GMOIreland

New Home

2008-01-11T01:30:00.000-08:00

NO NEW POSTS WILL OCCUR HERE....see my new home at
http://student.ucc.ie/blogs/GMOIreland/

After a bit of a break to travel I'm finally back to posting. The above link is my new home. Lots to post, so stay tuned.

Irish Greens amazing u-turn on GM feed

2007-10-02T03:42:00.000-07:00

In an amazing redefinition of 'GM free' and contrary to Green Party policy, Green Junior Minister Trevor Sargent has now stated GM free is 'not about banning imported GM feed' according to the Irish Independent (Oct 2, 2007)(see below) and confirmed by a Department of Agriculture official press release see HERE

However, Green Party Policy on GM feed is very clear in stating 'GM Free':
"would mean that GM seed or crops would not be grown in the island (either as crop 'trials' or commercially), there would be no GM feed for animals and no transgenic farm animals."
see http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/gm_food

In addition the Greens' policy is very definitive on GM feed including the following action points

1.1 immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals;

1.3 establish a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs;
see http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/gm_food/gm_crops_and_food_policy

Trevor Sargent's statement also contradicts GM Free Ireland's position who wish "to stop the contamination of Ireland's meat, poultry and dairy produce via animal feed that contains GM ingredients."
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/feed/index.php

SEE EARLIER POSTING ON "Irish Greens serve up fudge on GM food" http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2007_06_14_archive.html

Minister abstains from GM feed vote
Irish Independent Farming
Maeve Dineen

October 2, 2007

Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, opted to abstain from last week's crucial vote on GM animal feeds at the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels. Despite the decision, the department said the importation of GM maize by-products and soya meal into Ireland will not be affected. Minister for State, Trevor Sargent, said the decision by Ireland to abstain on the recent

EU Council vote on GM animal feeds is in line with France and Italy, which also abstained. "France and Italy are major buyers of Irish produce. Had Ireland voted 'yes' it would not have affected the outcome of the vote. It is expected the EU Commission will now move quickly to approve the unauthorised GM feed imports. Ireland's abstention is not inconsistent with the commitment in the programme for government to seek to negotiate a GM-free island of Ireland," he said.

He said he accepts the reality that two thirds of raw materials used in Irish compound feed is imported from outside the EU and that 95pc of these products come from EU-authorised GM crops. However, he added that in his view, the Government objective must be to seek to negotiate an island-wide, GM-free zone and it is not about banning imported GM feed.

"It is about not growing GM crops and not proliferating GM pollen, GM seed dispersal and super-weeds in the Irish countryside," he said.

But the IFA reacted furiously to the decision, with president Padraig Walshe accusing the Government of hypocrisy and double standards in failing to support the EU proposal to accept scientifically-approved maize and com gluten for circulation in the EU. He said that the Government was playing politics for the optics, with no consideration for the damage they are doing to Ireland's livestock industy, especially pigmeat and poultry producers.

He said: "The Government is collectively responsible, and I do not accept Fianna Fail passing the buck and blaming the Greens. After all, it was the Taoiseach who brought the Greens into Government with their two seats at Cabinet compared to Fianna Fail's 12.

"I am disgusted with Agriculture Minister, Mary Coughlan's abstention in Wednesday's crucial vote at the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels. The Minister was actively in favour of the EU proposal last June and she had the full support of IFA. This u-turn has damaged Ireland's credibility in Brussels and assurances given by Minster Coughlan last June now count for nothing.

Irish Minister of Agriculture clarifies that no GM Free policy is in place or decided upon

2007-09-21T05:54:00.000-07:00

Click here for earlier posting for background

Herculex to be approved by default shortly

Irish Farmers Journal

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2007/0922/news/currentedition/newsfeature.shtml

By Justin McCarthy

The genetically modified maize variety, Herculex, is expected to be approved in the coming weeks - but not by Europe's politicians. The continued ban on the GM maize variety will come before EU Agriculture Ministers next Wednesday, 26 September.

Ireland's voting intention has yet to be confirmed, although Farmers Journal sources suggest we are likely to abstain.

Despite the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) giving the product the all-clear, it appears unlikely that the product will be approved by the Council of Ministers. However, the EU Commission is likely to approve the product in the coming weeks. This has been the pattern for previous approvals of GM material.

Speaking to the media at the Agricultural Science Association (ASA) conference in Trim last Friday, Minister for Agriculture, Mary Coughlan, said that Ireland had yet to decide a voting stance. "We haven't decided yet. We need to look at the overall picture on feed - we're big importers.'' The Minister added that "the price rise might concentrate minds''.

Interestingly, the Minister also clarified that the Programme for Government stated that "Ireland would look towards the establishment of a GM-free Island''. This did not mean a definite policy had been decided, she indicated.

The Minister also pointed out that 50,000 tonnes of maize by-products were successfully imported in the past 10 days.

Given European consumer resistance to GM food, there may be marketing advantages to Ireland developing a so called "GM-free zone''. However, due to the widespread adoption of GM crop varieties across the world, such a move could lead to unsustainable increases in feed costs in this country. Furthermore, as more and more GM varieties come on stream, we risk being left at a major competitive disadvantage.

Speaking at the ASA conference, Professor Cunningham, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser said: "Repeated surveys show that over 70 per cent of European citizens are against Genetically Modified (GM) food. This reality cannot be ignored. At the same time, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that food derived from GM crops, or from animals fed on GM feeds, is safe.

Referring to the idea that Ireland be declared GM-free, he said: "This could possibly have advantages in marketing the €8bn of food products that we export.

"However, in order to realise this objective, a number of challenges would have to be overcome. The first is that, as Austria and Italy have found, declaring a region GM-free may conflict with EU rules permitting authorised GM varieties to be grown. The second is that, with effectively open borders between North and South, it would require a declaration in two jurisdictions. And the third is that with GM corn and soybean constituting a growing proportion of global supplies of these two crops, and with Ireland needing to import some two million tonnes per annum of such feed grains for its pig, poultry and dairy sectors, it will be increasingly difficult to source a GM-free feed supply.''

In early July, the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health voted to reject imports of GM maize. Despite a commitment that Ireland would be voting in favour of allowing imports of 'Herculex' maize, a last minute intervention by Minister of Food and Green Party TD, Trevor Sargent, led to a reversal of this commitment and Ireland abstained in the vote.

Heading back to School

2007-09-14T12:46:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to inform everyone that as of Oct 1st I am heading back to university to finish my Ph.d. The insights gained here will be very useful. From Oct 1st I will cease blogging here......we are examining options for providing a similar info service from a National University of Ireland perspective

Michael O'Callaghan (GM FREE Ireland) rapped for lying - again

2007-08-29T06:40:00.000-07:00

After defamatory claims that left Michael O'Callaghan from GM FREE IRELAND offering a correction on the facts and an apology, it has now come to light that O'Callaghan's economy with the truth seems to be ongoing.

Below is a recent piece in the respected Irish Farmers Journal rapping O'Callaghan for his disinformation and "anti-fact campaign".

This coupled with some iffy finance claims it seems GM FREE IRELAND and Michael O'Callaghan need some remedial help with the facts.

GMO and the anti-fact campaign
July 7, 2007
Irish Farmers Journal

Needless to say, last week’s Irish Farmers Journal story on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has led to a flurry of press releases from Michael O’Callaghan (Co-ordinator of the GM-free Ireland Network). He attempted to claim all sorts of agendas on our part. We are happy to state that our report was based on the facts of the situation, with no anti- or pro-GMO bias on our part. The majority of our story actually came from an official EU Commission report on the topic.

One of GM-free Ireland’s press releases claimed that on the Friday before Ireland’s controversial abstention from an EU vote on the issue of Hercules maize, “Trevor Sargent summoned Michael O’Callaghan of GM-free Ireland to negotiations with representatives of Mary Harny and Mary Coughlan”. O’Callaghan claimed that he provided the representatives with hard scientific evidence about the health risks of GMOs. His statement then made the claim that, on Sunday morning, Jackie Cahill of the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association, and Malcolm Thompson of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, telephoned Mary Coughlan to request her to vote NO.

However, Jackie Cahill told the Dealer that this is factually untrue. He also said that, of late, attempts have been made to misrepresent the position of the ICMSA on the question of GM food. “ICMSA – and only the ICMSA – was entitled to state its own position” he said. And what is that position?

An official at ICMSA set out the position as follows:

“The reality is that Ireland cannot opt-out of the use, or the growth, of GM crops. If approval is given at he EU level, the Irish Government has no say whatsoever in that area. All parties should note that, to-date, there is no evidence whatsoever that GM crops are harmful, and the current drive within Irish political circles for GM-free food is not sustainable on either a commercial or legal basis. A moratorium on further use of GM crops can only be identified if there are specific issues requiring further study and analysis, and it is for scientists to decide what falls within that category.”

Jackie Cahill said that the Irish Government position “must be fully clarified so that Ireland can play a full and constructive role at EU level in this important debate that goes to the heart of Irish farming’s competitiveness and profitability.”

Them’s the facts. Now let’s hope everyone in the GM debate will stick to them

GM Watch goes off line

2007-08-18T14:09:00.000-07:00

After written requests to GM Watch to remove defamtory material were ignored their own service providers have now disabled GM Watch's site to ensure compliance with their Acceptable Use Policy

Below is an email (service provider name withheld) indicating their actions taken.

I'm all for free speech but false allegations of fraud is not on...just ask Greenpeace what it feels like to be libeled. I wonder what the big funders (Zac Goldsmith's family) of GM Watch and Jonathan Matthews think now.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abuse Team [mailto:abuse@uk.X.net]
Sent: August 16, 2007 1:24 PM
To: Shane H. Morris
Cc: XX Abuse Team
Subject: Re: request to remove libelous statements from hosted website

Hi Shane

I contacted our customer's IT consultant earlier this afternoon,
who informed me that he would disable the site and this appears to
have now been done:

abuse@abuse:~$ GET http://www.gmwatch.org
Directory Listing Denied
This Virtual Directory does not
allow contents to be listed.

Our customer's IT consultant also informed me that he will contact you
directly.

In the circumstances we consider the action taken by our customer to
have resolved the incident from an Acceptable Use Policy perspective,
and trust that you will agree.

Kind regards
XXXXXXX

GM FREE IRELAND issues a correction with an apology.

2007-08-06T01:05:00.000-07:00

GM FREE IRELAND issues a correction with an apology.

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/ Accessed 4 August 2007

Gmfreeireland.org would like to correct a claim previously made that Shane Morris made "fraudulent scientific claims". Gmfreeireland.org acknowledges such a claim has no legal basis and would like to point out that:

- No findings of fraud were ever made by the British Food Journal in regards to the claims in the publication in question.

- The paper in question remains published as a valid piece of scholarly research.

- The academic award for the paper remains valid.

- A letter of explanation on the matter was published in the British Food Journal 2006 Vol 108, Issue

It should be noted that GM WATCH in the UK also made changes to the claims on their website at my written request.

PS and the apology....some wording from a GM FREE Ireland email to their web hosts.....
.....However, following his solicitors request to you yesterday, I owe you an apology as it seems I failed to successfully upload the amended page at the time. This was also corrected.....

Irish biopolitics at full steam!

2007-07-14T12:08:00.000-07:00

Wow, what a couple of weeks...very busy on the GM front in Ireland but most importantly wee Lyanne has started to smile (she is now 9 weeks old)....

Anyway back to GMO Ireland ...lots of media coverage, lots of confusion on policy, and lots of biopolitics in action.

From contact within the Irish civil service it seems that the "GM Free Zone" will simply amount to 'no' votes regarding GM applications at the European Council level. However, the Irish Government will be allowing approved GM feed and other approved GM products to enter Ireland and be used by whoever wants them.

One has to wonder how Irish biotech policy is developed and calls by Fine Gael's Denis Naughten to have an organized approach to such policy development seems at least reasonable (see HERE).

It is worth noting that Fianna Fail (currently the main Government political party) did indeed previously organized a public consultation on GMOs (at great expense to the Irish tax payer) and an RTE news story (HERE) on its findings stated the following:

Minister accepts report on GM foods
Saturday, 9 October 1999 17:38

The Minister for the Environment (Noel Dempsey) has said that, if Ireland operates a policy of transparency and scientific assessment with regard to genetically modified organisms, there should be no risk to health or the environment. Noel Dempsey has accepted as government policy a report published today, which rules out a ban on crop trials in this country, but stresses the need for full labelling of GM foods.

A report said that it would not be legally possible to ban trials of such crops here. The report also warns that, if Ireland rejects or ignores biotechnology, it will not remain attractive to investors in high-tech industries or competitive in food production.

This report has been compiled by the chairing panel for the government's first ever national debate on GMOs held earlier this year. The debate dealt with the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, mainly through crops. Its conclusion is that it is not open to an individual EU member state to ban either field trials or the importation of genetically modified products approved at EU level.

