support such a theory.

    This case may have failed due to dissimilarity between crops, what happens when it comes up again where similar crops are involved?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth

    Whatever you do, don’t quote a charlatan and cheat such as Gilles-Eric Séralini.
    He is the Michael Mann of GE and his fake study are completely discredited.
    Google the “Séralini affair”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    2. Need less pesticides and herbicides, protecting non target species.

    … and in the space of a decade, U.S. corn acreage undergoes a ten-fold increase in average insecticide use. By 2007, the average acre of corn has more than three systemic insecticides — both Bt traits and a neonicotinoid. Compare this to the early 1990s, when only an estimated 30-35% of all corn acreage were treated with insecticides at all.

    In 2007, what’s left of corn IPM was further unraveled with the mass marketing of a new class of fungicides (strobilurins) for use on corn as yield “boosters.” Before this, fungicide use on corn was so uncommon that it didn’t appear in Crop Life’s 2002 National Pesticide Use Database. But in the last five years, the pesticide industry has aggressively and successfully marketed prophylactic applications of fungicides on corn as yield and growth enhancers, and use has grown dramatically as a result. This despite the fact that these fungicides work as marketed less than half the time.

    Neonicotinoids are known to synergize with certain fungicides to increase the toxicity of the former to honey bees up to 1,000-fold, and fungicides may be key culprits in undermining beneficial bee microbiota that do things like make beebread nutritious and support immune response against gut pathogens like Nosema. Fungicide use in corn is likewise destroying beneficial fungi in many cropping systems, and driving the emergence of resistant strains.

    http://www.panna.org/blog/ge-corn-sick-honey-bees-whats-link

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Whatever you do, don’t quote a charlatan and cheat such as Gilles-Eric Séralini.

    Why do you think that he is a charlatan and a cheat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    “Why do you think that he is a charlatan and a cheat?”

    I don’t think he is.

    Google the “Séralini affair”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    Séralini is a crank. No study has ever shown any harm whatsoever from GM foods.

    Don’t expect Ugly to ever recognise it though. He’s an idiot who’ll never listen and often refuses outright to back up his claims.
    This is a guy who thinks nukes were placed in the basement of the WTC on 9/11 for…some reason as of yet explained.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Psycho Milt (2,402 comments) says:

    Cafe fan banned in case smell of bacon offends Muslims

    For the record, the cafe in question seems to be run by Turkish Muslims and the complainer was a Mr Graham Webb-Lee, ie a common-or-garden English busybody and most likely not someone likely to be found with his head down and his arse in the air unless he’s gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Psycho Milt (2,402 comments) says:

    Séralini is a crank. No study has ever shown any harm whatsoever from GM foods.

    Hey, I’m willing to give Ugly Truth absolutely as much credence on this issue as I give him on issues of law and whether the US government demolished the Trace Centre towers in NY…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    In October 2012, a fourth study done at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand reinforces the “altered genes survive digestion” theory. In this study, Professor Jack Heinemann found that the double stranded RNA (dsRNAs) present in genetically engineered wheat were able to withstand digestion (even after cooking) and circulate throughout the body, where the RNA amplified into more and different dsRNAs and “alters gene expression in the animal.”

    Bizarre. The website you link to and quote from misrepresents things ans omits relevant information. In the case you cite Heinemann did not do what you and the website claimed. A previous study, quoted in the website, and since debunked, claimed that ingested RNA could survive cooking, and digestion and intefere with our genes. Heinemann did not show this, as claimed, since his work was purely theoretical in nature and involved nothing more than database searches. He claimed that ingested RNAs would interfere extensively with our genome. It subsequently emerged that he didn’t know what he was doing and he ended up admitting that would be no interference.

    This isn’t a great surprise since Heinemann has a track record of making facts up rather than looking them up when it comes to genetic engineering debate. His paper on his claims had to be published in a chemistry journal because the biotechnology journals rejected it as crap. His paper starts off with an incorrect definition of a standard term and it turns out that he didn’t understand how the RNA’s in question actually worked, or how to do a proper database search.

