CSIRO scientist asks chefs to leave GM foods alone
|
A letter campaign to Australia’s top chefs — including Kylie Kwong, Maggie Beer, Stephanie Alexander, Stefano de Pieri and Margaret Fulton — has again raised questions about the CSIRO’s alliances with industry. In copies of a letter forwarded to Crikey, Deputy Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Plant Industry, TJ Higgins, has written to more than 50 chefs who signed Greenpeace’s GM-free Chefs Charter, asking them not to boycott Genetically Modified products. Higgins, whose claims about the safety of GM foods have attracted criticism from some scientists and support from others, is CSIRO’s co-inventor of the GM field pea. The pea, spliced with a bean gene, cost more than $2 million to develop but was abandoned because it caused immune issues and lung-damage when fed to mice. Despite this, Higgins’ letter urges chefs to “think more broadly about the implications of your opposition”. Higgins says ”it is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety.” It has, he notes, “and very widely” — independent studies have found no “connection between health problems and GM food”. But Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales told Crikey that Higgins’ claims have been refuted by peer-reviewed studies and that “Higgins has clearly, and not for the first time, crossed the line between being a scientist and biotechnology industry lobbyist.” Claims of safety are also challenged by public health scientists, including Australian epidemiologist Judy Carman and nutritionist and biochemist Rosemary Stanton, who say there is mounting evidence to suggest some GM foods currently on the market are unsafe, and these have not undergone the rigour of testing that found health hazards in Higgins’ ill-fated GM pea. While Australian food regulation bodies don’t require such testing, in Europe and Japan, many GM foods are banned because of perceived inadequate testing. CSIRO’s public comments policy forbids advocacy and calls for “care… when speaking about work with commercial potential.” CSIRO Plant Industry has commercial partners and holds several GM product patents that depend on market acceptance of GM food. Many of these products are co-invented by Australia’s Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, who has lobbied to overturn GM bans. CSIRO policy also states: “where diversity of scientific views exists make reference to the range of scientific perspectives held within CSIRO.” In the case of GM food, a senior scientist who spoke publicly about hazards of GM crops was sacked from the organisation. CSIRO was contacted for a response to the latest claims, which follow a spate of accusations besieging CSIRO, including accusations of gagging scientists who express opinions on climate change policy, and a Canberra Times exposé of CSIRO’s coal industry influence on boosting fossil fuel research and reducing renewable energy research. Scientists in Nature and within the CSIRO have also attacked some claims in the bestselling CSIRO Wellbeing Diet, which was funded by meat and dairy industry bodies. CSIRO Communications Spokesperson Sophie Clayton said Higgins would like to respond to the latest claims but could not in time for this story. CSIRO’s position statement on gene technology is here. |
|
|
|
9 Comments
Firstly to everybody who didn’t receive phone call in the first place from green peace or email from Dr Higgin’s and reply from pretentious foodie. Your a ill informed pecker head (Brett),
the chefs charter was pushed over the phone (green peace) to this pretentious foodie not on the issue of banning but labeling. As a pretentious foodie that serves up to 600 people a week concerned with all issues
just for Brett,s sake ie: GM, SUSTAINABILITY, FISH NAME GHANGING, GLOBAL WARMING, ETC do you get it yet. We as pretentious foodies have to answer questions on this every day, be responsable and inform our paying customers plus cook, run a business, READ MEDIA (mostly Crap) listen to people like you insult us, I hope you run a business other wise your input is just a personal insult (green peace), CSRIO, to an intelligent debate. After receiving email from Dr Higgins, pretentious foodie replied to inform he was only interested in the issue he was asked about on chefs charter.
This charter was not spoke over the phone (green peace) as a BAN, was not released at media(dank st) launch as a BAN, to this pretentious foodie it is about labeling and choice.
Ps to all, before we throw mud at each other maybe we should fess up who we are and what our agenda
is and who is paying our wages. That way we can keep this site to what i heard and thought it was.
A SITE FOR TRUTH AND INTELLIGENT DEBAT…………………….. s hodges
So, there is a diversity of views on the science of GM food. Strangley enough there also appeasrs to be a diviersity of views on cllimate change. And somehow Greenpeace is in there shouting loudly on both issues at the lowest common denominator level of fear rather than understanding. But then complex issues are mcuh better realt with in simplistic terms aren’t they?
