cheap superdry river island sale j crew outlet cheap vera bradley handbags jack wills uk osprey outlet dr martens outlet

 Rigged trials
 Legal Letter
 GM Crops: Risks and Risk Management Required
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

1. Key issues
 Summary and Overview
 10 main NCF concerns
 Farmers misled
 Q & A for school projects
 What is the drive for GM crops?
 Links to other issues
 Scientific concerns summary
 The future - 2020?
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Beyond the Bulldust
 *Unfair liability*
 Pressures in GM debate
 Questions regarding risk management
 Genetic engineering – a crop of hyperbole
 Agronomics and Economics of GM canola

2. GM crops banned
 Monsanto Crop Management & Resistance Management Plans
 Why Australia is not prepared for commercial trials
 Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready canola
 Bayer Cropscience's GM Invigor canola
 Where to now?
 State legislation - moratoria

3. Market issues
 Canola markets
 Zero tolerance of GM contamination is market demand
 Wheat will be impacted
 Higher prices for non-GM canola
 Contamination scare affects market
 Japanese requirements
 Consumer polls & market rejection
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 EU will not tolerate acceptance of tolerance levels
 What our marketers say
 How and when non-GM premiums started

About us
 Network Policy & Objectives
 NCF Funding
 NCF History
 NCF profile: Julie Newman
 NCF profile: Juliet McFarlane
 Early work

 What is canola?
 Statistics - yields
 GM Canola Factsheet
 Canadian farmers nervous about GM canola acceptance in Japan
 Letter from Japan

Coexistence & Segregation
 Crop Management Plans for non-GM grower
 Farmer to farmer Hypothetical
 Segregation and coexistence plans
 Seed industry allows 0.5% contamination
 Canadian grain segregation
 Zero tolerance is market demand
 European coexistence report
 Identity preservation and segregation
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Testing protocol
 Labels for GM contamination
 EU will not accept contamination
 Proposed Stewardship Program for Canola
 Contract harvester problems
 Crop management plans
 Industry avoids the truth about GM segregation

Consumer concerns
 Is GM food safe?
 Churches - 10 reasons against GM
 Scientific concerns
 Cross Kingdom Breeding
 Food safety testing inadequate
 Environmental effects
 13 Science based reasons for GM-free
 Myths about the Digestion of Proteins and DNA
 5 part series covering issues
 Health Risk
 Reason for Schools to ban GM Foods
 Monsanto's feeding studies
 FSANZ answers regarding food testing
 Scientific report on safety testing
 Trespass report
 Scientific concerns
 Consumer concerns summary
 GM food lecture
 Seeds of Concern
 Public attitudes to GM food
 Scrambling and gambling with the genome
 L-tryptophan - A Deadly Epidemic
 Protestors (photos)
 GM health concerns in brief
 Inadequate health testing for GM canola
 Russian study showing high death rates in offspring
 Pusztai debate
 Hidden uncertainties - risks of GMOs
 Study shows GM eating Americans sicker than non-GM eating English
 Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies
 Latest GMO Research: Decreased Fertility, Immunological Alterations and Allergies
 Key health papers of concern
 Do we really know what we are doing?

 Contamination is uncontrollable (photos)
 Gene transfer & cross-pollination
 GM product recalls
 Environmental contamination (photos)
 Confronting contamination & co-existence
 Invigor canola outcrossing
 Gene Stacking = Super Weed
 AOF contamination report
 History of how Bayer Cropscience caused contamination of non-GM canola in Australia
 Fighting GMO contamination around the world

Corporate control
 Corporate control
 Corporate Engineering in Public Debate
 Commercial influence on science
 In (Seed) Bed Together
 The drive behind GM Crops
 IP And Genetically Modified Organisms: A Fateful Combination
 Commercial influence on science
 Made by Monsanto

Costs and liabilities
 Costs to non-GM farmers
 Non-GM Liable for Contamination?
 Liability issues associated with GM crops - AFFA
 Supplying non-GM requires certification
 Liability questions answered
 More on liability
 *Farmer liability*
 Liability and GM crops

 No economic benefit for farmers
 Economic Recommendations
 Economic Critique
 Why has the OGTR ignored economics?
 Australian farmers can not afford GM crops
 What benefit?
 Higher plant yields better or worse for farmers?
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 Global seed industry concentration
 Canada versus Australia comparison
 No farmer economic gain for pharmaceutical crops
 NCF: Economics of GM canola ***
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

Farmer attitudes
 Australian farmer surveys
 Farm lobby group policies
 Victorian ALP policy
 GCA farm lobby group policies