    He’s a crackpot in other words.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This is a guy who thinks nukes were placed in the basement of the WTC on 9/11 for…some reason as of yet explained.

    The main reason is that an extraordinary source of energy was required to generate the molten steel and persistent fires at “ground zero”.
    Other reasons are:
    The burns suffered by Felipe David in the basement.
    The correlation of fission products at various NY sample sites after 9/11.
    High levels of tritium.
    The high number of deaths from first responders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Bizarre. The website you link to and quote from misrepresents things ans omits relevant information. In the case you cite Heinemann did not do what you and the website claimed.

    How’s that?

    A previous study, quoted in the website, and since debunked, claimed that ingested RNA could survive cooking, and digestion and intefere with our genes.

    So? The art of debunking can by applied when the material is valid but does not support the conclusion favoured by the debunked.

    Heinemann did not show this, as claimed, since his work was purely theoretical in nature and involved nothing more than database searches.

    If it involved using experimental data as suggested by the database searches then it wasn’t purely theoretical.

    He claimed that ingested RNAs would interfere extensively with our genome. It subsequently emerged that he didn’t know what he was doing and he ended up admitting that would be no interference.

    What’s your source for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No study has ever shown any harm whatsoever from GM foods.

    http://gmojudycarman.org/new-study-shows-that-animals-are-seriously-harmed-by-gm-feed/

    We found that the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs
    fed the GM diet. Pigs on the GM diet were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than
    control pigs. Males were more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe
    stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. These findings are both
    biologically significant and statistically significant.

    http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Clear-English-explanation-of-the-study-for-website-11Jun13.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. WineOh (624 comments) says:

    This is not a case about eco-nazi hippy greens, its about consequential loss caused by alleged contamination.

    It is NOT about whether GM crops cause harm, that is a red herring. The farmer is claiming that he lost his Organic Certification as a result of his neighbour’s inability or unwillingness to keep his crops (property) on his side of the fence.

    Like or not, organic crops sell for a premium price over ‘conventional’ or GM crops. This is capitalisim working as it should – because consumers are prepared to pay more for a product a lower level of herbicides, pesticides and artificial manipulation. It is a claim for the lower prices that his goods will receive because of the neighbours crop.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    How’s that?

    A previous study claimed to have found evidence that dsRNAs could survive cooking, and digestion and influence the genome of that animal eating it. The website that you linked to and quoted from talks about at study. Heinemann’s work was to suggest that if this was so, then it would apply to humans. He then looked at one specific Australian proposed GE crop with an introduced RNA gene in it and then tried to predict if that introduced gene would affect any human genes by doing a database search. That was it. That’s all he did. There was nothing experimental in what he did, nor did he use any data from the original study.

    What’s your source for that?

    When an an Australian anti-GE group asked him to look into this he claimed that he got “800 pages of hits” when he did his database search implying, he claimed, that the RNA gene in question would have an extensive impact on or genome. He subsequently amended this and claimed he only found “400 pages of hits”. There was a debate on the sciblogs website last year where it emerged that he didn’t understand how this class of RNA genes worked, and that he didn’t know how to do the search properly, and that weren’t any hits at all. Last time I looked, his own website unintentionally revealed that he was spectacularly ignorant of the subject and completely out of his depth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Other_Andy (2,560 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth

    That study has also been debunked as pseudo science.
    Judy Carman is a colleague of Seralini and Carman and her colleagues are funded by and associated with anti-GMO organisations and ‘organic’ producers.
    Political activism disguised as science.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. wiseowl (857 comments) says:

    Altiora,
    There are no dodgy chemicals in your food.