The full report can be found here : National Consultation Debate on GMOs and the Environment - Report of the Chairing Panel

As the Irish Government again struggle to deal with this issue I feel sorry for one individual the most, Prof. Patrick Cunningham, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government.....I certainly wouldn't envy this position when trying to explain the scientific rational behind a so-called "GM Free Zone" to the Irish science community...

Irish Greens serve up fudge on GM food

2007-06-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

After ten years of gnawing and spitting regarding GM food/crops the Irish Green Party gave up on their main GMO policies to enter Government in Ireland (the Greens won six seats in the 166 seat Irish Parliament in the recent general election).

The Green’s pre-election policy had nine clear points (see below) that led with a promise to “immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals”. This promise, along with others, including a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs, have now been set aside. Now left is only a watered down vague one line sentence within a 52 page agreement for a Government program. The Greens now just commit to “Seek to negotiate the establishment of an All-Ireland GM-Free Zone”. This wording was agreed upon as part of a deal to enter into coalition with Fianna Fail, who while in Government have previously allowed GM fields trials and who a Green party elected official has described as “the devil”.

The commitment to simply “seek to negotiate” is the epitome of biopolitics. It is very clear the likelihood of a truly GM free zone for Ireland is zero considering that in Ireland BASF already has an EPA license to carry out field trials of blight resistant GM potatoes until 2010 if they decided to and the fact that the EU this week voted to allow more GM material into food products, including organic products. However, the Greens in government now open a real debate on GM crops in Ireland as the Greens have encountered what Urlich Beck in “Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk" (1995) described as “politically explosive hazards which render questionable the principles of calculation and precaution”. This will no doubt make for interesting discussions around the Government cabinet table.

Its obvious that the Green Party in Ireland has sacrificed clear actionable commitments on GM food for inclusion in Government (not a first as the Greens in Government in Germany allowed GM crop field trials). The fudge on GMO’s is topped off with a weak verbal comment by the Green’s Trevor Sargent that "The establishment of Ireland as a GMO-free zone is a project that I will throw myself into in a very enthusiastic fashion…” However, he is now part of a Government, of which the main political party, Fianna Fail, ten years ago made the pre-election promise to put in place:

“A moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and on the marketing of any foods which contain any genetically modified ingredient, or which was produced using any genetically modified organism”

only to state less than two years later that:

"Stability and predictability in policy are also important in terms of underpinning the competitiveness of the biotechnology sector... The area of Irish economic interest where biotechnology, particularly modern biotechnology / genetic modification, has greatest potential is in agriculture...".

It is evident that biopolitics is alive and well on the isle of “Forty shades of Green”, a title now politically more fitting than Johnny Cash could have ever imagined.

Pre-Election policy:

The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas in Government would-

1.1 immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals;

1.2 immediately begin negotiations with the UK government in an attempt to achieve an all island GM-Free Zone;

1.3 establish a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs;

1.4 veto any EU proposed legislation that would allow a certain threshold for GM contamination in conventional seeds before the seeds had to be labelled as containing GM traces;

1.5 oppose the patenting of seeds;

1.6 ensure that the Irish Seed Savers Association receives adequate funding. (This voluntary organisation is dedicated to the location and preservation of traditional varieties of fruit and vegetables. The ISSA maintains a seed bank and plays a vital role in saving our genetic diversity for the future.) We will also ensure that naturally occurring or conventionally bred rare and native varieties of seed can be freely sold.

1.7 introduce strict liability laws, holding GM companies and users of GM crops responsible for any GM contamination in Ireland in violation of Ireland's GM-free status;

1.8 At a local level, Green Party members of Local Authorities will campaign to make their Local Authorities GM-Free and assist local farmers to organise into GM-Free regions;

1.9 At EU level, Green Party MEPs will campaign to make the EU GM-Free and, at a minimum, to insist there is no lifting of the EU moratorium on GM crops and food until the new EU regulations on labelling and traceability are in place; there is an enforceable system of liability agreed; and the problems of coexistence of GM and non-GM crops have been resolved.

Genes and a General Election

2007-06-06T19:29:00.000-07:00

Wow, what a few weeks....my first born, Lyanne, came into our life (who says gene flow can't be good), a general election in Ireland, and finished up at work for 9 months of parental leave (full pay, Yeah Canada!)...it sure has been a busy diaper/nappy filled existence.

Between feeds, egestion changes and pacing with Lyanne to help her sleep I have kept an eye on the general election in Ireland....from a biopolitical perspective it has been fascinating.....the Green Party (very anti-GM) were lucky to hold their 6 seats (out of 166) have now entered into discussions with Fianna Fail, who allowed approvals of GM crop in the last two Governments they have led.

As the Green Party chew over a possible deal with “the Devil” (as described by the Green Party's elected Environment spokesperson Ciarán Cuffe) it’s interesting to see that the Green's gnawing and spitting over the last decade regarding GM crops and their pre-election desire for a so-called “GM-Free Ireland” have been moved to the side of the plate. Currently in Ireland there is a GM potato field trial option approved until 2010 and GM products are used in all elements of the Irish feed and food chain. Can the taste of power make anything palatable or have the Greens finally digested the scientific facts that approved GM crops are safe and here to stay? Somewhat like the Green Party?

Lyanne Erin Morris - the new arrival

2007-05-11T09:54:00.000-07:00

Lyanne Erin Morris was born at 1.08pm EST on Monday, May, 7th 2007 weighing in at 6.18lbs. She's perfect and adorable.

Mom and baby are doing great, Dad is hangin' in there for the moment!!

Thanks for all your well wishes.

Does Dr. Elizabeth Cullen expose GMFree Ireland or vice versa??

2007-04-29T21:36:00.000-07:00

It seems that my recent letter to the Irish Medical News has created a bit of a stir. This week Dr. Elizabeth Cullen (pictured opposite speaking at GMFree Ireland press conference) responded in a letter that her recent
IMO motion to ban GM Foods "was not motivated by the “anti-genetically engineered food lobby”. It was simply a motion proposed by concerned doctors at
the ready availablility of genetically engineered foods in the shops...."

Well documentation obtained by this blogger proves either Dr. Cullen is lying or GMFree Ireland is lying??

In early February the email below was sent by Michael O’Callaghan (head of GMFree Ireland) claiming that he had recently drafted a Motion for adoption by the Irish Medical Association (sic) concerning the health risks of GM animal feed and food. (see in bold below)

This email clearly contradicts Dr. Cullen's claims that her IMO motion was not "motivated" by the the anti-GM food lobby.....maybe the IMO needs to know they are been used.

From: GM-free Ireland Network [mailto:mail@gmfreeireland.org]
Sent: 01 February 2007 21:48
Subject: Health risks of GM animal feed and food

Dear XXXXXX (name withheld)

I was delighted to receive your email as the Irish medical community has been extraordinarily silent on the health threat of GM food and farming, apart from a tiny group called the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA). I recently drafted a Motion for adoption by the Irish Medical Association concerning the health risks of GM animal feed and food, which I am sending you by separate email.

You can find various papers, articles and links about the subject on the
GM-free Ireland web site at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/health
See also the film The Future of Food, which was broadcast last Sunday by RTE2 – much to the fury of Monsanto. You can obtain a DVD of this film from http://www.thefutureofood.com
See also the book: “Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Food”. By Jeffrey M. Smith, with a foreword by Michael Meacher, MP. Published by Green Books, UK, 2004`: tel + 44 (0)1 803 863 260 • www.greenbooks.co.uk See also the Seeds of Deception web site at www.seedsofdeception.org
See also the speech by Dr. Stanley Ewen at the Green Ireland conference which I organised at Kilkenny Castle last June:http://www.gmfreeireland.org/conference/trans/S.Ewen1.pf .

I would like to organise a high-level briefing on the subject for Irish health professionals and policy makers as soon as possible. I have contacted the leading medical experts in the relevant fields, who would all be delighted to come.Please keep in touch and let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Kind regards
Michael O’Callaghan

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Michael O’CallaghanCo-ordinator
GM-FREE IRELAND NETWORK
Little Alders
Knockrath,
Rathdrum,
Co. Wicklow Ireland
tel: + 353 404 43 885
fax: + 353 404 43 887
mobile: + 353 87 799 4761
email: mail@gmfreeireland.org
website: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/

Irish Medical Organisation refuses to call for GM food ban

2007-04-15T10:06:00.000-07:00

Silence can often tell you a lot. A deafening silence has beset the anti-genetically modified (GM) food lobby in Ireland. A silence that stems from the defeat of a motion at the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) AGM calling for a moratorium on the sale and growing of genetically engineered crops in Ireland. No where do we find journalists reporting that the professional body representing doctors in Ireland don't feel there is an issue with the safety of GM food. Also, those who have been trying to tell us that GM foods are unsafe are now mute on the IMO's position.

What deepens the silence is that this is the second time such a motion has been defeated in recent years as in 2001 a similar motion was defeated by the IMO medics. What makes this year’s defeat yet more damning is that it was the only motion of the 70 IMO general motions that was flatly defended and no amended motion agreed upon.

Blanket statements on food safety, such that all GM food is bad or that all organic food is good, have no merit. Such approaches are fundamentally flawed as there is no perfect food production system; all have risks and benefits depending on the product grown. The fact that three deaths and over 200 illnesses have been linked to organic production of spinach in the US last autumn is testament to the flaws in such an approach ….can one imagine what the Greens would say if it had been GM food!

Maybe what is required now in Ireland on the debate regarding the safety of GM food can be summed up by the theme of this year’s IMO AGM…..Realism, Not Rhetoric.

Ireland to Host International Ag-Biotech Conference in 2008

2007-03-31T14:38:00.000-07:00

The Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference will take place in Ireland for the very first time in August 2008. The conference provides a forum for internationally renowned speakers to address the challenges facing the global biotechnology industry.

A contract securing this event for Ireland has just been signed by Professor Jimmy Burke, Head of Teagasc Crops Research Centre. The conference will run from 24 – 27th August 2008.
Chairman of the 2008 Ag-Biotech conference, Jimmy Burke said: “This conference offers a great platform to showcase our growing life sciences industries. Various technology Foresight reports for Ireland have identified biotechnology as one of the core technologies which our country and Irish industry must now embrace. These reports have also identified the agri-food sector as one that can benefit significantly from the tremendous potential offered by modern developments in biotechnology.”

The conference is the largest agricultural biotech conference in the world (approx. 1000 delegates are expected to attend) and provides a unique opportunity for Irish academia and business sectors to discuss the issues, options and challenges being met by the biotechnology industry.
Jimmy Burke continued saying: “The four-day event will offer participants the opportunity to exchange ideas and hear from a distinguished line-up of internationally-acclaimed speakers. The conference combines the business of science with the latest discoveries and trends in research and technology development, and gives the research and business community opportunities to meet and exchange ideas. Sessions on the challenges and opportunities experienced in Australia, Europe, the US, China and Canada will bring a global perspective to the discussions.”

By its nature, biotechnology has many applications for almost all sectors of the economy, particularly the agri-food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and beverages sectors. It has also the potential to radically improve the entire food production chain and to transform the synthetic chemical manufacturing processes used by Irish-based pharmaceutical plants. The food industry in Ireland is already using biotechnological processes in a wide range of areas and this will increase over the next ten years.
“Environmental and biofuel applications of biotechnology are also very important. As a world class conference, ABIC 2008 is a must-attend event for the industry and those interested in it,” concluded Prof Burke.
The venue for next year’s Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) will be the University College Cork Campus in Cork City.

from press release: http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2007/200703-28.htm

about ABIC: http://www.abic.ca/index.html

"Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different?"

2007-02-26T17:54:00.000-08:00

Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, who the anti-GM groups often quote, has said that GM crops are inherently "unsafe" due to the insertion of genes (for example see HERE by GMFREE Ireland). By the way, this book is a non-peer reviewed text with tens, if not hundreds of scientific errors and misleading statements.

Smith suggests, often by using dodgy references, one even a TV show?!? that GM crops are "inherently unsafe" due to the impact of the transgene on the target plant genome.

He states:
"The process of inserting foreign genes can damage the structure and function of the host’s DNA, switch genes on or off, create never-before-seen genetic sequences, and render the genome unstable."

and even

"Insertion of foreign genes and their new proteins may create complex, unpredictable interactions, not well understood. Similarly, inserting two or more foreign genes into the same plant may also cause interactions that have not been studied. "

These claime were shredded in a recent wheat study published in Trends in Food Science and Technology in the following paper:

Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? (click HERE)
Peter R. Shewry , , Marcela Baudoa, Alison Lovegrovea, Stephen Powersa, Johnathan A. Napiera, Jane L. Warda, John M. Bakera and Michael H. Beale

Available online 14 January 2007.

Abstract:
Concerns over the safety of GM crops have led to detailed comparisons of their composition and performance with those of conventionally bred crops, under both field and glasshouse conditions. Such studies of wheat have shown that it is possible to develop GM lines which are substantially equivalent to conventional varieties. This information is important to inform the debate on the future development of GM food crops.