GM / Non-GM difference
 What is GM / Non-GM?
 GM plant breeding not faster
 Will the industry be in crisis without GM?
 Why GM is different
 Non-GM biotech is the future

GM canola
 Will GM canola yield more in Australia?
 Comparison between Canadian and Australian canola conditions
 Are GM chemicals safer, cheaper or more efficient?
 How much GM canola is grown in Canada?
 Canadian and Australian canola statistics
 Economics of GM canola

GM crops
 Public good or corporate control?
 Misleading claims over GM
 ISAAA GM crop areas misleading
 Use of GM crops
 GM crops and chemical use
 Multiple spray applications vs yield penalty
 Yield problems - links
 GM cotton failures
 Global yields
 Pharmaceutical crops
 Global Trends in GM Crops
 Who benefits from GM crops?

GM crops experience
 Canadian Farmers viewpoint
 American farmers viewpoint
 American Corn Growers experience
 Argentina faces serious problems
 Report on North American Experience
 Canadian organic farmers
 Argentina & GM soy - success at what cost?
 How is industry managing non-GM now?
 India, Bulgaria, Indonesia
 Monsanto vs US farmers
 Global GM adoption
 US farmers warned of GM Liability
 Farming news links
 GM-growing US faces agricultural trade deficit
 GM soy in US not considered food grade
 Monsanto in Argentina
 GM soy war in Paraguay
 Violence in Brazil
 12 Years of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

GM wheat
 Learn more about GM wheat
 Marketing systems for GM wheat
 GM Wheat submission - food health
 Report - Farmers lose with GM wheat
 What our marketers say
 Canadian Wheat Board position
 GM Wheat impossible to segregate

Honey issues
 Apiarist briefing
 The impact of GM contamination
 SA Apiarists briefing
 Map SA & Vic
 Honey tests reveal GM contamination

How trustworthy is decision-making?
 Vested interests revealed
 Why trust the regulatory process?
 Sue Meek profile
 Federal government pro-GM
 Scientists influenced
 Liability, GCA and legal action
 Research manipulated
 OGTR does not assess economics, segregation, chemical resistance, food testing etc.
 Three faces of science fraud
 Misleading GM language

 Insurance Council submission
 Insurance avoid GM risk

International Protocols
 World Trade Organisation
 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
 Free Trade Agreement
 Farmers right to replant seeds
 International agreements
 GM labelling
 WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GMOs
 Biotechnology Policy Documents of FAO Members

Legal Issues
 Copy of Technology User Agreement
 2003 Monsanto contract
 GM Patents
 Monsanto shoot themselves in the foot (cartoon)
 Will law protect us from contamination?
 Summary of Supreme Court hearing of Percy Schmeiser
 NSW Minister guarantees farmers are protected
 AFFA-liability issues
 US farmers sued
 US farmers warned of GM liability issues
 GM Crops and farmers Liability
 Why is the non-GM grower liable for contamination?
 Innocent farmer sued
 Federal judge's opinion shows understanding of patented gene spread
 Liability for non-GM farmers
 More on liability:
 Liability and GM crops
 Farmers prepare for legal fight over GM
 Legal letter from non-GM to GM
 Liability issues - Duncan Currie

Legislation & Regulation
 Trials vs Commercial Release
 Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola approved by OGTR
 States impose moratoriums in role to protect economics
 OGTR role
 Gene Technology Act
 GM canola trial locations
 Victorian Moratorium
 Australian GM status by States
 Federal candidate views
 OGTR unapproved GM canola trials
 Gene Technology Act Critique
 South Australian Act
 WA proudly GM-free
 *State moratoria legislation*
 Gene Tech Act reviews denies compensation
 National Biotechnology Strategy
 Chronology of genetic engineering regulation in Australia: 1953–2008

 Genome Scrambling Links
 Top 10 books on GM
 Religious links

Network action
 Invigor canola submission OGTR
 GM Zone proposal submissions
 GTGC submission summary
 NCF Newsletters
 NCF Media releases
 GTGC full submission
 Roundup Ready Submission OGTR
 Network tours
 pro-GM lobbyists attack NCF
 Pro-GM tantrums
 Victorian farmer survey
 NCF banner & flyer
 Field day survey
 Community monitoring of GM Crop Trials
 Letters to farmers
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt1
 Gene Tech Act Reveiw Pt 2
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt3
 Bayer Protest
 Bayers Response to NCF
 NCF submission released

 Canadian organic standard
 American organic standards

 Victorian maps
 Victorian sites - photos
 SA trial photos
 Trials summary
 Topas 19/2 contamination
 South Australia 2006 GM Trials


03 July 2006

Fishy GM yeast used to make ice-cream

- Popular treats by Streets will soon contain a new type of ice-cream made from genetically modified yeast which has the same properties as the blood of a deep-sea fish... But the GM ingredient will not be listed on the ice-cream wrappers, despite concerns from three State health authorities.

