First we would like to clarify we have issue with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) that have pesticides inserted in the genes and engineered plants that have genes from different species or animals spliced together; not selectively bred hybrid plants and animals. This article gives a great explanation of the differences. 

All around the world countries are having serious issues with GMOs, and here is just a few of the articles showing the dark side of modification that biotech corporations and our regulators don’t want you to know about:

This recent article in the Herald goes to show how desperate industry cheerleaders in New Zealand are to let them into our country. Instead of allowing those who have a direct interest in GMOs entering the country persuading the public based on misinformation, we need to all look at the facts and assess all of the potential dangers of the introduction of genetic engineering to New Zealand agriculture.

Unfortunately for Peter Kemp, the trillion GMO meals with no ill-health effects study he cites as solid evidence that they are safe, lead by Alison Van Eenennaam (an ex-Monsanto employee), has been dismissed as inaccurate. Some of the issues with the study include not having a quality control group to test the results against, ignoring the large rise of antibiotic use in livestock, excluding pigs that were too sick to be sent to the abattoir and classing a 25 month Bt maize study as long term when cows generally live for 17-20 years.

Across the ditch, Australia is having GMO issues of its own. Steve Marsh, an organic grain farmer from South of Perth, had 70% of his organic land contaminated by his neighbours GM crop. Steve has since lost his organic certification, making his crop far inferior and is battling his neighbour through the courts since Monsanto has their own no liability agreements with each GM farmer. Steve is not alone. Western Victoria organic canola farmer Bob Mackley also suffered the same fate after a large flood washed GM canola from his neighbour’s farm into his organic crop. When Monsanto tested his field crop and found there was GM material, they asked for compensation for using their patent. We recommend watching this presentation Bob gave last year on his visit to New Zealand. Steve and Bob’s circumstances serve as a stark warning to New Zealand farmers that GM contamination is a serious issue and has very expensive consequences. 

Professor Jack Heinemann is a molecular biologist who has been an academic at the University of Canterbury since 1994. His doctorate was conferred by the University of Oregon at Eugene (1989) and his Bachelor of Science (with honours) degree from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1985). Professor Heinemann is involved in risk assessment research and has over 100 scholarly works published on the topic of molecular biology, genetics, risk assessment and other scientific matters within his expertise. His work is published in leading international journals and his work has been recognised by prestigious professional organisations for its excellence. He has completed a research paper on the evaluation of risks from the creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants, which generated some interesting results. The findings included the possibility of unintended cross reactivity between plant siRNA’s and the human GBE gene and other genes, and recommended further testing in animals and human tissue culture cells. In a review of the Western European and American staple crop agriculture, results showed sustained higher yield and lower pesticide use in Europe compared to America, which was interesting considering the European crops gained improved yield and less pesticide use through improved germ plasm and crop management, not through genetic engineering. Claims from GMO cheerleaders such as Peter Kemp that genetically engineered crops are the sustainable future of agriculture New Zealand are unfortunately ignoring expert opinions. 

Current Food Standards in New Zealand state that GM foods, ingredients, additives, or processing aids that contain novel DNA or protein must be labelled with the words ‘genetically modified’. In reality, however, this isn’t enforced. We asked GE spokesperson for the Green Party Steffan Browning why this is the case. “This hasn’t happened since 2003, 11 years ago, and is because successive governments are rolling over to trade before safety and consumer choice. Organisations like the Food and Grocery Council, led by ex-National MP Katherine Rich, and representing the supermarket chains and big international food businesses especially, do not want to label GE food partly because of cost, which would be minimal, but more likely because consumers might not want the GE labelled product, which industry declares is safe.” 

New Zealand differentiates itself from America thanks to our (mainly) pasture fed cows and clean green image (even if it is just a marketing campaign). If we want to maintain a competitive advantage over the mass-production methods America uses, we need to ensure we secure our future by keeping GE out of New Zealand. Our greatest future selling point will be organic, pasture fed dairy and livestock; let’s not stuff that up.

It’s only fitting to close with the final pages of Jeffrey Smith’s book ‘Seeds of Deception’ (pages 265-266):

‘On May 10, 2003, a new organization called the Independent Science Panel (ISP) was inaugurated at a conference in London. Committed to the “Promotion of Science for the Public Good,” the founding members of ISP consist of twenty-four scientists in a wide variety of disciplines from all over the world. The ISP released a 136-page report entitled, “The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World.” The scientists wrote: “We find the following aspects especially regrettable and unacceptable:

  • Lack of critical public information on the science and technology of GM
  • Lack of public accountability in the GM science community
  • Lack of independent, disinterested scientific research into, and assessment of, the hazards of GM
  • Partisan attitude of regulatory and other public information bodies, which appear more intent on spreading corporate propaganda than providing crucial information
  • Pervasive commercial and political conflicts of interests in both research and development and regulation of GM
  • Suppression and vilification of scientists who try to convey research information to the public that is deemed to harm the industry.
  • Persistent denial and dismissal of extensive scientific evidence on the hazards of GM to health and the environment by proponents of genetic modification and by supposedly disinterested advisory and regulatory bodies
  • Continuing claims of GM benefits by the biotech corporations, and repetitions of these claims by the scientific establishment, in the face of extensive evidence that GM has failed both in the field and in the laboratory
  • Reluctance to recognize that the corporate funding of academic research in GM is already in decline, and that the biotechnology multinationals (and their shareholders) as well as investment consultants are now questioning the wisdom of the ‘GM enterprise’
  • Attacks on, and summary dismissal of, extensive evidence pointing to the benefits of various sustainable agricultural approaches for health and the environment, as well as for food security and social well-being of farmers and their local communities.”

It’s our food. Safe eating.’

About The Author

Wake Up NZ is a team of dedicated truth-seekers from all over New Zealand. We are committed to disseminating information that the mainstream media fails to bring to you.

Related Posts

3 Responses

  1. Cathy Schmiers

    I just saw a blog about how new junk science of GMOs is being put out by Heinemann PHD.I can see how there is nothing wrong with his credentials.Its truly creepy.They are trying to keep America in the dark.They call all the scientists crackpots that are well respected .

  2. Trevor Mills

    Monsanto have always been leaders in the bio tech industry. They sued a farmer many years ago because seed from their product was either blown over from the neighboring property using their product, or it was planted on the innocent farmers land by means of employed troublemakers by Monsanto. Either way, Monsanto sued the farmer basically for theft of seeds and growing without their permission and without any contract to do so. That was their first case. So rather than Monsanto do a proper investigation, they go on false assumptions, it’s their way of flexing their muscles to others who rightfully oppose Monsanto and other such profit before all else capitalist corporates.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.