The two most important lines I feel are:
"Comparison of the pairs of transgenic and ‘‘parental’’ lines (B102-1-1 v L88-31, B13554 v Cadenza, B1118 v Cadenza) showed only a small number of differentially expressed genes, with none differing by more than 2-fold. In contrast, comparison of the two non-transgenic sister lines (L88-31 and L88-18), which were produced from a single cross between the cultivars Olympic and Gabo, showed that a larger number of genes were differentially expressed in developing endosperms, 92 at 14 days (13 by greater than 3-fold) and 527 at 28 days (85 by greater than 2-fold). "

And

"A striking result from our studies was the small numbers of differentially expressed genes between the transgenic and control lines when compared with sister lines (L88-31, L88-18) produced by a conventional crossing programme. This is consistent with the hypothesis that transgenesis is a highly precise and controlled method of crop improvement compared to conventional breeding in which many thousands of genes may differ between the lines."

Clearly, if one is to take a case by case approach (as opposed to all GM crops are good or all GM crops are bad) this study shows that in this particular case, the transgenic wheat plants produced are more similar (i.e. show less change) to the control plants than the wheat plants produced by conventional breeding.

So what does this all mean, in simple terms this study has shown traditional breeding causes hundreds and thousands of genes to be mixed having a much greater impact on the target plant genome than genetic engineering that caused less changes on the genome level in this case. It is known from past experience that this large scale 'natural' mixing can have all sorts of unpredicted impacts on the plant genome. This has been seen before with conventional plants, for example the conventionally bred Lenape potato that was found to have dangerous levels of solanine, a poisonous glycoalkaloid (see HERE) caused the introduction of mandatory testing requirement for all new potato varieties in the US and the 'naturally bred' celery that caused farm workers to have a severe skin rash (see HERE).

GM Potato Field Trials in Ireland for 2007

2007-02-04T13:27:00.000-08:00

Its nearly spring time again......yes, the time of year when those considering planting GM field trials should be getting organised. BASF, of course has EPA permission (obtained last year) to carry out such trials in Ireland this year and for the next two years. However, I'd like to offer some advice to BASF....
PLEASE DO NOT CARRY OUT THE GM POTATO TRIALS IN IRELAND THIS YEAR......skip this year, don't even consider it!

why, you ask? One phrase.....the General Election.

Ireland will hold a General Election this year, no later than July but by all accounts it will likely occur in May just as planting of the GM potatoes would be taking place . One sure way of playing into the hands of those wanting a 'biopolitical' confrontation weeks or even days before election day would be to have the Green party prancing around a field in County Meath destroying the GM potato field trials in front of the media. Pre-election hype is bad enough in Ireland to ensure candidates say the craziest things but to add this opportunity would be shear madness.

Unfortunately, the Irish EPA conditions set a deadline of May 31st for the GM blight resistant potatoes to be planted. This deadline clashes with election time so in the humble opinion of this Irish man the advice I offer to BASF is to simply skip the 2007 Irish trials.

BASF has DEFRA permission to field trial the same blight resistant GM potatoes in the UK this year (likely at the headquarters of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in Cambridge). As a result skipping a year in Ireland considering the political climate would be smart, yet not devastating as the UK trials would still go ahead.

On a personal note May wouldn't suit either as my first child is due May 7th!!!!!!!!!......my ever witty wife has suggested calling the little one 'Gene'.....(yes, we know it's a girl).....

Nature Biotechnology publication

2007-01-09T16:33:00.000-08:00

As published in Nature Biotechnology this month..................

Nature Biotechnology - 25, 33 - 34 (2007)
doi:10.1038/nbt0107-33

Parallel biopolitical universes

Shane H Morris

As a European citizen, I cannot agree with the editorial in the October issue (Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1178, 2006) that EU Commissioner Dimas merely "has not understood that a non-GM [genetically modified]crop produced via MAS [marker-assisted selection] could be just as risky as a GM product." Commissioner Dimas's exaltation of so-called 'upgraded' crops is not a "'simple-minded' approach" as suggested but is actually just a case of 'biopolitics'1 in action. This can be concluded from the wealth of evidence that exists to ensure Commissioner Dimas (and his scientific staff) must be aware of the fact that upgraded crops with traits (e.g., herbicide resistance) like those of GM varieties could carry the same risks as a GM variety 2.

One need look no further than the farms of Europe where BASF's (Ludwigshafen, Germany) herbicide-resistant 'CLEARFIELD' crops can be found. In Europe, these herbicide-resistant crops include rice, maize, oilseed rape and sunflowers, with wheat likely soon to follow. The CLEARFIELD trait enables these upgraded crops to endure a broad-spectrum herbicide normally deadly to the plant. This characteristici s heritable plus likely transmissible to other crops of the same species and to weedy relations. CLEARFIELD herbicide-resistant crop varieties have been created using mutagenesis and/or traditional breeding methods and are free of 'introduced' genetic material. Thus, they are not considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO)by the EU (Brussels) and are not covered by Directive 2001/18/EC 3. Nevertheless, BASF itself has seen fit to develop a Grower Stewardship Plan to reduce the environmental risks that they claim could exist. Indeed, Tan et al.4—four of the five authors of this publication are BASF scientists—state: "Management of herbicide-resistant weeds and gene flow from crops to weeds are issues that must be considered with the development of any herbicide-resistant crop. Thus, extensive stewardship programs have been developed to address these issues for CLEARFIELD crops"4.

BASF has the world's largest portfolio of non-GMO herbicide-resistant traits and believes the potential sales value of the CLEARFIELDconcept is in excess of 300 million2. In 2002, it was estimated that CLEARFIELD maize was planted on 4.9 million hectares (15% of total maize planting hectares) in the United States. In Canada, it was estimated that 20% of canola planted in 2000 and 2001 was non-GM herbicide-resistant CLEARFIELD canola4.

If the farm fields of Europe did not offer enough evidence toCommissioner Dimas, he could have noted comments from official EUmember state government bodies. Less than a month before the Commissioner's comments, the UK's GM regulatory body, AdvisoryCommittee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) sub-group, on March17, 2006, released a draft consultation report entitled "Managing the Footprint of Agriculture: Towards a Comparative Assessment of Risksand Benefits for Novel Agricultural Systems"(CLICK HERE). This report states that "in recent years, it has become apparent that there are inconsistenciesin the [EU] regulatory assessment of the environmental impact of GMcrops in comparison with other agricultural crops and practices." In addition, the report criticizes EU regulation by stressing "this inconsistency is further illustrated by GM herbicide-tolerant cropsthat require an extensive environmental risk assessment beforeapproval for cultivation and marketing whilst herbicide tolerantcrops produced by non-GM breeding methods can be grown without anequivalent assessment." The scientific basis of this conclusion is that the farm-scale evaluations of herbicide-resistant crops in the UK proved that theimpact of GM crops on the environment can be comparable to that of non-GM crops expressing the same herbicide resistance trait if thecrop management regime is the same5.

Be they 'biopolitical' or truly "simple minded", Commissioner Dimas's comments promoting upgraded (e.g., non-GM) herbicide-resistant crops created via a different production process than GM crops run contrary to the EU Commission's own guidelines on applying the precautionary principle in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. Directive 2001/18/EC, which uses the 'precautionary principle' as its basis to protect Europe's environment from the possible risks of GM crops (e.g., gene flow)6, 7, 8, states: "In accordance with the precautionary principle, the objective of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States and to protect human health and theenvironment..."3.

In the light of Commissioner Dimas's recent comments, there now exists an argument for applying this same precautionary principle to non-GM 'upgraded' crops, especially if they express the same phenotypes as their GM counterparts. Such an argument is enhanced when considering the policy communiqué published by the EU Commissionin 2000 setting out "the Commission's approach to using theprecautionary principle" and establishing "Commission guidelines forapplying it"9. These guidelines assert that the precautionary principle should be used in a proportional, nondiscriminatory and consistent manner with an examination of the benefits and costs ofaction (or lack of action) and with an examination of scientific developments. The principle of nondiscrimination denotes that similar risks should not be treated differently. This is clearly outlined: "Measures taken under the precautionary principle should be designed to achieve an equivalent level of protection without invoking the geographical origin or the nature of the productionprocess [author's emphasis] to apply different treatments in anarbitrary manner"9. The communiqué also declares that "measures should be consistent with measures already adopted in similar circumstances or using similar approaches." These preexisting EU Commission guidelines clearly show that EU Commissioner Dimas's unbridled support of 'upgraded' crops justified simply on 'the nature of the production process' is out of step with official EU policy.

In terms of risk and the precautionary principle, it is disingenuous for Commissioner Dimas topresent 'upgraded' crops somewhere in between a 'classic' and a GM crop and different from, or posing less risk to the environment than,GM crops—the evidence suggests otherwise2. Commissioner Dimas may share a parallel biopolitical universe and similar erroneous opinions with Jeremy Rifkin, such as "GMO products raise a whole new series ofpossible risks to the environment, notably potential long termeffects that could impact on biodiversity"10. However, unlike Jeremy Rifkin, Commissioner Dimas is answerable toEurope's citizens.

We now deserve clear answers from the EU Commission on the following two questions. First, does the EU Commission concede there are potential risks to the environment from so-called 'upgraded' crop lines and that a gap exists in the EU regulatory framework? Or alternatively, is there a 'biopolitical' attempt to ignore the potential risks and not subject these 'upgraded' products to a risk assessment contrary to theprecautionary principle while arguably unfairly applying environmental regulation to phenotypically identical GM crops?2

Without definitive answers to these questions Commissioner Dimas has no 'biopolitical' choice but to reassess the EU Commission's framingand application of its risk assessment currently used to protect Europe's environment from possible risks relating to modern crop biotechnology, both GM and non-GM.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author, whois a citizen of the EU. Shane H. Morris contributed to this articlein his personal capacity. The views expressed are his own and do notrepresent the views of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada or theGovernment of Canada.

REFERENCES
1. Morris, S.H., Adley, C.C. Trends Biotechnol. 18, 325–326 (2000).
2. Morris, S.H. Trends Biotechnol. 1, 2–6 (2007).
3. European Commission Communication. Directive 2001/18/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on theDeliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically ModifiedOrganisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC—CommissionDeclaration (European Commission, Brussels, 2001). CLICK HERE
4. Tan, S., Evans, R.R., Dahmer, H.L., Singh, B.K. & Shaner, D.L.Pest Manag. Sci. 61, 246–257 (2005).
5. Firbank, L.G. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1475–1476 (2005).
6. Conner A.J., Glare, T.R. & Nap, J.P. Plant J. 33, 19–46 (2003).
7. Velkov, V.V., Medvinsky, A.B., Sokolov, M.S. & Marchenko, A.I. J.Biosci. 30, 515–548 (2005). 8. Marvier, M. & Van Acker, R.C. Front Ecol. Environ. 3, 99–106(2005).
9. European Union Commission Communication. Communication from theCommission on the Precautionary Principle, COM 1 (European Union,Brussels, 2000). CLICK HERE

10. Dimas, S. Co-existence of genetically modified conventional andorganic crops: freedom of choice. Speech presented at Conference onGMO Co-existence, Vienna, April 2006 CLICK HERE

To be a charity or not to be??

2006-12-23T12:42:00.000-08:00

Merry Chrismas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyful Kwanzaa to all…..

‘Tis the season of giving and charity. However, it’s always worth knowing exacting what cause you are supporting.

With this in mind, it is very interesting to examine the Irish anti-GM food group GMFree Ireland, who were recently offering PRINCIPAL SPONSORS the chance to sponsor an anti-GM food conference for the sum of €25,000 each.

An important tenet of the study of biology is the relationship between structure and function. Exploring GMFree Ireland from this perspective leads to many worrisome questions left unanswered by Michael O'Callaghan (the spokesperson and main organizer of GM Free Ireland).

For example is GMFree Ireland a charity???
Michael O'Callaghan claims GM Free Ireland is to “soon” have charitable status (even reported in the Eurotoques newsletter HERE)
But there has been no update since February 16, 2005 when the following was claimed

"The GM-free Ireland Network will soon be registered as a non-profit company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital.
The company, or a subsidiary thereof, will then apply for charitable status for those of its activities designed to serve the public interest by promoting awareness of GM issues.
see http://www.gmfreeireland.org/network/status.php.

When the Irish tax authorities were contacted earlier this month it seems GMFree Ireland is NOT a charity in Ireland nor does it have “charitable status”.

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "O'Flynn, Gerry"
To: shane.morris@rogers.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:44:18 AM
Subject: RE: charitable status and question

Shane
As a Revenue Authority we grant charitable tax exemption to those bodies established for a charitable purpose. All charities granted tax exemption are listed on our website at www.revenue.ie under publications/lists/charities. The body named below (GMFree Ireland –added by SM) is not on our published list of tax exempt charities or indeed on the eligible charity list. Thank you for bringing the donation matter to our notice.
regards
Gerry

See http://www.revenue.ie/pdf/charit_a.pdf or http://www.revenue.ie/pdf/sn45.pdf

Currently GM Free Ireland has entered an arrangement where An Taisce will accept donations on its behalf. However, this is very questionable considering GMFree Ireland could simply register as a charity themselves. However there is no mention of GMFree Ireland on the An Tasice website and their section on genetically modified organisms gives no information on anti-GM food organizations, see HERE. Do An Taisce’s members know that it’s funneling money to an organization that is accountable to no one!! I’m looking forward to soon seeing An Taisce’s annual report and accounts……

Noteworthy is that the “soon to become a charity” claim is a very frequent concept over the past 7 years for Michael O'Callaghan.