Fishy GM yeast used to make ice-cream
Popular treats by Streets will soon contain a new type of ice-cream made from genetically modified yeast which has the same properties as the blood of a deep-sea fish.
   The confectionery giant, which makes Cornetto, Gaytime and Magnums, has used the controversial ingredients to develop an extra smooth blend of ice-cream and will roll out the new range in time for summer.
   But the GM ingredient will not be listed on the ice-cream wrappers, despite concerns from three State health authorities.
   A spokesman for Streets’ parent company Unilever said the GM yeast was used to create an artificial version of a protein found in the ocean pout fish, which lives in very cold waters off
North America.
   The protein holds the key to creating the extra small ice crystals which the company says gives the ice-cream a creamier texture.
   Rather than hunt the fish, Unilever will synthesise big amounts of it in a laboratory using GM yeast.
   Mr Goddard said that all the GM cells would be “fully consumed” during the fermentation process so the resulting protein would not contain anything that was genetically modified. He said it was most likely that the new ice-cream would be used in Splices, Calippos and Paddle Pops.
   The move has outraged the Australian Consumers Association, which believes the GM origins of the food should be listed on the wrapper.
   Unilever has pledged to list an ingredient called ISP, standing for “ice structuring protein” next to a website address where consumers can get more information.
   But this was not explicit enough, according to ACA food policy officer Clare Hughes.
   “It is not just about consumers being informed that the ice-cream is GM. We are also concerned that consumers with severe fish allergies may want to avoid it,” she said.
   Food Standards Australia New Zealand gave Unilever the green light to use the protein in October despite objections from the Victorian, NSW and
Queensland health authorities and the NZ Food Safety Authority.
   The State authorities argued that the protein was an additive and should be listed in the ingredients.
   But FSANZ ruled that the GM yeast was a “food processing aid” and not a food additive and therefore did not need to be listed.
Source: West Australian 26.06.06
Submission from IHER:

GM Protein in Ice Cream Genetically modified fish antifreeze protein is potentially able to cause inflammation and should not be approved without comprehensive tests Prof. Joe Cummins, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Malcolm Hooper This report has been submitted to the Food Standards Agency to oppose approval of Unilever’s application on behalf of the Independent Science Panel Unilever is seeking approval of a genetically modified (GM) (FAQ on genetic engineering) ice-structuring protein derived from a polar fish, ocean pout, for use in making ice cream smoother and creamier. The GM protein is produced in transgenic bakers’ yeast. Ice-structuring, or antifreeze protein protects the ocean pout in freezing waters by preventing large ice crystals forming; in ice cream and other frozen food it would have the same effect. Unilever applied to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) UK for approval, and its proposal is now open for public comment [1]. Unilever has sent similar petitions to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) status for the food additive [2] and to Food Standards Australia New Zealand [3]. Both applications have been approved, which is unfortunate. The transgenic protein produced in yeast was designated ISP Type III HPLC 12 glyco–ISP. The preparation tested by Unilever contained peptides from yeast and sugars along with the recombinant protein. Unilever conducted a subchronic feeding test of the preparation on rats by oral gavage (force feeding) for 3 weeks, as well as a battery of genotoxicity tests that proved to be negative. A series of tests that included those suggested by the World Health Organisation for allergy were carried out, along with tests for reactivity with serum obtained from a few people allergic to fish. The report stressed that the recombinant protein was identical to protein found in edible fish [1], although that kind of statement is generally untrue as will be discussed below. There is voluminous literature on antifreeze glycoproteins, particularly those from polar fish. There are four main types of glycoproteins each differing significantly from the others. Type III proteins are around 6500 daltons in size, they form a beta-sandwich structure and are found only in ocean pout [4]. Although the antifreeze protein itself is not immunogenic for the ocean pout, there is nevertheless a strong immune response to the micro ice crystals complex with antifreeze protein circulating in the fish’s blood, indicating that the complex functions as conventional antigens for the ocean pout [5]. The GM protein from transgenic yeast is the product of a synthetic approximation of the pout antifreeze protein gene. The code sequence was altered to facilitate production in yeast without altering the amino acid sequence. Multiple copies of the synthetic gene were inserted into the yeast chromosomes to boost the synthesis of the protein [1]. Production of proteins in yeast destined for human consumption or therapy is fraught with the problem of secondary modification of the proteins by glycosylation or other modifications that result in the human (or animal) immune system recognizing the yeast modified proteins as antigens. There has been progress in “humanizing” the glycosylation patterns of proteins produced in yeast [6, 7]. However, there has been no effort to “humanize” the glycosylation pattern of the antifreeze protein produced in the yeast strain used to produce the protein.