    Sprays used now are a far cry from what they were 20 years ago and even then they were no problem

    Organic growers actually use the worst chemicals,one being copper.Just think about it.It is a metal and accumulates in the environment.
    They also use lime sulphur which I have seen used so often it stunts tree growth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    @ Wineoh… correct.. this is about property rights…. and contracts.
    Doesn’t help if your organic certifying agent fails to understand what genetic contamination means. (check out p.112 of the court judgement).
    GM canola was never going to fertilise organic wheat. There was no logical reason as to why the farmer lost his organic certification.

    How do conventional growers of a crop respond if a nearby organic grower of the same crop fails to treat fungal/bacterial outbreaks effectively ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. WineOh (624 comments) says:

    @ Maggy, yes I agree – the true failure is in the certifying body failing to recognise no detrimental affect to his crops. Hopefully the result of this case will enable the farmer to get his farms certification.

    I know of an NZ organic vineyard that lost a significant portion of fruit in a season due to uncontrolled herbicide spraying next door, at least in that case one should have been able to provide direct losses except that the contractors controlling the spraying somehow convinced the courts that it was a matter of whether they had been excessively negligent in their duties. Should a neighbour have a higher duty of care in managing their own station if they are positioned adjacent to an Organic certified business rather than a conventional one? Probably not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. altiora (243 comments) says:

    @Maggy Wassilieff: raises the very point I raised as to what exactly being organic means when you’re surrounded by farmers who might not share your philosophy. Should these other farmers stop forthwith in case they contaminate the organic farmer’s crop? Perhaps the organic farmer try to farm in some enclosed bubble if he’s that worried about contamination.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “The main reason is that an extraordinary source of energy was required to generate the molten steel and persistent fires at “ground zero”.”

    That’s not a reason, Ugly. Why do you think nukes were in the basement? For what reason do you think they were there? Why would you want to create molten steel?

    You haven’t given a reason, bud.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gm-pig-study-is-deeply-flawed-2013-6

    Try again

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    @ Altiora…. oh, I can’t help you. I’ve been confused by organics ever since someone tried to sell me a packet of pure organic NaCl crystals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ross411 (422 comments) says:

    This is a win for science, much in the same way that a farmer upstream affecting the river and potentially making it unsafe to swim in, is a win for the community.

    Sure, the farmer may through random chance end up not affecting the water quality, much in the same way that the GMO pollen may through random chance not make it across to a neighbouring property.

    The point is that you can’t opt out of GMO. That it doesn’t require less use of pesticides and weedkillers, in fact often it allows more to be used as the crops have been made immune. If your neighbour builds a fire to burn waste and you are downstream of the smoke, should you not have recourse to opt out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    That’s not a reason, Ugly

    Actually it is, Contrarian.

    reason
    ˈriːz(ə)n/
    noun
    noun: reason; plural noun: reasons

    1.
    a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

    It is a reason because it explains Felipe David’s burns, the fission products (Barium Strontium etc), and most significantly the extraordinary amounts of heat present at “ground zero” 9/11.

    The alternative explanation is that the laws of physics weren’t working that day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    No, Ugly. You haven’t given a reason to the question asked.

    Why were there nukes in the basement?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No, Ugly. You haven’t given a reason to the question asked.

    Stop playing stupid Contrarian.

    The debunkers can’t explain where the energy came from that melted the steel and kept the site hot for weeks, with underground fires burning for months afterwards. The evidence is consistent with micronukes.

    WTC Fires All But Defeated – December 19, 2001

    Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. The fires that began with the Sept. 11 attacks had been strong enough that firetrucks had to spray a nearly constant jet of water on them. At times, the flames slowed the work of clearing the site. “You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.” [CBS News]

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ten Scientific Studies Prove that Genetically Modified Food Can Be Harmful To Human Health

    1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
    2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
    3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
    4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
    5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
    6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
    7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
    8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
    9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
    10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/5377054

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    So why were there nukes in the basement?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    By the way – #4 on your list has already been roundly discredited. As has number 9. (hint: it has already been explained to you)

    That is without having to even look into the other points. Might want to revise the list to 8 for a start.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So why were there nukes in the basement?