A quick count comes to four the organizations set up by Michael O'Callaghan that were “to become charities” but according to their websites, never have to date? These four “soon to be charities” are:

1. International Institute of Astroarcheology
2. Sustainable Dublin Trust
3. Global Vision Trust
4. GMFreeIreland

1. International Institute of Astroarcheology
An interesting little organization that never made it to be a charity even though it was claimed that:
“Funds to set up the Institute are being raised by Global Vision Corporation (a company set up by Michael O'Callaghan), a non-profit, Non Governmental Organisation…………. The whole amount you give will go towards the Institute.”

“THE FUNDING WILL BE USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
Incorporate the Institute as an Irish charity…..etc

However with £4,977 (Irish pounds/punts) spent on travel and £16,983 (Irish pounds/punts) in donations no further financial information was ever posted since May 25, 2001
See: http://www.astroarchaeology.org/help.html

also
http://www.astroarchaeology.org/astroform.html

NO UPDATE ON STATUS AVAILABLE ONLINE AS OF DECEMBER 9, 2006 AND IS NOT ON THE LIST OF REGISTERED CHARITIES IN IRELAND

2. Sustainable Dublin Trust
“It will be co-ordinated by the Sustainable Dublin Trust, currently being formed as an Irish registered charity, and implemented in collaboration with a network of partners and stakeholders.”
http://www.sustainabledublin.com/mission.html

NO UPDATE ON STATUS AND IS NOT ON THE LIST OF REGISTERED CHARITIES IN IRELAND

3. Global Vision Trust
“Its European twin Global Vision Trust was incorporated in the UK in March 1998 as a charitable private limited company no. 3521064. Pending confirmation of the latter's Registered Charity status (expected 1999), financial support and sponsorship from within the EU are also being accepted on our behalf via the J. L. Jopling Charitable Trust - UK Registered Charity no. 1024681.”

Yet another company that Michael O'Callaghan has been involved with never became a registered charity but remained a private company until dissolved 03/12/2002.
See HERE (don't forget to the expand this by clicking on the image)

4: GMFreeIreland
“Corporate status:
The GM-free Ireland Network will soon be registered as a non-profit company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital.

The company, or a subsidiary thereof, will then apply for charitable status for those of its activities designed to serve the public interest by promoting awareness of GM issues.

Company documents and details of its Board of Directors and Board of Advisers will be posted here as soon as they are available.”

None of the above has occurred and the information has not changed since 16 February 2005
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/network/status.php

Here is another group that Michael O'Callaghan is involved with Global Vision Consulting
http://www.global-vision-consulting.com/index2.php

This post simply suggests that before one donates hard earned money they should be wary of the claim "soon to become a charity"!

EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor's new clothes?

2006-12-16T12:22:00.000-08:00

After much delay I've found some spare time and published a piece in in the peer-reviewed journal Trends in Biotechnology. The paper is based on a blog posting I did last April - It's all Greek to me!!

The paper has already been published (see HERE)

EU Biotech Crop Regulations and Environmental Risk: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

Shane H. Morris

Abstract:
European Union Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas (seen above right) recently hailed ‘upgraded’ non-genetically modified (GM) crops as an alternative to GM crops. A comparative analysis of the environmental risks associated with such non-GM herbicide-resistant crops and GM herbicide-resistant crops is presented here. The analysis highlights serious weaknesses in the European Union (EU) regulatory framework, and the contradictory policy of the EU Commission on the precautionary principle is also shown. The continued political stance of ignoring these regulatory and policy inconsistencies is examined and found to be flawed. It is postulated that, even in the face of these flaws and coupled with recent statements from the UK drawing attention to inconsistencies in the EU regulatory framework, the EU will continue to ignore the real and present environmental risks associated with upgraded non-GM crops for biopolitical reasons.

As an interesting little aside: Of course there was a clear disclaimer (HERE - at end of page) that this paper was my own opinion and mine alone.....however this did not stop Joe Cummins (well known for inaccurately citing people's work - see HERE) from lying and calling it "a government opinion from Canada" .....see his sad attempt to mislead HERE......typical Joe Cummins!

New Percy Schmeiser scandal hits the US

2006-11-16T17:10:00.000-08:00

Percy's Speech in California exposes more lies!!!!!!!!

Even after the lying scandal in Ireland , where it was claimed Percy Schmeiser was "former Member of Canadian Parliament" Percy has again been caught misleading an audience.

Last week, on the evening of November 14, 2006 at the North Gate Library, Hearst at Euclid Avenue, Berkeley, CA, USA, this incredible segment of Percy Schmeiser's speech was recorded. Ironically, he was speaking on the issue of GMOs and the law. In the segment below Percy lies to the audience, TWICE in 44 Seconds!!

click HERE => HIS WORDS or DOWNLOAD to listen by clicking HERE

Lie 1:
"Since 1996 there's been no GMOs introduced we have been able to stop it for 11 years". (time stamp: 10 seconds)

What a lie!, open the following link where one can see there has indeed been GMOs approved (and introduced) in Canada since 1996. See HERE
or take a quick look at the following database.

Lie 2:
"I was a Member of Parliament at one time" (time stamp: 16 seconds)

Again, like in Ireland, Percy is trying to sell himself as once being a Canadian MP......PERCY has never been a Member of Parliament in Canada.

Percy continues to attempt to pass off his 1967 to 1971 seat in his local, very rural provisional assembly of Saskatchewan as something bigger than it was. The correct legal and political term for a member of the Saskatchewan assembly is Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). Within Canada this is a VERY clear distinction (as clear as the difference between MP and MEP in the UK). It is very unlikely that Percy Schmeiser, as a current local politician and a former MLA himself, is not aware of this important and clear distinction. Moreover, after exposing his false Canadian MP claims in Ireland he threatened me with legal action but even after this scandal he continues his lying ways. One has to ask why he continues to attempt to mislead the public?...

New GM Crop Tourist Survey in Ireland

2006-11-15T03:00:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since my last posting as things have been very busy in Ottawa and I have also been traveling. Also I have exciting news that I will let you all know very soon...:)

A quick comment, the Bayer rice issue has highlighted the need for a real Global regulatory approach to plants with novel traits.

Anyway, GMFreeIreland have been a wee bit selective in their reporting on Irish public perceptions of GM food which they outlined on their web site. They have even missed the most recent Failte Ireland (Ireland's National Tourism Development Agency) survey which was presented last week at the All-Ireland Organic Food Conference.
See the presentation at http://www.atlanticorganics.com/conference/slides/mathews.pdf

This small survey of 300 tourists in 2006 showed that a massive 91% of respondents indicated that the introduction of GM crop farming wouldn't have an influence on their decision to visit Ireland. 85% of tourists said the introduction of GM crop farming in Ireland would have no effect on their food/dining experience in Ireland.

As per usual there was a high number of respondents indicating they had negative associations/perceptions of GM crops (46%) however the remaining majority of 54% had either a positive, both positive and negative opinion, responded that they had no problem with them or didn't know about them.

Also some hot news just in from California, it seems Percy (who hasn't sued me yet...giggle!) has been speaking again....I'm awaiting a recording, should be interesting.

BASF apply to trial GM spuds in the UK

2006-08-27T15:04:00.000-07:00

A busy week across the pond.......It looks like BASF have applied for permission to trial their blight resistant GM potatoes in the UK. It is likely they will get permission.

It is good to see that unlike their application in Ireland BASF have given some decent lead in time for their UK application.......in Ireland BASF only applied in January and had hoped to plant in May!!

It will be a little ironic if the blight resistant potatoes get the go ahead in the UK considering it was UK landlords and political establishment that played an important role in the Irish potato famine in the late 1840's. Many agree that the British policies during the Irish Famine, particularly those applied under Lord John Russell were misguided, ill-informed, and disastrous.

As the news of BASF's application hit the newspapers in the UK last week Michael O'Callaghan (from GM Free Ireland) had his somewhat distorted views in the letters pages of The Guardian .

Gaetano Salvemini in his book the Historian and Scientist (- an essay on the nature of history and the social sciences) stated "The historian amputates reality". In reading Michael O'Callaghan's Guardian letter (Aug 25, 2006) outlining BASF's GM potato trial application in Ireland one can only agree.

Mr. O'Callaghan's musings are nothing more than a collection of half truths and spin.

I can only offer a few clarifications. Namely that the Irish Environmental Protection Agency on May 4, 2006 did approve BASF's GM potato trials in Ireland until 2010 with conditions. One of these conditions was that planting had to occur by the end of May. As a result of having only 18 working days to plant BASF decided to postpone their Irish trials for 2006.

Contrary to Mr. O' Callaghan letter, Meath County Council has no legal authority over GM crops and have not issued any notice to BASF requiring "planning permission to rezone the allocated land from agricultural to industrial use". Meath County Council simply stated that there "may be planning issues pertaining to the nature of the development being proposed and that this would be investigated" (Meath Council Minutes, May 8, 2006).

Meath County Council has not formally "threatened to take the case to the Irish high court" as claimed by Mr. O' Callaghan. A previous 1997 High Court case in Ireland attempting to block GM trials failed and trials of GM plants have been carried out in Ireland.

It should be remembered the research trials of the blight resistant GM potatoes now approved for Ireland are one of 200 GM potato trials that have occurred across the EU (under Directive 01/18) from a total of over 1,800 trials of different GM crops. No problems have been reported in any of these regulated trials.

If Michael O'Callaghan truly believes having decisions on GMO taken democratically by local citizens he should at least practice the principle of telling the truth. It's the least local citizens in Ireland or the UK deserve.

.....by the way I can't believe Mayo beat Dublin in Croker today.....along with other Dub fans this is how I feel!

and as I figured Percy Schmeiser never got back to me on this legal threats, oh well!!....maybe he is too busy misleading folks as he did in Ireland

SCANDAL ROCKS SCHMEISER & GM FREE IRELAND ATTEMPTS COVER UP

2006-08-11T18:45:00.000-07:00

A scandal exposed in Ireland has resulted in Percy Schmeiser issuing legal threats in a desperate attempt to save face. It has also left Irish organizers of an anti-GM food conference scrambling to quietly doctor websites and meeting proceedings to hide their previously made false claims.

On July 2, 2006 it was exposed on this blog that Percy Schmeiser was been falsely presented to the Irish public as a “former member of the Canadian Parliament”.

Organizers of the anti GM food conference (GM Free Ireland) published several web posting and even conference proceedings that clearly stated that Percy Schmeiser was a “Former member of the Canadian Parliament”. Since been exposed as false, these publications have now been changed overnight without explanation or an apology. Despite the scramble to hide these falsehoods by GM Free Ireland (Michael O’Callaghan), the original postings claiming Percy as a “Former Member of the Canadian Parliament” :

Original Conference proceedings

Contrary to the documents linked above Percy Schmeiser has NEVER held a seat in the Canadian Parliament which is located in Ottawa (the federal capital of Canada) and represents over 32 million people.

Maybe the confusion stems from Percy’s attempt to pass off his 1967 to 1971 seat in his local, very rural provisional assembly of Saskatchewan as something bigger than it was. Saskatchewan has a population of less than a million people (less than Dublin), a mere 3% of the total Canadian population.

However, Percy is on record as claiming he was a “Member of Parliament” in his speech in Ireland even when this term is exclusively reserved as the legal title for members of the Canadian Parliament (MP). The correct legal and political term for a member of the Saskatchewan assembly is “Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA)”. Within Canada this is a VERY clear distinction (as clear as the difference between MP and MEP in the UK).

It is very unlikely that Percy Schmeiser, as a current local politician and a former MLA himself, was not aware of this important and clear distinction. So did he use the incorrect term in attempt to mislead the Irish public?...because he clearly did misled, as even his fellow anti-GMOers subsequently made the claim he was a “Former member of the Canadian Parliament” in conference proceedings...... but now have changed this claim.

It should also be noted the Saskatchewan assembly has never been officially called a “Parliament” and the single house of the provincial legislature was named the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan in 1905. Here is an example of a current Saskatchewan MLA’s website showing clearly the correct title – Website of Jason Dearborn MLA

When wee little David turns into Goliath.....

