Comments on: CSIRO scientist asks chefs to leave GM foods alone

By: pretentious foodie/fish face

pretentious foodie/fish face — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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

By: Tony Preston-Stanley

Tony Preston-Stanley — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: bev

bev — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: greg

greg — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: roberta

roberta — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: TJ Higgins, CSIRO Plant Industry

TJ Higgins, CSIRO Plant Industry — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: steph

steph — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: soil carbon

soil carbon — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.