How are 'consumers and chefs are free to exercise their right to choose and promote the foods they use' if there is no comprehensive labelling system for what products contain GE and what are GE-free? The Australian government needs to get its act together and ensure proper, comprehensive labelling laws are in place so we Australian's can choose to eat GE free. I've read many of the reports of negative health effects on rats, and it's scary. I for one want to eat GE free, and don't want my freedom of choice taken away. I find it impossible to believe that Australian food is completely safe when our food standards system has approved GE foods that have been proven to have negative health effects on rats. I for one quite like my liver the size it is, and don't want to risk a 15% increase like the rats in the studies have experienced!

The pro-GM lobby is missing one key point - it is NOT up to the anti-GM lobby to prove claims that GM foods are potentially unsafe. It is up to the pro-GM lobby to prove that GM foods are safe. To date they are confusing what they are claiming, which is absence of the proof of harm, for what they actually need, which is proof of the absence of harm.

It is disturbing that NSW farmer, Wayne McKay, who is now growing GM canola, believes it is safe and will not detrimentally impacting on his soils. Further he believes that GM testing is openly and honestly reported by GM proponents – dream on. The introduction of GM is probably more misleading than the tobacco industry’s “spin” on the safety of smoking. GM is neither safe, clean or green, and to suggest so is an oxymoron of magnanimous proportions. Progressive farmers are reducing, or eliminating, their reliance on toxic chemicals. Progressive farmers have a greater understanding of the importance of soil biology and how to nurture it – not destroy it with GM and associated lazy contaminating options.

Farmers may be right about GM - Past farmers also thought they were right about DDT - of course those farmers are mostly no longer here to advise the new guns. If pro gm farmers are so bent on gm, why? Is it for crop yield? Is it for growing in marginal areas? Is it because they have expert knowledge in long term effects of gm food on the polulation? Perhaps if farmers were told by legislation exactly what they can grow, what pecticides and herbicides they use, they would be much better off - after all it would be for their long term benefit. This will then give farmers the same choices currently available to the consumer. IF that is what you free-thinking farmers want, then the government can legislate accordingly - you get told exactly what to do and we consumers will just fall into line and eat whatever you produce without question because we know how responsible you are!

The labelling laws for GM food are more than sufficient in Australia. We have the most stringent and rigorous regulatory on the planet. Interestingly farmers around the world choose to grow GM grain more and more every year. There are no market signals indicating consumers are not buying GM product. Let's for the sake of a small minoritory group of greenies ring the Mr Rudd and shut down our two regulatory authorities. Yep, and then we will ask GreenPeace to do the job. An organisation which has no goal than to increase its membership in Australia to pay its top excutives. An organisation which has no expertice in sustainable agriculture or food testing for that matter. Been overwhelmed in other countries haven't you GP? The same will happen in Australia. Farmers want the choice to use this technology and the Federal government whole heardedly supports this!!

Thanks almattergreen for an intelligent, fact filled response. You have nullified them all!!

Mich, Perhaps you should take less note of the general press and stop accepting and believing at face value some of the hype that is put forward by the anti-GM lobby. It is a primary anti-GM tactic is to cast doubt and suspicion wherever possible with information and press releases, often without substance or reference to validate their claims. It is important to note that contrary to these claims there are many published reports of research and trials that can demonstrate substantial evidence that genetically modified foods that have been registered with the appropriate authorities are as safe as conventional foods. Firstly, organisations including ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications) have observed that farmers in 23 countries have made over 55 million decisions over a 12 year period to plant GM crops. Increasing at greater than 10% in Hectares per annum there is now over 114 Million Hects of GM crops world wide including approximately 11 million small scale farmers in developing countries. This provides a considerable base of practical experience with GM technology.

Secondly have a look at the three papers referenced below from the European Food Safety Authority. The EFSA are among many of the scientific institutions and regulatory authorities who have applied rigorous attention to the safety of GM foods for human consumption. EFSA 2008 is one report which describes well defined procedures for safety assessment of GM foods and evaluates many scientific studies including those from public institutions which point out that approved GM foods are at least as safe as their non-GM counterparts. Also note that the EFSA is a government body and the scientists involved are exclusively government or university scientists without funding or involvement from commercial interests. Together, these documents form a comprehensive body of evidence that GM foods that have been registered with the authorities are as safe as conventional foods. The documents also put forward solid scientific rebuttal to concerns that have been raised about specific GM crops. These papers also look specifically at the rat feeding trials done by Giles Seralini whose work and findings are often referred to by the anti-GM campaigners. The EFSA report demonstrates quite convincingly that Seralini makes simple mistakes in statistics when making these claims and therefore that the Seralini report provides no evidence of unusual behaviour or effect on the growth of rats when fed GM food.

Andersson, H.C., et al, (2008), SCIENTIFIC OPINION: Request from the European Commission related to the safeguard clause invoked by France on maize MON810 according to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the emergency measure according to Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003/EC1, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms, (Question No EFSA-Q-2008-077), Adopted on 29 October 2008, The European Food Safety Authority Journal (2008) 850. Andersson, H.C., et al, (2007), Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials, Report of the EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials *,1. Adopted by the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms2 on 12 September 2007, Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (2008) S2–S70 Andersson, H.C., et al, (2007), EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study, European Food Safety Authority, June 2007.

If you are genuinely interested and concerned about the health and safety of GM food crops then have a look at, http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/ GMO Pundit provides a comprehensive listing of over 200 publications relating to food safety of GM foods. There is a further listing of 66 papers on the same topic that are produced and funded by institutions that are completely independent of the large seed companies.

It is because of the lack of expertise in sustainable farming that GM has eventuated.

Dear all matter green, As a consumer I would like "truth in labeling". i.e. to know when the milk I drink comes from a cow that have been given GMO grain. Or what the chicken was fed with before my children or I eat it. I would like to know does the oil used to cook my chips come from GMO cottonseed oil? Or GMO canola? If it takes a greenie NGO to bring attention to that it is basic human right to know what you are eating. Then I am all for them. Mind you it would be a useful role of one of the regularity agencies to take on. So that I a consumer can make a decision, before I buy. Because I do not want my family to become unknowing food samplers, part of an experiment, based on such unstable "science". As for being part of a minority group that do not want to eat GE foods. Why not insist that the regulatory agencies label everything as GE food and see who eats it? Consumers have the right to choose. So Label GE food with pride. And measure the market signals then!!! Funny but around the world it is the GE companies that appear to resist the truth in labeling demands. I can't understand why farmers chose GMOs when consumers won't. (Federal Govt's support is easier, it is about money, funding) but farmers, you sacrifice ownership of the seed, risk contaminating yours & your neighbours land & seeds, destroying your choices for what is questionable short-term yields, for long-term herbicide intolerance & dependency on the GE companies seeds & herbicides. This is your families future as well, why lock your business into an unstable unproven new "technology" that consumers simply do not want! The farmers I know are practical down to earth business people, and are not embracing it, I guess they are listening to their customers. Margaret Fulton is just the tip of the iceberg; given a choice, no mother will serve GE food. Look what it did to the rats. I want healthy children I want to serve them healthy food. What about you?

As a farmer i find it abhorent that we are having GM pushed upon us by farmers that are more worried about money in their pockets than the safety of the public and the production of other farmers who choose not to use GM seed. The GM industry should be made to prove it is safe, not the other way round. The GM industry should also be willing to take all legal liability as should the farmers who choose to grow it, if contamination and safety are compomised they will be liable.