In a Monsanto-like attempt to silence the scandal Percy has reverted to heavy handed intimidation by threating legal action via email….MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS AND RED

From Percy Schmeiser Wed Aug 9 12:34:59 2006
shane.morris@rogers.com ; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:29:39 -0700
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:34:59 -0600
From: Percy Schmeiser
Subject: False allegations and malicious statements
To: shane.morris@rogers.com, percyschmeiser@yahoo.ca

Dear Mr. Shane, MY NAME IS MR. MORRIS

I have in the past several days received information of the false allegations that you are making against me. I believe that these statements are malicious, derogatory, and slanderous. At this time I do know the reason why you are making these statements. Who are you? SEE MY CV. Are you an employee of Monsanto? NO, NEVER because some of Monsanto's employees were making the same statements. Some of the statements that have been attributed to you are:

1. That I was never a member of our provincial legislature (member of parliament) which is a false statement by you. THIS NEVER APPEARED ON MY BLOG – I PUBLISHED THAT HE WAS NEVER A “MEMBER OF THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT”

2. All charges that were laid by a formal member of council against me were withdrawn and the courts ordered all the costs against them. THIS WAS A PRE-1997 CASE.

3. The employee who made the initial statement also signed a statement that it was false what she had said in the first place. STRANGE BECAUSE A JUDGE IN A MAY, 2004 RULING STATED: "There is little doubt that Percy Schmeisers conduct towards the Town administration staff had been abusive in varying degrees prior to the 1996 Resolution”.

THIS STATEMENT BY A PUBLICALLY APPOINTED OFFICAL JUDGE REMAINS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. AVAILABLE FROM THE SASKATCHEWAN LAW SOCIETY DATABASE and HERE from Canadian Legal Information Institute.

4. It was noted that the lawyer who represented these people was also a lawyer who was from a firm that also represented Monsanto in court. SO WHAT?

5. Your false statements are a deliberate attack on my credibility and personality. NO FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE

6. I have discussed this matter with my lawyer, and possible legal action will be taken against you. BEST OF LUCK TO YOU…..

7. If I receive a retraction of your statements and an apology in your web blog I will not perceive (sic) with legal action against you. I WILL NOT BE SILENCED BY INTIMIDATION.

ACTUALLY IT IS THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND WHO DESERVE AN APOLOGY FROM GM FREE IRELAND FOR FALSLY CLAIMING YOU WERE A “FORMER MEMBER OF THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT”….ALSO DON’T YOU JUST HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE “PRECIEVE” WITH LEGAL ACTION (??)

8. If you decide not to retract your statements please send me the name and address of your legal council so the various legal documents can be forwarded to them. I DON’T SEND NAMES AND ADDRESSES TO UNSOLICATED EMAILS

As mentioned above I do not know who you are and why you are promoting all these lies. I am expecting a response from you in the near future so that I know what actions to take.

Sincerely yours,
Percy Schmeiser

Given that GM Free Ireland has subsequently removed the statements claiming Percy was a "Former Member of the the Canadian Parliament" from their website, one is left to wonder if this claim had not been false as suggested by Percy, why did the Irish anti-GMOers feel it appropriate and necessary to make the changes on their website?......

SO WILL I BECOME A VICTIM OF SUCH BULLY TACTICS??????

TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO SEE IF PERCY SUES ME.

WOW...more strange claims from GM Free Ireland and Michael O'Callaghan

2006-07-02T04:33:00.000-07:00

If trying to dupe people using false sponsorship claims wasn't bad enough (even when you got caught and had to remove the claim) GM Free Ireland and Michael O'Callaghan have since been caught twice more!

This time the falsehoods are big ones.

Number 1: Percy Schmeiser who was flown to Ireland from Canada (on someone's dime!!...I wish I could afford a trip home) to speak at a GM Free Ireland conference has been claimed to be a "Former member of the Canadian Parliament"...oh my GOD!!!!!!.....what a lie!! See GM Free Ireland website posting (second line afer Percy's name!) (UPDATE: IN A SNEAKY ATTEMPT TO COVER UP THESE HAVE NOW BEEN CHANGED!)

Percy has never held a seat in the Canadian Parliament!!!!...........the claim is almost laughable. Remember this is the man who was barred from his small home town's offices (Bruno - population: appox. 750) in 1996 when a council resolution prohibiting him from physically entering the building was passed because of his treatment of staff. A judge later said “There is little doubt that Percy Schmeisers conduct towards the Town administration staff had been abusive in varying degrees prior to the 1996 Resolution”. (http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2004/2004skqb207.html)

Number 2: In a press release on June 18th GM Free Ireland and Michael O'Callighan have tried to claim that
"Bord Bia marketing director Muiris Kennedy said he will organize a meeting of the country's major food retailers, food producers and farming organisations to discuss the implications of GM food and farming as soon as possible. "

Bord Bia (the Irish Government food promotion body who Michael O'Calligahn has previously lied about sponsoring his conference) has denied this and Muiris Kennedy has even written to GM Free Ireland on the topic of this misinformation (GM Free Ireland was CCed).

RE: green Island conference
From Muiris Kennedy Muiris.Kennedy@BordBia.IE
Monday, June 19, 2006 1:42:20 PM
To:Shane Morris
Cc:"Byrne, Marian" ; mail@gmfreeireland.org

Dear Mr Morris,

Thanks for your email and will send you a copy of the presentation on CD as its quite large, I’ll send it by post to your home address.

Regarding the suggestion that I would set up a meeting with Retailers , and those involved in the area, what I said at the conference was in response to a question from John Brennan of Leitrim Organic Farmers Co-op from the floor about the marketing of Organics.

My response was that Bord Bia does not have any role in the the area of Food policy but there is a specific group set up called “Oganic Market Development Group” which comprises all of the bodies involved in the sector and this would be a more appropriate forum to discuss these type of issues. I did not undertake to set up any meetings.

I have brought this point to Michael O’Callaghan’s attention.

Regards.

Muiris Kennedy
Director Marketing Services.

It is fascinating, even two weeks after receiving this email from Bord Bia, that GM Free Ireland and Michael O'Callaghan still have the claim on their website!!

Where will this all end??....

Sponsorship Scandal: GM Free Ireland exposed

2006-06-10T06:47:00.000-07:00

THIS WEEK THE ANTI GM GROUP GM FREE IRELAND WAS INVOLVED IN A SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL.

Having ran sponsored events in the past, such as the first public debate in Ireland on GM foods in 1997 (hosted by University of Limerick and sponsored by the Sunday Business Post), I know that when you are trying to raise sponsorship the key is to get one big respectable name and then other sponsors will follow.

This week GM Free Ireland was caught misrepresenting Bord Bia's (the publicly funded agency for the promotion of Irish food) involvement in their up and coming conference for which they are offering sponsorship deals for up to 25,000 Euro!

GM Free Ireland and Michael O'Callaghan (media spokesperson for GM Free Ireland and Director of the company (Global Vision Consulting Ltd) arranging the forthcoming conference) were claiming Bord Bia was an official sponsor of their event. They had posted this claim on their website and potential sponsors were led to believe that Bord Bia were backing the conference (and presumably its goals!!!).

This claim was exposed this week. One might assume the false claim was presumably concocted in an attempt to lure more sponsporship cash from the unsuspecting Irish public as Bord Bia is highly respected and is the official food promotional agency in Ireland. It is funded by the Irish tax payer.

When exposed GM Free Ireland and Michael O'Callaghan quietly and with out explanation removed the bogus claim from their website without an apology!! So much for good business ethics or reliable information.....

The email below is from Bord Bia officials and is what led to their exposure......

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:52:30 +0100
From: "Muiris Kennedy" Muiris.Kennedy@BordBia.IE
To: "Shane Morris"
CC: "Byrne, Marian" Marian.Byrne@agriculture.gov.ie

Dear Mr Morris,

Bord Bia is not a sponsor of the conference and following clarification with the organisers the reference has now been removed from the Website.

I have agreed to make a presentation about Ireland The Food Island and the marketing of Irish Food at one of the workshops on Saturday afternoon and will be one of a number of international speakers at the event.

Thank you for advising us about the reference and am pleased to have had the opportunity to clarify the situation.

Yours sincerely.

Muiris Kennedy
Director Marketing Services.

Whats another year......

2006-05-25T17:16:00.000-07:00

In 1980, Johnny Logan (in picture) had a Eurovision winning hit for Ireland called "What's another year". This is the tune the Irish plant science research community are humming after BASF didn't manage to meet the planting requirement timeline for their blight resistant GM potatoes. The Irish EPA conditions stipulate planting must be carried out in April/May. With all the back and forth since May 4th, when the EPA granted the license for the field trials of the GM potatoes, it looks like BASF couldn't arrange to have the planting organised in time.

So where does this leave the trials.....well its likely BASF will have the year to arrange planting this time. With a license in hand (extending to 2010) its highly unlikely BASF will NOT plant next spring.

With that said, next year will be even more difficult as planting will likely occur just weeks before an Irish General Election. As all Irish people know just before elections politicians will say and do anything to get elected, especially being negative towards GM crops (as shown in the 1997 General Election {Fianna Fail statement in April 1997} and the 1999 Local and European elections {Labour Party election materials}). It wouldn't surprise me if there is a long queue of politicians protesting outside (or even in!) the trial site just for the photo op.

As John Gormley (Green Party Cathaoirleach) told me in the Dail (parliament) canteen once (while clutching his can of Club Orange) there is indeed a right way and a wrong way to destroy an experimental GM field trial. The wrong way is to do it at night secretly and the right way is to invite the media and have Green party members in the photos. John is one of the best and brightest politicians I know (an interesting aside is that his brother Brian has a degree in biotechnology from DCU). Both great lads who both know it is always about the votes (not the science).

GM Watch Chicken Counter: 67 days since GM watch was asked to formally and outrightly accuse me of "fraud"!
Status: No claim of fraud against me(just more spin and ignoring and trying to spin Greenpeace Canada's review of work that didn't see any "wormy" signs!)
SEE IT ALL ON http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/

Irish Farmers Association finally take a stand

2006-05-20T05:49:00.000-07:00

The Irish Farmers Association (IFA) is the largest and most powerful farming organization in Ireland. With over 85,000 farming families making up it membership it is an exceptionally powerful and important organization both agriculturally and politically. Traditionally it has held sway over the large political parties in Ireland and is known to have a political machine second to none in Brussels. (photo shows Irish Farmer in typical Irish farm field)

In recent years the IFA have not always been very clear on GM crops and food. Insights offered by the Irish Farmers Journal has led folks to believe they were supportive of GM technology yet nothing definitive was ever stated. However all this lack of clarity changed this month!

The IFA has now clearly outlined their support of GM crops on P. 35 of their larger recent policy submission to the Irish Government. Policy document available at
http://www.ifa.ie/connected/ifa/media/press/Meeting%20Challenges.pdf

IFA's strategy on GMOs states as follows:
As the decisions on the use and release of GMO products, and the safeguard regulations, are taken at EU level, Ireland cannot adopt an independent national position. Clearly Irish regulatory authorities, including the EPA, have a crucial role to play in implementing these safeguard regulations in order to reassure consumers on the safety of the products.
Provided that the use and release of GMOs meet all the detailed regulatory requirements, IFA's assessment of GM technology is that, like science and technology generally, it can have many positive implications for agriculture and food production. These include: control of animal and plant disease, reduction of costs and improved productivity.
EU legislation must ensure that plant and animal varieties shall not be patentable. The use of farm saved seed must be allowed.
The key issue currently facing the EU Commission and the member states is the regulatory arrangements for the co-existence of conventional, organic and genetically modified crops. COPA and COGECA, on behalf of EU farmers and co-operatives, have adopted a position as follows. Firstly, a pre-condition for co-existence is that the sector must be economically viable under the constraints applied to it. Secondly, harmonised EU legislation on co-existence, which would be compulsory on all member states, must be put in place. Thirdly, as regards conventional agriculture, the 'adventitious' (i.e. non-intended) presence of GMOs is unavoidable due to imports and trade, and realistic thresholds must be set before compulsory labelling is triggered.

This long over due policy statement will likely do two thing in the Irish political arena:
1. Strenghten the current governments supportive policy on GM crop trials.
2. Make if difficult for Labour and Fine Gael to go against such a policy. This is important in the run up to elections in Ireland where a possible coalition of these two parties is the likely preferred alternative to the current government. Fine Gael, the largest of these two parties is traditionally very closely linked to the IFA.

In addition it is a massive blow for the concept of a "GMFREE Ireland".

GM Watch Chicken Counter: 62 days since GM watch was asked to formally and outrightly accuse me of "fraud"!
Status: No claim of fraud against me(just more spin and ignoring and trying to spin Greenpeace Canada's review of work that didn't see any "wormy" signs!)
SEE IT ALL ON http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/

Congrats for plant R&D in Ireland - raise your beer!

2006-05-05T16:41:00.000-07:00

The Irish Environmental Protection Agency has approved plans to grow genetically-modified blight resistant potatoes in Co Meath, Ireland.

The five-year trials by the German chemical firm BASF are due to take place in Arodstown, near the Teagasc research centre in Summerhill.

The potatoes will not be allowed on the market as this would require further consent and approval at EU level.