    Tough question. To make the building fall down, perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    By the way – #4 on your list has already been roundly discredited. As has number 9. (hint: it has already been explained to you)

    What about the others? Not much of a debunker are you, Contrarian?

    Hurry up, chop chop…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “To make the building fall down, perhaps?”

    Weird because it pretty plain to see the building fell from the top, and not the bottom. Magic nukes? Besides which not one characteristic of nuclear weaponry was present. No intense flash, no thermal or electrical pulse and no radiation. Magic nukes!

    Great so admit that 2 have already been debunked (which begs the question of why you brought it up again considering it has already been shown false to you). But you accept 4 and 9 are discredited, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

    All of those are probably bullshit to varying degrees, but this one stood out a mile.

    There is absolutely no mechanism for the transfer of DNA from the digestive tract to the human genome. Forget GMO. THAT would be the thing to make a career.

    It is the equivalent of saying, “I have been able to make contact with aliens, and they have shown me how to boil an egg in 3 seconds using just a match”.

    Putting that in your list means that nobody needs to address anything else. Because if THAT is what you consider evidence, your standards are so low that you would also count a strangely shaped carrot as evidence.

    GMO is bad because of moon beams.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Maggy Wassilieff (313 comments) says:

    @ Ugly Truth.. clearly you have been doing some “research”, but are you deliberately avoiding any reference to the studies and reports that debunk some of your listed points?

    Lets start with some of the claims around the DNA transfer from GMOs into human’s digestive tract….. check out and follow up some of the links posted by Mary M after Prof Jack Heinemann raised the possibility last year.
    http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/gmo-wheat-and-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
    You can use that link as a start… but you’ll find the issue has been well discussed in Sciblogs too.

    Point 10 is a worry…. what level of safety do you require? Cars & roads aren’t safe.. but most of us venture out in these death vehicles every so often. I subject the family to my cooking every day…. but have I really cooked that chicken thoroughly and Have I indentified that wild mushroom accurately? Every meal is russian roulette at the wassilieff’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Weird because it pretty plain to see the building fell from the top, and not the bottom.

    And how would it have done that if the central steel core was still there?

    Remember how the original pancake theory had to be abandoned after compression tests showed that it couldn’t happen?

    Magic nukes? Besides which not one characteristic of nuclear weaponry was present.

    Oh really?

    No intense flash

    Because the explosions were hidden from view by concrete structures.

    no thermal or electrical pulse

    Except for the thermal energy which resulted in molten steel being observed and surface temperatures hot enough to melt aluminium several days after the event, as has been mentioned previously.

    and no radiation. Magic nukes!

    Except for the decontamination procedures that were imposed on the first responders.

    http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.co.nz/2007/08/more-evidence-testimony-indicating.html

    Great so admit that 2 have already been debunked

    Debunking means nothing other than that people don’t like the facts.

    (which begs the question of why you brought it up again considering it has already been shown false to you).

    It hasn’t been shown to be false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    UT researchs nothing at all. He just opens the vile Quran and finds all the answers there. Allahu akbar.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Grant Jacobs (5 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg (first comment at May 31st, 2014 at 3:11 pm):

    You might be interested in a couple of pieces I’ve written on this, if you can forgive my touting them –

    Gene editing and GMOs in NZ, part one (for non-biologists, about what these gene editing techniques intend):

    http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2014/05/30/gene-editing-and-gmos-in-nz-part-one/

    and, Gene editing and GMOs in NZ, part two – is the law out of date?

    http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2014/06/02/gene-editing-and-gmos-in-nz-part-two-is-the-law-out-of-date/

    (Excuse my not having read the other comments before replying – there are a lot comments and I have limited time.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Grant Jacobs (5 comments) says:

    Maggy Wassilieff (May 31st, 2014 at 5:09 pm):

    “Grant Jacobs gives a nice account of gene editing and gene modification”

    Thanks – it’s nice to have some positive feedback. So often you spend a lot of time putting something together and no-one says anything!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.