Posts
One for you "Just a consumer"
Posted 1 hour 2 minutes ago
A CSIRO scientist has told a Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry that genetically-modified (GM) foods are probably safer than conventionally-grown foods.
Tasmania has a ban on GM foodstuffs.
The CSIRO's Tom Higgins has told the joint select committee investigating gene technology that genetically-modified material is rigorously tested.
"I think it probably is true to say that that, that they are probably safer than conventional foods, just because they undergo so much more regulatory scrutiny," he said.
But Dr Higgins also told the inquiry he abandoned an experiment using genetically modified material after mice were adversely affected.
Dr Higgins said he had tried to make peas resistant to weevils by transferring genetic material into them from beans, but when tested on mice the peas provoked an allergic response.
He says the response was only mild, and was not why he abandoned his research.
"Well, just because of the sensitivities, of people to, to this technology, it seemed to me that it would not be wise to carry on with the project, that had that associated with it.
"I think it was very important to be able to publish those results and say, well, this can happen."
Posted 1 hour 2 minutes ago
A CSIRO scientist has told a Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry that genetically-modified (GM) foods are probably safer than conventionally-grown foods.
Tasmania has a ban on GM foodstuffs.
The CSIRO's Tom Higgins has told the joint select committee investigating gene technology that genetically-modified material is rigorously tested.
"I think it probably is true to say that that, that they are probably safer than conventional foods, just because they undergo so much more regulatory scrutiny," he said.
But Dr Higgins also told the inquiry he abandoned an experiment using genetically modified material after mice were adversely affected.
Dr Higgins said he had tried to make peas resistant to weevils by transferring genetic material into them from beans, but when tested on mice the peas provoked an allergic response.
He says the response was only mild, and was not why he abandoned his research.
"Well, just because of the sensitivities, of people to, to this technology, it seemed to me that it would not be wise to carry on with the project, that had that associated with it.
"I think it was very important to be able to publish those results and say, well, this can happen."
3 comments:
Heh heh you have to laugh at that comment. Look at the words "probably", not a realistic wand of magic saying it is. Let's look at the research that these supposed scientist has actually done (by the way they use psychologists to peer review who would not know what they are looking at).
CSIRO gets millions of dollars from Monsanto and the biotech industry (GM companies) to do research on GM. They will be a pro-GM stance because of this. CSIRO scientists that have disagreed as they have found evidence against GM have been sacked.
What's their testing - done by Monsanto on a 28 day trial and clearly stating that their are changes to the main organs of the rat's bodies. They are force fed GM as the rats don't want to eat it (clearly they are smarter than the pro-GM sector).
His words "well, this can happen" clearly state that GM can have adverse affects and clearly should be stopped immediately.
No long term studies are done! No studies are done on humans! Actually there was two done and the first study put people into hospital (all evidence destroyed and study abandoned) and the second was with patients in hospital with colostomy bags which clearly showed that GM went through the gut wall and lining. Not a good test for them, so they had to hide those results in the back blocks.
I wonder how much "Dr. Higgins" gets paid by the pro-GM sector?
His statements clearly show the uncertainty of GM "I think it probably is true to say" is clearly stating that he's not really sure.
GM is clearly a problem both in health and contamination. We should not even be looking at getting this problem into Tasmania.
Ban it and fine the supplier of GM (including CSIRO which has purposely contaminated spots all over Australia) that illegally imports or contaminates but make it large like millions of dollars so that at least it will make them baulk and possibly stop them bringing this outdated technology to Tasmania.
Forgot to mention (seem to be doing that today) that the health issues are clearly stated at Greenpeace, www.geneticroullette.com, and countless others. There is also new scientific documentation coming out soon which clearly states that the protein levels are changed and according to other research on cancer, the protein changes are what activates the cancer cells. Not a good sign. More information soon.
Justaconsumer
Let's look at the "rigorous testing" on canola. There have been no tests on the oil which is the part that the consumers eat. There has only been tests on meal.
Yes, they did find a drastic increase in liver weight but because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed, and meal which is used for stock feed, results were ignored.
T.J. Higgins did do rigorous testing and yes he found a problem but his testing was voluntary. Because it is up to the GM companies what data they submit.
It was CSIRO's decision to withdraw the pea, not the regulatory process. They may have approved it. It was asked at one time by and there was no answer to the question.
Justaconsumer
Post a Comment