The EPA says the company will have to adhere to 10 conditions and the trials will be monitored by the agency on a continuing basis.
see...www.epa.ie

Items to remember at this point:
1. THESE are TRAILS and will not mean these potatoes are for commercial release.
2. Will the Green Party in Ireland now condemn attacks on GM crop trials?
3. These trials will likely be attacked.
4. The precautionary principle should be 'precautionary' not 'preventive'. Something the Irish EPA clearly understands and Joe Cummins clearly doesn't!
5. GMFreeIreland should get new science advice.
6. BASF should now get their public engagement plan in place.
7. This trial will be one of over 200 GM potato trials already carried in the EU from a total of over 1500 GM crops trials.

On a personal note I want to add the following:
Thank you (Go raibh maith agat) to all who have added their encouragement on this blog. I have had over 3,334 page views since I started it less than 4 months ago.

Science over silliness forever! In this vein, today is a great day!

Its Summer.....yeah

2006-05-02T06:27:00.000-07:00

Finally after tempetures of below -20C, things have improved!!......

At home I seem to be the only one who misses the snow......my wife (in pic) and step sons have spent way too long in desert living conditions to appreciate the fine points of living in a place like Ottawa !!

However, with that said, even our dog is enjoying the better weather.

Heading away this week for a couple of days to a cottage in the hills (i.e. Laurentian Mountains) near Montreal....click here to see where.....the "cottage" is a Canadian social institution. Basically it boils down to the following......get out of the city, grab a couple of steaks and beers enroute and enjoy nature! It can be as cosy or as rustic as you like. Considering my wife is a princess we are going with cosy this time...:(

News on a couple of fronts, I see Dr Doug Powell has signed up with Kansas State University to expand the work of his group from the University of Guelph. Reading between the lines I think he's met "a girl". Ya think?
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/fsnet/2006/5-2006/fsnet_may_1-2.htm#story0
Looks like a GM Watch focus can be good for your career!!...still comical their spin is.

Also back home it would seem "GM Free Ireland" are expecting the EPA to approve the field trials of the BASF GM blight resistant potatoes in the next few days.......what can I say but I'm sure the heat will continue to rise this summer.....
GM Watch Chicken Counter: 44 days since GM watch was asked to formally and outrightly accuse me of "fraud"!
Status: No claim of fraud against me(just more spin and ignoring and trying to spin Greenpeace Canada's review of work that didn't see any "wormy" signs!)

All Politics is Local

2006-04-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

At home for lunch here in Ottawa and I can't help notice that in the last four weeks there have been at least seven local newspaper articles in the Co. Meath area on GM crops (see picture example over).
County Meath is where BASF have purposed to hold their GM spuds trials. As anyone who has experienced Irish politics will tell you the old adage that “all politics is local” is certainly true. This saying was made famous by Tip O’Neill, the Irish American politician, it is something that the US corporate folks have clearly missed in the past on GM crops and now it seems that German based BASF has it missed too.

Some of these local media outlets (newspapers and radio) have often up to 70% lisenership/readership in these local areas. Ask any senior Irish politician and they will tell you that political campaigns/elections have been won and lost on the basis of local media in Ireland.

With the above in mind the BASF errors to date are:
• Only publishing one newspaper advert to announce the experimental trials……yes this sufficed legally but was hardly good for engaging the Irish public.
• From a quick review of the media in the last two months they have had limited presence. Whether you agree with them or not this is clearly not good practice in the Irish political arena.
• Not many like the rough and tumble of Irish politics (I do, but then again I’m married to an Israeli!) but if you leave the podium empty don’t be surprised to have the vacuum filed by those who oppose you.
• Victor Cohn’s (a once senior columnist with the Washington Post) quote that "Scientists are to journalists what rats are to scientists" should be remembered by the BASF Plant science folks.

As an aside, I had some interesting info passed to me over the weekend regarding GM Watch…..see http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/. It is comical at this point!

Its all Greek to me!!

2006-04-12T12:06:00.000-07:00

It has been busy here in Ottawa.....with the snow gone a lot of work has to be done to get the back yard in shape for spring, organically of course.

Regarding getting things into shape it is time that the EU Environment Commissioner Stravos Dimas (in picture), got his logic into shape......as a Greek I'm sure his ancestors who invented logic are turning in their graves.

His recent STATEMENT made in Vienna on April 5, 2006 of:
"First, it is not hard to see that GMOs have more opponents in the EU, than friends...... We must, therefore, persist in looking at the means to continually improve these varieties. Biological techniques may in fact play an important role in this respect. Indeed, marker-assisted-selection or 'MAS-technology' is attracting considerable attention in conventional plant breeding programmes as a 'genetic' tool to ensure that improved characteristics are reliably introduced into new varieties. We should not ignore the use of 'upgraded' conventional varieties as an alternative to GM crops, particularly where similar characteristics can be introduced without genetic modification."

emmm hang on a second!!!!!??????

Who exactly is advising Mr. Dimas from an environmental risk assessment perspective??? Are there EU officals or scientists that have missed courses in basic logic or simple science.

How are these so called 'upgraded' varieties any safer from an environmental perspective?

Lets try to examine the logic in this.

Take two canola crop plants, one gmo and one NON gmo:
1: BASF Clearfield herbicide (weed killer) resistant canola but a NON-GMO('upgraded' conventional variety)
2: Monsanto Roundup Ready canola, also herbicide tolerant but a GMO

Now lets take a risk situation: the so called creation of superweeds
This risk in theory can increase by
1. potential gene transfer to weedy relatives and/or
2. increase selection pressure due to changes in herbicide use.

Between the two crop examples given above the risks for the creation of "superweeds" are no more or no less.

Mr. Dimas seems to miss the point that from an environmental perspective the NON GMO or "upgraded" varieties he promotes offer no extra protection from the risk enhancement threats of gene transfer or herbicide usage change. A novel triat is a novel trait irrespective of the how it was introduced (be it via Agrobacterium tumefaciens transformation, non GMO mutation or by magic by Harry Potter!!). They both technically carry the same environmental impact risk.

Actually the GMO versions of these crop varieties may actually be considered less risky because at least there is some regulatory oversight of these crops by the EU (Directive 2001/18/EC). For the non-GM varieties there is no oversight whatsoever yet the genes conferring resistance to a weed killer present in these non GMO "upgraded" crops could be transferred as equally as easily to wild weedy relatives. Maybe Mr. Dimas should consider more carefully the equally environmentally risky NON-GMO upgraded crops he speaks about.
If he had the EU's environment truly at heart he would ensure these crops would be regulated also. This should also be said of the US!

Oh well this is not the first time an EU Environment Commissioner favoured biopolitics over sound risk assessment.....see Evolving European GM regulation: An Example of biopolitics at work”, Trends In Biotechnology, Vol. 18: 325-326.

If the senior folks at the EU Commission cannot get their logic straight of course there is confusion in the public sphere in Europe.

As an aside, I was explaining to someone recently the difference between the radical ANTI gmo groups/PRO gmo folks and reasonable science folks. To study something scientifically one should use the concept of testing and modifying hypotheses by, and in the light of, experiment.
I, for one, am always willing to change my opinion based on this concept. Any scientist that is not willing to do so cannot be called a scientist but a lobbyest. The ANTI GMOers or the PRO GMOers are not always willing to entertain this concept.

GM Watch Chicken Counter: 24 days since GM watch was asked to formally and outrightly accuse me of "fraud"!
Status: No claim of fraud (just more spin and ignoring Greenpeace Canada's review of work!)

Celebrity chefs....yes I know, again! and I'm off topic!

2006-04-04T06:08:00.000-07:00

I am a little perturbed with Chef Richard Corrigan's obsession with "shit" (how he described Irish chicken on Pat Kenny's RTE radio show) and "arses" (Sunday Independant)....I hope he washes his hands!!!

Why is it that celebrity chefs often disagree with the Irish Food Safety Authority or public health experts? Recently Darina Allen dramatically and without basis declared that GM food was "the single most important food and health threat in our lifetime" (Irish Examiner, March 11th).......this coming from someone whose portrait bearing ice cream has 16 grams of fat per two scoops, three times more fat than HB vanilla (according to the VHI website). Seemingly the fact cardiovascular disease causes 42% of all deaths in Ireland and GM foods have never caused one worldwide doesn't factor for Darina. Yes i'm repeating myself but hey, its so absurd its worth saying again!

Also the selective nature of these chefs' food concerns and whims are baffling. A quick look at the menu at Richard Corrigan's fancy Soho restaurant shows foie gras is offered which is fattened duck liver derived from cruelly force feeding ducks by inserting long mechanical tubes into their stomachs. This practice is banned in Ireland, the UK, Denmark, etc and the product itself is now banned in Israel and will be banned in California from 2012.

In addition, TV chefs in a 2004 study published in Food Safety Trends were seen to be hazardous to your health. Researchers spotted 916 food-handling problems during the 60 hours of TV programming reviewed. Chefs on the popular television cooking programs made food safety errors 13 times more often than they handled food correctly. The most frequent errors included poor hand washing; contamination between raw and ready-to-eat food; failure to wash fresh fruits and vegetables; and inadequate washing of cooking utensils and cutting boards. This is important because from a food poisoning and public health perspective one of the riskiest critical points in the food chain is now the consumers’ kitchen. (one reference of many)

Personally I'll stick to the expert advice of the Dr.John O'Brien from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and enjoy my reasonably priced safe chicken. Taking food safety advice from these non food safety expert celebrity chefs is like taking tax advice from those who do the art on your Euro tenner.

GM crop political landscape in Ireland: Quick Overview

2006-03-27T22:24:00.000-08:00

THIS is an old posting.......CLICK HERE for UPDATE

Or visit http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/ for GM Watch Leaked report

It has been interesting to watch how politicans and political parties in Ireland have handled the GMO issue over time.

Top five political challenges:
1. Very emotive issue with well funded pressure groups on each side
2. Lack of basic science knowledge (very few TDs (Irish MPs) in Ireland have a science background)
3. Not wanting to bow to multinational pressure but not wanting to forego research and development.
4. Constant change in political circles.
5. A media that sees in black and white, when science is actually often grey.

Current Government Parties: parties listed according to size
Fianna Fail (FF):
In April 1997 in the run up to elections FF did indeed state:
"current scientific knowledge is inadequate to protect the consumer and the environment from the unpredictable and potentially disastrous effects (of GM) which may appear immediately or at any time in the future. Fianna Fáil will not support what amounts to the largest nutritional experiment in human history with the consumer as guinea pig.

However since then FF has been supportive of GM crops trials.

Progressive Democrats (PD):
Largely silent on the issue but supportive of agriculture biotechnology. Pat Cox is an ex PD....

Opposition Parties: parties listed according to size
Fine Gael
Very pro-EU (and resulting EU legislation) in general but is known to be against growing GM crops commerically right now. However, believed to support research and development which includes field trials.
Condemns GM crop trial attacks.

Labour:
A wide array of views. Some support amongst certain TD and MEPs for a reasonable approach. Condemns GM crop trial attacks.

Greens:
Against GM technology at all agricultural levels. Even one Green MEP called into question the use of insulin produced by GM technology for her mother who was very ill!! Have refused to condemn GM crop trial attacks.

Sinn Fein:
Extremely against GM crops. Martin Ferris (importer of illegal IRA weapons) is leading the attack. Seemingly weapons are safer than GM crops??
Unlikely to condemn GM crop trial attacks (and may even add some "subversive" advice to those who will carry out the crop attacks)

Socialist Party:
Joe is very against and has been present at the destruction of GM crop trials!!!.....but he is great crack altogether!!!

GM Watch Chicken Counter: 6 days since GM watch was asked to formally and outrightly accuse me of "fraud"!
Status: No claim of fraud (just more spin and ignoring Greenpeace Canada's review of work!)

EPA objections - 97% less than 1997??

2006-03-23T14:11:00.000-08:00

The Irish EPA has released copies of the 96 submissions (95 objections and one lonley submission of support) it has recieved on the matter of the proposed BASF GM potato trials in Meath.

They make for interesting reading.....
Submission Set 1
Submission Set 2
Submission Set 3

(I note that even Árpád Pusztai has made a submission!!!)

HOWEVER......This is a massive 97% less than the over 3,500 objections received by EPA in 1997 regarding the then Irish experimental trials of GM beet (1997, 1998 and 1999).

Noteworthy is the fact that since then there has been a 10 Euro fee put in place to make a submission (I don't agree with this charge!!!). Nevertheless it seems difficult to believe that the 10 Euro requirement has made such a HUGH impact on the number of objections submitted.

Maybe it is the fact there was no doomsday impact on Irish agriculture, food exports or consumer choice, as some had predicted, from these previous research trials that has resulted in such a huge drop in objections. Or it could be the over 200 GM spud trials completed elsewhere in the EU without incident. Whatever the reason maybe doing EPA monitored research in Ireland isn't actually considered such a “bad idea” after all.

GM Watch Chicken Counter: 2 days since GM watch was asked to formally and outrightly accuse me of "fraud"!
Status: No Response

Greenpeace Canada inspects "signs" and experiment

2006-03-22T09:17:00.000-08:00

This picture shows the head of the Greenpeace Canada GM food campaign inspecting and taking photos (note camera) of our signs on Sept. 27th, 2000. Surely, if evidence of "fraud" was present Greenpeace Canada would have contacted the University of Guelph and the media??.....C'mon GM Watch stop the lies!!