I’m paying the bill when I eat out, so I think what I choose to eat is between me and the Chef. Basically if a restaurant uses GM ingredients, I won’t be eating there.
Science and technology are supposed to serve social need.
Clearly, chefs are far more in touch with consumer wishes and market demand than the government is - they understand who is paying the bill.
If the CSIRO keeps spending taxpayer dollars on the development of GM crops - what a massive waste of public money.
I think it’s time government departments considered the question: are they serving the public, or are they serving the government of the day?
They bring upon their own heads such disrepute - it will take a very long time to regain public confidence - if they in fact ever do.
60-70% of the world’s grain harvest is feed to animals, food is regularly dumped to maintain price levels in the market, farmers in the ‘developing worlds’ grow cash crops for export rather than to feed themselves -these are the realities of why people go hungry worldwide. GM crops are pushed by huge agro-chemical companies like monsanto (monsatan!) not out of some benevolent ideal but to monopolize food production and maximise profits. the CSIRO have definitely crossed the line here and people like Higgins should make it clear who else is paying his wages. To Brett & Tony, take a look at the real issues behind it all and don’t stoop to your own complaint about greenpeace and many other concerned people and let the debate be nothing more than name-calling. What motivates the research is the key ~ world hunger or corporate profits?
anybody interested in knowing more about GM should watch “the future of food”.
and it’s a shame to realise that our science institutes are not that neutral.
I wrote to chefs who signed onto Greenpeace’s GM free charter because CSIRO believes it is important to provide the scientific facts around GM to help people make informed decisions about the technology, see CSIRO’s position statement on gene technology at http://www.csiro.au/news/BiotechPosition.html.
My GM pea research (http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pjtp.pdf) emphasises the effectiveness of case-by-case evaluation of GM plants and the important role science can play in decision-making around the introduction of GM crops. The research does not imply that all GM plants are inherently bad.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand undertakes comprehensive evaluation of GM foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption. FSANZ says “This assessment ensures that any approved GM foods are as safe and nutritious as comparable conventional foods already in the Australian and New Zealand food supply.” (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/frequentlyaskedquest3862.cfm)FSANZ also regulates GM food labelling.
Crop varieties, both GM and non-GM, developed by CSIRO are largely delivered to farmers by seed companies. This is usually a commercial arrangement that provides a small amount of funding to CSIRO that is put back into crop research. While commercial products, such as new crop varieties and patents, from our research provide some revenue, we are not dependent on patent income to fund our research.
No-one has been sacked from CSIRO for speaking out on GM.
I think the CSIRO and some writers are missing the point here, as far as the chefs are concerned, particularly those mentioned in the article, the main point of the food is the TASTE. Even if most of us want to get tomatoes in winter and oranges in summer (accepting some sacrifice in taste) as most people would agree, taste is best in organically grown seasonal foods.
GM food is not aimed at improving taste of fresh produce, variety of produce or levels of naturally produced nutrition in the food, it is aimed at increasing profits for companies, and is sold to farmers on the basis of potentially (but not definitely) higher yields. Nobody goes to a restaurant to eat produce that has been modified to make farming easier, so there is no point having a go at the chefs.
Before the conspiracy theorists get themselves into a rich lather over the evildoers at CSIRO, it’s worth noting that the problem with the GM field pea was uncovered by CSIRO itself and that “peer-reviewed studies” alluded to by Greenpeace relate to a single study on Monsanto’s GM corn - conducted by Monsanto itself and reviewed independently by two French universities. The real issue here is not TJ Higgins’s motives, whatever they might be, but whether the benefits of GM food outweigh the risks. Weighing the benefits against the risks requires diligent and continuing research, not empty-headed bans by a bunch of pretentious foodies.
GM proponents constantly claim fighting world hunger in their defence. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation reported that “over-nutrition” is now a bigger health problem globally than under-nutrition. The reality is we have a food equity problem, not a food quantity problem.
TJ Higgins and his ilk claim that there is absence of the proof of harm.
What the public are entitled to is proof of the absence of harm. The two are fundamentally different things and need to be widely acknowledged as such.