Dear Jennifer,
Did you see this recent article from Nature entitled 'Escaped Chinese GM Rice Reaches Europe' ?
The Chinese do their trialing on a grand scale. According to an industry source one million acres of insect resisitant GM rice was planted last year in China. Anywhere else this would have been described as a general commercial release of the GM rice.
If you tested Chinese rice noodles in an Asian grocery store in Australia you would find that products derived from insect resistant GM rice is a reality here too.
But more importantly, and as is pointed out in the article, the risks to the consumer of GM Chinese rice noodles are minimal. Any allergenic reaction to the rice would have been drastically reduced in the processing of the food as the food allergy expert states.
The real question is: Can GM rice coexist with non-GM rice and is there the political will to keep them separate in China?
Exports of Chinese rice noodles is not a big issue for the Chinese government.
There has been a consensus growing among scientists that when China decides to openly (or covertly) give GM rice the all clear it will have an immediate impact on the 'GM free' status of rice products sold everywhere on this planet.
It will undoubtedly trigger a new round of food scares and anti-GM campaigns.
But they will all be futile. Ultimately we will have to face the reality of living with a technology, which in the case of https://levitralab.com insect resistant GM rice, has clear public and environmental benefits.
Regards,
Roger Kalla.
" What do you call a whale? "
Lunch and dinner usually depending on the sauce;)
What do you call a whale?
Rog:
"GP have no policy on "environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards"??"
By now you must be aware of GP's position on GMOs if that is what you are refering to(?) , but since Greenpeace is not an animal rights organisation I doubt animal welfare issues ever will come up on the agenda.
GP have no policy on "environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards"??
Pull the other leg
GP are not supporting consumers right to choice they are advocating that GMOs should not be released into the environment.
Dr. Kalla:" I was unfortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dr Ho at Melbourne University during which she was knocking Darwinism, Watson-Cricks discovery of the double helix, modern genetics and all forms of biotechnology."
Actually Dr. Kalla, Dr Ho sounds like Bush knocking down Darwinism, is there some kind of an unholy alliance between them???
Rog :" Ann, it would be good to hear GPs views on the reformed CAP policy in regards to the emphasis on environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards".
Rog , I hardly don't believe Greenpeace have any view currently on this issue... probably they will make a statement when the farming campaign starts.
OK Rog, regarding freedom of choice.
A ruling legal principle of freedom in European and other civilisations establishes that the freedom individuals and groups enjoy are only limited by their obligation not to restrict other individuals or groups rights and liberties.
I have previously mentioned Greenpeace's GMO labelling campaign in the EU.
This labelling , if implemented , will give the consumer the freedom of choice.
Polls have shown ( in Sweden) that a big majority of consumers support the labelling system. All big political parties, except for the Social Democrats and the Conservatives also support the labelling of meat products, produced by animals raised with GMO fodder.
It is also written in the EU Constitution(?) that the right for information is a fundamental righteousness for citizens in Europe.
Conclusion 馃檨 see above post)
路 All seeds of non-GE plant varieties should be required to be effectively free of GMOs (legally and technically established as below the detection limit in the relevant seed legislation)
路 A full and coherent liability scheme, which puts the burden of proof on the producers of GMOs and follows the polluter pays principle, must be established. In case contamination occurs, the GMO industry must be strictly liable. Fault-based liability should be established between producers and users of GMOs to guarantee that instructions and measures to prevent contamination are applied
路 Co-existence provisions are to be established along the entire food chain
路 Precautionary environmental and health protection measures, monitoring as well as risk management and nature protection measures, must be included in the scope of co-existence
路 No additional costs and measures should arise from co-existence requirements to farmers, producers and consumers, who do not want to use GMOs. The viability and sustainability of conventional and organic farming must be ensured over and above the right to grow GMOs
路 The acknowledgement that co-existence is not an issue of commercial interests and compensations but of long term guarantees of the freedom to consume and to produce non GE products
Rog,
The co-existence of GM and conventional crops is currently under discussion at EU level.
Here's Greenpeace's statement on co-existence :
http://www.greenpeace.eu/downloads/gmo/Greenpeace%20considerations%20on%20Coexistence.doc
There may be a newer version and if so ,I will post it here next week.