Poor old Johnny...

2006-03-21T17:12:00.000-08:00

THIS is an old posting.......CLICK HERE for UPDATE (and additions and clarifications have been added to this post over time)

Or visit http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/ for GM Watch Leaked report

THE 2 PICS ABOVE SHOW THAT DISPLAY HAD BEEN CHANGED WITH NEW SIGNS. IN FACT, THE OLD SIGNS WERE ALSO CHANGED AND COVERED WITH NEW SIGNS.

Not to be distracted from actually dealing with media issues in Ireland but I think Jonathan Matthews (GM Watch) has lost it!!

Glad he is wasting his BIG ANTI GM FOUNDATION dollar time on laboring spin and lies about poor old me....It is really very flattering but its like been attacked by a dead wet sheep.

Jonathan Matthews: "We are committed to maintaining factual accuracy" Yet he tries to respin his mistakes daily now.
* Summer 2000 he claimed, then not??
* Student at Guelph, eh no sorry folks
* Signs were up one season, then another?
etc., etc.

He claims I am trying to "suppress" my past. Hardly if you are reading this. I have nothing to hide unlike GM Watch. Who is paying for all this misinformation (and shouldn't they get a refund??).

Jonathan Matthews's over labored misinformed ATTEMPT to paint me in a bad light begs one to ask, why the lies? He states I "claim[s] to have had no direct knowledge of beyond whatever information he [I] was given".....I never wrote this. Clearly not happy with my straight forward responses Johnny has taken it upon himself to put words in my mouth. His spin tries to say I'm a "liar" but he refuses to date the pictures he claims were misleading. No data from any such "signs" were included in publication data (granted I only came to Canada Sept. 12, 2000 and was not present for the entire sampling period) (Please note my above comment was incorrect as it seems data collected with other signs used at the very start of the experiment (August, 2000) was included in the published data by error but had no impact on the statistical results. This has been clarified in the British Food Journal). There are lots of pictures and video footage of the store that show no misleading signs during the data collection period (see pic above). I look forward to posting them all but first lets give Johnny more rope to hang himself. HERE IS GREENPEACE CANADA REVIEWING THE SIGNS........surely they would have contacted the media and the University of Guelph if anything "fraud" like was going on (note camera on Greenpeace rep!!).

As I stated before all the data was valid, in my simple opinion. As with all my other peer review published research data. So again, believe what you want....paid spin by an error prone ANTI GMOer or me?

Before thrashing peer review I urge Mr. Matthews to try it sometime. I am yet to find anything he has produced that has been subjected to such a review.

and oh yes, lets see what journalistic "peers" think of Jonathan Matthews's sources of research information on which he has based his attacks:

STAR REPORTER WRITES BOOK ON AGRICULTURE
April 03
Manitoba Co-operator
by Jim Romahn
(N.B sections removed for brevity)
Stuart Laidlaw, a reporter for the Toronto Star, the largest-
circulation newspaper in Canada, has written a book {not peer reviewed] about Canadian agriculture.

That should gladden the hearts of those who say we need to reach the urban masses with stories about what it's like to farm these days.
Laidlaw certainly tells a lot about modern agriculture, drawing on
the time he spent as an agriculture and food reporter for the Toronto Star and the extensive travel he was granted in that position, including trips to the Prairies, to Rome to cover a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization and with a group of Ontario dairy farmers to check out large-scale dairy farms in Pennsylvania ........
Laidlaw also reported on current agricultural issues, such as
organic farming, pesticides, genetically-modified crops, supply
management for the dairy and poultry industries and trade distortions caused by farm subsidies and tariffs.

Laidlaw saw and heard enough to write the kind of book
that would gladden the hearts of farmers. But what he has actually
written is unlikely to gladden many hearts in the Canadian
agriculture and food industries. It certainly did more to raise
my blood pressure than my admiration.

There are so many things to criticize that I hardly know where to begin, so I'll just cherry-pick in order as they appear in the book.

He damns Dr. Doug Powell, who has performed outstanding service
for Canada's agriculture and food industry by researching the
communication of risk management and by establishing internet news
services. Laidlaw dismisses Powell's views on genetically-modified
crops because he says Powell is not an expert in that field. Wrong! Powell has a degree in genetics.

He is as vitriolic - and unfair ........ For example, he says farmers are urged to specialize, but the big corporations are diversifying. He mentions Tyson as one example and MapleLeaf Fods as another.
Maple Leaf Foods is a curious example for diversification because it sold out of beef slaughter and it sold off all of its chicken and turkey farms in Ontario. It concentrated on pork. It could be better cited as an example of speializaton than of diversification.............

Laidlaw makes it clear that he favours supply managemet as a
natonal policy that helps farmers earn higher profits, but he never talks about some of the challenges that plague that policy approach - establishing appropriate production levels, dividing the national pie into provincial pieces, maintaining imprt barriers funding and operating the bureaucracy and paying for quota........

Laidlaw raises the familiar criticisms of corn and cotton that
have been genetically-engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) to kill European corn borers. One of those criticisms is that
insects will develop resistance to Bt. Yet Laidlaw says Bt as a spray "is one of the most important tools organic farmers have." He says their "sparing use" of Bt "prevented insects from building up resistance." Where's the research and the logic in that bold statement?

Likewise, there's little logic or science in Laidlaw's strident
criticisms of pesticides, but praise for Bt potatoes as better than spraying potatoes on Prince Edward Island. ......
He citicizes pesticide sprays for killing non-target insects, but
it's okay for organic farmers to spray Bt over all insects, but not okay to grow Bt crops that are toxic only to insects that eat the crop. He drags out the Monarch butterfly issue and accepts the credentials of the Cornell University researcher, but besmirches Mark Sears of the University of Guelph because his research proved more "friendly" to the seed companies marketing Bt corn hybrids. I recommend Laidlaw and his editors ake an introductor course in philosophy to learn about ad hominem arguments.

....... he writes that "in 1996, just as the first genetically engineered crops were silently slipping into the food system . . ."
It wasn't 1996. Genetically-engineered strawberries were introducted in the 1980s. And the new genetically-modified crop varieties were highly- publicized, advertised and promoted, so I don't know where Laidlaw gets the notion that they were "silently slipping into the food system."

But he does need to create the impression he's telling readers big
secrets because that is, after all, in the title of his book.

Laidlaw seems to think organic farming is a wonderful alternative.
He even recommends the government offer subsidies. He apparenty knows nothing about the history of government subsidies to encourage agricultural production of anything, and certainly not the specific problems that arose in the United Kingdom when governments there offered subsidies to enourage organic milk productin.
There's more - much more - of similar quality between the covers of this 273-page book. The book is a close match with the coverage
the Toronto Star provides for Canadian agriculture. And that is more often a problem than a solution when it comes to informing Canadians about farming.

And yes, the award for the paper Johnny claims to be fraud filled was issued after the above book was published. If you are so sure of your "facts" remove your cowardly question mark ("award for a fraud?") and accuse me of fraud directly.

C'mon Johnny, I dare ya!

enough of the lies and spin, try some research instead.

More Spin, FAKE information and Lies!!!

2006-03-20T08:06:00.000-08:00

THIS is an old posting.......CLICK HERE for UPDATE

Or visit http://gmwatchbullshtt.blogspot.com/ for GM Watch Leaked report

Quick post today:

The GM Watch folks are really desperate as my letter in the Irish Examiner seems to have upset them. Their attempts to discredit are desperate and clearly have no basis in fact. Lets stick to the facts folks and not the spin....Hence the need for this blog!!

In the interest of transparency I'm including the following webpage so everyone can review all my background

http://www.celticlad-Morris.blogspot.com

My previous papers and research are all peer reviewed unlike the ANTI spin! So believe what you want!!!

Questions:
Why does GMfree Ireland not post my Irish Examiner letter on their "news" website?? Maybe they don't like different opinions?? Or are they censoring information to the Irish public??

Unlike GM Watch I have nothing to hide......Lets see the GM Watch accounts?? Or even the GMFreeIreland accounts?? My income is publicly available.

One of my awards was for a paper that labeled GM corn. I believe, like the ANTI side, GM food should be labeled.

The spin raised by GM Watch was regarding signs in "Summer 2000" they say....I never saw any such misleading "signs" (granted, I only came to Canada in Fall/Autumn (mid September) 2000, so my work visa says!!!). I helped write up drafts of the paper that included only valid data, was collected well from what I saw, then peer reviewed and won an award.

I am sure three years later either the University or the Journal would have investigated the matter. Interestingly, since then other similar research carried out by others has shown similar results.

C'mon GM Watch at least get something right.....I wasn't even in the Country for your alledged "sign" fraud!! Enough of the sloppy research Jonathan Matthews (a well funded ANTI lobbyist)...thats twice now!! Your big ANTI private funders are not getting value for money...maybe you are defrauding them along with the Irish public of the truth. Keep up the good work.

St. Patrick's Day....too busy

2006-03-17T09:53:00.000-08:00

Ahh Yes, today was the day for posting the review of Joe Cummins's non peer reviewed "risk assesment" but its a national holiday in Ireland and as a result I'm on leave and far too busy at my local, Grace O'Malley's Bar.......see picture
Happy St. Patricks Day!!!!!

Darina Allen and GM food

2006-03-14T15:11:00.000-08:00

Darina Allen wants to stop GM food (Irish Examiner , March 11, 2006.) This is great, however the GM trials Ms. Allen refers to are not for food use. The blight resistant potato trials under consideration by the EPA are experimental and will not be for public consumption, similar to the previously GM crops trials carried out in Ireland in 1997, 1998 and 1999. These previous EPA approved trials of GM sugar beet occured without the doomsday impact on export markets, consumer choice or the environment. They did however yield some INTERESTING DATA that allowed Irish farmers to asses the claims of both the biotechnology industry and the pressure groups.

A recent study by UCC and the Food Safety Promotion Board that surveyed 400 independent food safety experts in Ireland found that Irish food experts believe there is a significant over assessment by the public of risks associated with GMOs. Ms. Allen, as a newspaper columnist, may also find it interesting that 92% of the Irish experts believed that both the print and television media put a "slant" on food risk messages to maximize its impact.

Ms. Allen has interesting priorities on food safety and public health. Her own very profitable, portrait bearing, ICE CREAM has a whooping 16 grams of fat per 2 scoops, over 3 times more than HB Vanilla!!! (according to the Irish Health Focus website run by VHI). My favorite is Darina’s Toffee Swirl, it’s so good and I can never just eat two scoops! However, I do try to remember that cardiovascular disease causes 42% of all deaths in Ireland. So it is interesting to think then that as Darina frets over the to-date zero effect of GM food (which she dramatically and without basis calls "the single most important food and health threat in our lifetime") on public health she herself is actually profiting as her own products negatively impact the Irish population.....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Thus, preferring to take advice on health issues from the EU commission, I note that in 2004 the then EU commissioner for health and consumer affairs, Irishman David Byrne stated on GM foods "The science is right, the law is right, the procedures are right, the information to the public is right and public health is protected and not under threat in any way." (Irish Times, May 20th, 2004)

Darina has a point in regards to the Biotech industry and the simplistic use of the Irish Famine showing a lack of understanding of the history of the Famine on their behalf. I made this point in 2000 in the New Scientist

The Irish public pays highly trained officers at the EPA to make risk decisions based on fact. All technologies bring risks (the internet brings Darina good things like the IRISH EXAMINER online but can also bring CHILD PORN). Should we ban all technology? No, we regulate it. So let’s leave this regulation to those we charge to do so. They clearly did a good job the last time.

To be compared to a NAZI!!...Thanks Joe Cummins

2006-03-12T04:42:00.000-08:00

Does my right to disagree on some issues really upset the ANTI's so much they have gone off the deep end? However, maybe its pure desperation??

To this end, Mr. Cummins a supposed "academic" whose arguments are seemingly so deep and supportable now has reverted to Nazi comparisons of me see http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ban-GEF/message/6424.

and now away from the spin and lets get back to the facts!!!

Next post: Irish Chefs and GM food........

P.s. I think Mr. Cummins may want to be reminded of an ISP May 10th, 2003 commitment he seemingly sighed: Promotion of Science for the Public Good commitment part of which states:
Maintaining the highest standards of integrity and impartiality in science
There should be open peer-review for published work [which he has not done in his so called "independent" Irish musings], and respect and protection for those whose research challenges the conventional paradigm or majority opinion. Scientific disagreements must be openly and democratically debated.
Maybe I'm just dim but I don't see where hatchet jobs and Nazi comparisons fall into this????.........sad........

Letter sent to The Irish Times

2006-03-10T19:08:00.000-08:00

Force Fed GM food Spin

Neither the biotechnology industry (March 6th) nor Fr. Sean McDonagh (Feburary 27th) should be attempting to tell developing countries what technology to use or not to use. It is plainly clear that other technologies, such as refrigeration, could sufficiently improve health and food safety in the developing world more immediately than GM food. However, to rule out genetic engineering as an option, based on often questionable advice from pressure groups would be less than intelligent. Developing countries need all their options that suit their needs. They should be wary of both extremes in this debate.