Are the cursory studies on allergenicity carried out by Unilever on the GM protein to be used in ice cream adequate to rule out allergy and other immune reactions in the tens of millions of people that will consume the ice cream? It is worth pointing out that the transgenic protein is already used in ice cream in the USA, Australia and New Zealand, and that ice cream has not been labeled, so any problems resulting from its use may go unrecognized. We should recall that the transgenic expression of a bean gene in peas turned it into a strong immunogen, resulting in debilitating even fatal lung inflammation in mice. That response was related to the glycosylation pattern of the transgenic protein [8, 9] (“Transgenic pea that made mice ill”, SiS 29). Unilever does not appear to have carried out the inflammation tests even though there is every indication from the scientific literature that pouter antifreeze protein is immunologically active. There is also the question of latency. Some chronic inflammatory diseases emerge gradually, building up from an initial response that is small and clinically variable or insignificant (asymptomatic) [10]. But there is a potential cascade effect that when triggered, will lead to autoimmune effects that could affect any organ. Without long term testing, we could be letting off an immunological time bomb. Tests for inflammatory effects must be done in both young and older animals with full analysis of inflammatory cytokines, antibodies and related molecules. Tests in young animals are particularly important as ice cream is consumed from the earliest age when there are crucial development processes occurring. In conclusion, contrary to the claims of Unilever, there is no evidence that the transgenic ice- structuring protein is identical to the protein produced in pouter fish. The transgenic protein appears to have the glycosylation pattern of yeast, making that protein a unique antigen. Even though allergenicity was studied in a cursory way, there is clear precedent for studying inflammation comprehensively in the long term in both young and older animals before exposing the European public to the transgenic ice cream. References 1. Lewis S. Application for the approval of ice structuring protein typ III HPLC12 preparation for use in edible ices. Safety and Assurance Centre 2006 2. US Food and Drug Administration Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice No. GRN000117 2003, 3. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Initial Assessment Report Application A544 Ice Structuring Protein as a Processing Aid for Ice Cream and Edible Ices, 2004, 4. Harding MM, Anderberg PI and Haymet AD 'Antifreeze' glycoproteins from polar fish. Eur J Biochem. 2003, 270(7), 1381-92. 5. Verdier JM, Ewart KV, Griffith M and Hew CL. An immune response to ice crystals in North Atlantic fishes. Eur J Biochem. 1996, 241(3), 740-3. 6. Wildt S and Gerngross TU. The humanization of N-glycosylation pathways in yeast. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005, 3(2), 119-28.


7. Li H, Sethuraman N, Stadheim TA, Zha D, Prinz B, Ballew N, Bobrowicz P, Choi BK, Cook WJ, Cukan M, Houston-Cummings NR, Davidson R, Gong B, Hamilton SR, Hoopes JP, Jiang Y, Kim N, Mansfield R, Nett JH, Rios S, Strawbridge R, Wildt S and Gerngross TU. Optimization of humanized IgGs in glycoengineered Pichia pastoris. Nat Biotechnol. 2006, 24(2), 210-5. 8. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJ and Hogan SP. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 2005, 53(23), 9023-30. 9. Ho MW. Transgenic pea that made mice ill. Science in Society 2006, 29, 28-29, 10. Arbuckle MR, McClain MT, Rubertone MV, Scofield RH, Dennis GJ, James JA, Harley JB. Development of autoantibodies before the clinical onset of systemic lupus erythematosus. New Eng J Med 2003, 349, 1526-33. 3

Print Version polo ralph lauren

Seach the archive:  
or by date  

09 November 2009
Industry avoid the truth about GM segregation problems

11 June 2009
Dupont alleges anti-competitive conduct by Monsanto

24 February 2009
Non-GM Farmers to pay for unwanted GM contamination

02 February 2009
Made by Monsanto

01 February 2009
Top 10 Seed and Pesticide companies

29 January 2009
Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

29 January 2009
Non-GM biotech is the future

26 January 2009
12 Yrs of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

19 January 2009
Non-GM seed preferred by farmers but difficult to obtain

16 January 2009
GM Canola a flop

News archive