Father Sean McDonagh should understand food safety should be product based not process based. Suggestions made by him that organic food is less dangerous to the public than GM food is as ridiculous as suggesting that Columbian Fathers are nicer (or I dare say "safer") than De La Salle brothers. Food products, be it organic, GM or conventional, like people should be considered from a risk perspective on a case by case basis. It is an often over looked fact that organic food is responsible for more food recalls and outbreaks than approved GM food.

It should be remembered that Ireland has already lost its GM crop virginity. The Irish experimental trials in 1997, 1998, and 1999 of GM sugar beet occurred without the doomsday impact on export markets, consumer choice or the environment. The public, in Ireland and elsewhere, deserve more than the spin they are forced to swallow from both the PRO and ANTI side of the GMO debate.

Yours sincerely,
Shane Morris

Trying to get me fired????????

2006-03-09T03:05:00.000-08:00

Is Joe Cummins, from the University of Western Ontario, trying to have me silenced or fired because I disagree with his scientific opinion! (see his email below)

As the top of my Blog says, the writings here express my own scientific opinion, not that of my employer. As a born and bred Irish Citizen I have the right to express my opinion on Irish matters, in the best interest of the Irish public, especially when Mr. Cummins is expressing his opinion in Ireland.

Canadian public servants have a long tradition for standing up against scientific misinformation. (see Dr. Shiv Chopra). I will not be silenced by Mr. Cummins or anyone else.

Is it appropriate for a University professor to lie and misguide the public into believing my simple opinion is some BIG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY????

Does Joe Cummins not support free speech??? Read his email and tell me what you think???

Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:52:47 -0600

From: Ban-GEF mailto:Ban-GEF@smtp.greenbuilder.com
Ban-GEF@smtp.greenbuilder.com>

Date: 8 Mar 2006 12:38:41 -0600

From: jcummins email: jcummins@uwo.ca

The article below from GM watch deals with a peculiar situation. A
Canadian bureaucrat from Canada poses as an "Irish Lad" to
comment on approval of GM potatoes in Ireland. Nowhere does he mention
that he is in the "red meat" genetics division of the Canadian
Government Ministry. Canadian Bureaucrats do not normally provide
expert opinion unless they have the direct permission from a Minister or an
Assistant Deputy Minister. The Ministry seems to be
engaging in international funny business.

The GM Watch response and correction offer....

2006-03-08T17:26:00.000-08:00

WELCOME INDYMEDIA FOLKS.....

GM Watch goes off line

Monday, August 06, 2007

GM FREE IRELAND issues a correction with an apology.

GM FREE IRELAND issues a correction with an apology.

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/ Accessed 4 August 2007

Gmfreeireland.org would like to correct a claim previously made that Shane Morris made "fraudulent scientific claims". Gmfreeireland.org acknowledges such a claim has no legal basis and would like to point out that:

- No findings of fraud were ever made by the British Food Journal in regards to the claims in the publication in question.

- The paper in question remains published as a valid piece of scholarly research.

- The academic award for the paper remains valid.

- A letter of explanation on the matter was published in the British Food Journal 2006 Vol 108, Issue

Well I can only say that Jonathan Matthews (GM Watch) is at least open to correction...see email below.

So folks should I email him back or ignore him? Surely his unfounded attack should simply rest on its own inaccurancies and lies. Surely, he should have contacted me before his shoddy untruths and crappy research were published?? Cos I'm right here you know...Helloooo

It is clear I have some folks worried. Maybe free speech and the facts do in fact scare the ANTI GMOers as it often does the Biotech industry.

As I said in my earlier posts the ANTI-GMOers way have some good points but the use of false science and now lies just goes to show maybe the ANTI groups are just as low as the Biotechnology Industry they decrie as being sneaky and evil??

Tell me folks what should I do here?? And no I won't ask him for who pays him and funds his little lie machine??? (see below)

Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:42:15 +0000
From: "GM WATCH" Info@gmwatch.org Add to Address Book
To: "Shane Morris"
Subject: Re: GM blog

> I loved your profile of me!!!
>
good to hear it and thanks for the info

> Firstly, I was never a student at the University of Guelph.....

ok. i can put a bit at the top of the archived piece, or even rewrite
it, to clarify this if you tell me the details of what you were doing at
guelph - research assistant or whatever...

> Second, I have homes both in Canada and Ireland

lucky you! so where's your principal base and where do you work now?

> Third, CFIA is not under Health Canada

fair point, although cfia seems to share some of health canada's less
than salubrious reputation

> Fourthly, please check back often as you may have noticed by
critical biotech industry posts...

i look fwd to reading them and thanks again for the info
jonathan

as for funding it would seem that GM Watch is funded by the JMG Foundation a foundation not for public factual information but "an anti corporate foundation that helps aggressives campaigns to destroy biotech crop production worldwide" ..so nice to see JMG, Sir James Michael Goldsmith, the late husband of the daughter of an anti-Irish English Viscount, the 8th Marquess of Londonderry (Londonderry in Northern Ireland is called Derry until the English occupiers renamed it!!) is again attacking the Irish!!!

I'm an attack puppy...the lies start!

2006-03-08T09:31:00.000-08:00

Wow, I was right yesterday I was been watched!!....looks like I'm a focus of the GM Watch spin machine!!!....their posting is so full of errors it is scary to think this can be called "information".

A few factual corrections for my GM Watch pals who have lied:
I was never a student at the University of Guelph!!
I own homes in Ireland (where I am from) and Canada (three actually!!)
I disagree with a number of Professors I have worked with on a number of issues.
I am a paid civil servant and have never worked for or received grant money from a biotech multinational.
I could lose my Government job by having this blog
I have been on record, critical of both the ANTI and PRO side of the GM food debate (see yesterdays post!!!).

Ok, what else can I add that my may colour my opinion on GM foods:
* I'm married to an Israeli (ooh, gotta be dodgy then!!)
* I support Manchester United (aha, lets consider burning him!!)
* I was a member of Young Fine Gael (God damn Blue shirts!!)
* I was questioned once by police at University in connection with a stolen bicycle!!! (He must be Guilty)
* I like to fly with Ryanair!!!! (Burn him now!!!)

And now for photo evidence of my attack puppy status!!....me and my dog Shadow!!
(and Steve and Lara)

I will continue to serve the public with fact and not spin!!
The foundless attack on me shows that neither the ANTI nor the PRO side of the GMO debate are above lying to the public...!!!

Busy, Busy and World Hunger.....

2006-03-08T07:09:00.000-08:00

Crazy busy here in Ottawa.....but the weather is getting warmer thankfully

Comments are coming in from all over the world on the Joe Cummins risk assessment..so we are looking good for our St. Patrick's Day release of a review of his text.

This week saw a biotechnology industry refute of Fr. Sean McDonagh (I'm 50% McDonagh also!!) in the Irish Times on the issue if GM crops will prevent world hunger. It is plainly clear that other technologies, such as refrigeration, could sufficiently improve health and food safety in the developing world more immediately than GM food. However, to rule out genetic engineering as an option, based on questionable advice from pressure groups would be less than intelligent. Developing countries need all their options that suit their needs. They should be wary of both extremes in this debate. PRO folks should understand GM crops won't in themselves prevent hunger in the developing world, they are simply an option.

Interesting there has been over 300 site visits to this blog.....a few curious ones are the repeated visits from "Whelan Solicitors" in Ireland and from UK Friends of the Earth!!.....clearly I am been "watched"!!

Whats in a Pint of Black.....

2006-03-01T04:33:00.000-08:00

Hang on a minute.......I've seen that GMO FREE Ireland sticker the child is wearing (in yesterdays post) somewhere before????......(going thru all my pic files!!)....ah ha here it is ------>

Yes, I was in the Guinness Store in Dublin with a few folks a couple of days before my wedding last summer in Ireland....we were having a few lovely pints straight from Arthur G. when this fella walks in.
My science friends nearly choked on thier perfect scoops...they jumped up and started taking pictures...the wee Italian lad thought he was famous or something...you should have seen the disappointment on his face when we explained the stickers and the laughter.....we did however buy him a pint!!......
(must say hats off to the ANTI folks....great PR...!!)

A busy ANTI week in Ireland

2006-02-26T09:17:00.000-08:00

Ah its -21C on a lovely sunny day here in Ottawa. I have to bring the dog for a walk and I am looking forward to it as you can imagine!!!.....Birr (not just a place in Offaly!!)

A busy week on the GMO front in Ireland.....the ANTI folks had a press conference and protest outside the Dail on Feb 22...

Interestingly they lost their advertised Fianna Fail and Fine Gael political speakers....I wonder why??

The media around the event outlined the case of Canada's Percy Schmeiser who was painted as poor helpless farmer......remember this is the man who was barred from his home town's offices(Bruno)in 1996 after a council resolution prohibiting him from physically entering the building.

I would urge all to read the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court which rejected all twelve elements of Mr. Schmeiser’s appeal case. The court found in the original case that testing showed it was NOT the impact of wind contamination but Mr. Schmeiser planted the product.
(see website http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.shtml)

Put in a very simple way the Percy Scimeiser case would be similar if I were to photocopy James Joyce’s Ulysses 100 times with aim of selling them. Then when challenged about the copyright I would attempt to say that the wind blew the copies into my house. Maybe it would be possible that this occurred once or twice but not with over 60% of the copies testing positive as a photocopy!!!

The Supreme Court of Canada in paragraph 87 of the ruling states:
"The appellants in this case [Schmeiser] actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of their business operations. Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres [4.2 km²] of Roundup Ready (GM) Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000."

The Canadians are coming…eh?

2006-02-13T13:30:00.000-08:00

Sitting here in -15C cold in Ottawa it warms my heart to see a few Canadian folk already giving advice to our Anti-GMO friends in Ireland......in a review of the anti-folks' website as suggested in a letter to the Irish Farmers Journal I found there were indeed a few Canuks lurking around. (I love it here!!!...Canada is the best country in the world.........by the way check out these pictures of “if Canadian ruled the world” http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=9001&display=photoshop

First, there is Prof. Joe Cummins (retired), who is headlining with a so called “risk assessment” he has written giving advice on the dangers of the proposed BASF GM spud trials in Co. Meath……(by the way I will be posting a review of Cummins handywork shortly)

A word of advice for my fellow country men who happen to be anti-GMO……you may have some excellent points to make but please Michael O', for the love of Jayus, use creditable scientists in your campaign!!…….Joe Cummins has a track history of inaccurately citing other scientist’s work (see Hodgson, Nature Biotechnology 18, 13 (2000)). In this article virologist Dr. Barbara Hohn from the Friedrich Miescher Institute (Basel, Switzerland) admitted to being "terribly irritated" by Cummins. She says Cummins inaccurately cited her work. Another critic Chris Leaver from the University of Oxford also rejected as "pure fiction, and lies" Cummins’ so called “scientific” suggestions

On a personal note, in 2001, in front of 150 Canadians at the University of Guelph, I myself had to stop Mr. Cummins’s misinformation by reading a letter from Prof. Walter Doerfler that expressed his disgust that Mr. Cummins was misrepresenting his DNA research. He was a wee bit red faced!!

Anyway in addition to Mr. Cummins there is Canada’s favourite son David Suzuki…….straight from “Beachcombers” ......I swear!!! And I’m sure Percy Schmeiser (Canada’s favourite infringer) will appear in the Irish media if he's not too busy on his NGO funded world tours (usually visiting places warmer than Canada like Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, etc. etc.).

So sitting here in Canada its nice to know the my neighbours maybe making an impact back home in Ireland.

To end on a funny note I am attaching a card I got from my students in 1998. Enjoy.....

It starts!!!!

2006-02-09T16:48:00.000-08:00

Well folks, it starts again!!!

Field trials of GM potatoes are on the cards for Ireland......
BASF have applied to the Irish EPA for permission to carry out field trials of GM spuds that have improved resistance to the late potato blight fungus Phytopthora infestans.

I bore witness to the messy debate that occured in the late 90's when Monsanto carried out trials of GM suger beet (97,98 and 99).......six of which were destroyed by so called activists!!!

As the players come out swinging in the next coming weeks and months on the issue of GM crops/food in Ireland I will be providing commentary on the statements and spin issued on both sides of the debate!!!.....

I will try to add some analysis and commentary in a little more depth than the media can.....

But who am I.......well for what its worth, I have a science degree, graduate research carried out on the public perceptions of GM food, published scientific papers on the topic of GM food, previosuly worked as regulator of biotechnology derived products in Canada , etc. etc. (yawn)

Be warned the Anti-GMOesr and the PRO-GMOers............you are being watched!!!!
Lets try keep it real this time (i.e. ANTI-folks, there are no Scorpion genes in these spuds!!; Pro-folks these GM spuds will not feed the world!!)

LET THE 'BIOPOLITICS' BEGIN................!

(Next post: A no holds barred profile of the players!!!!)