1.Food regulator accused of putting multinationals before public safety
2.Trashing GM paddocks completely acceptable, say activists
3.GE no solution
---
---
1.Food regulator accused of putting multinationals before public safety
Sydney Morning Herald, 24 January 2009          
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/food-regulator-accused-of-putting-multinationals-before-publicsafety/2009/01/23/1232471590780.html

CONSUMERS are being failed by the national food regulator charged with the protection of public health and safety, a collection of health and consumer advocates and political and environmental campaigners say.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the independent statutory agency charged with setting and reviewing food standards, has been accused by the coalition of critics of placing the business interests of multinational companies ahead of consumers to the point of endangering public health and compromising the safety of Australia's food supply. The group, which includes the Public Health Association of Australia, the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, the consumer advocacy group Choice and Greenpeace, is calling on the Federal Government to hold an inquiry into the actions of the regulator.

The NSW Greens are spearheading the push for the inquiry.

"Australians are poorly served by a food regulator that fails to put consumer health and safety first and that is not accountable to any parliament. Its board is stacked with people with an industry focus," said Greens MP Dr John Kaye.

Among FSANZ's 12 board members, eight are either shareholders in Wesfarmers, which owns Coles, work for a food production or processing corporation or have done so in the past, including Unilever and Kellogg's.

The executive officer of the Public Health Association, Michael Moore, said recent decisions made by FSANZ, including its failure to set labelling requirements on processed foods capable of being easily read by consumers, indicated the regulator was being driven by the food manufacturing industry's concerns.

FSANZ'S spokeswoman, Lydia Buchtmann, referred the Herald to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Jan McLucas, for comment. Senator McLucas did not return the Herald's calls yesterday.
---
---
2.Trashing GM paddocks completely acceptable, say activists
MICHAEL HOPKIN
The West Australian, 26 January 2009        
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=2&ContentID=120808

Leading anti-GM activists have condoned the sabotage of paddocks sown with genetically modified canola in a bid to stop WA’s planned crop trials.
 
Greenpeace anti-GM campaigner Louise Sales said it would be “completely acceptable” for protesters to trash crops and that such actions would be for the “wider good”.
 
“I think it’s acceptable for citizens to take matters into their own hands when the Government is ignoring their wishes and releasing crops that threaten the environment,” she said.
 
She said the crops had already been tested in Victoria and NSW where GM canola was producing lower yields than conventional varieties. “The data are in and we don’t need more trials on this scale,” she said.
 
Licence holder Monsanto claimed the crops had performed well in their first full commercial season in the Eastern States and that most farmers were planning to use the herbicidetolerant GM canola again this year.
 
Piers Verstegen, director of the Conservation Council WA, said he would not be surprised if some of the 20 Wheatbelt sites to be sown with GM canola were vandalised by activists.
 
He had not heard of definite plans to destroy GM crops, although rumours of direct action had swirled around green groups since the failed attempts to stop the Government pressing ahead with commercial-scale trials this year.
 
He refused to condemn activists who might seek to destroy the crops. “Obviously it’s illegal, so it’s not something we would be cheering for, but we feel this type of direct action may have a role,” he said.
 
Agriculture Minister Terry Redman approved the GM canola trials last month, despite receiving a 27,000-signature petition against the move. Plans for the trials are still being developed, although the threat of vandalism may increase the pressure for the locations to be kept secret.
 
Janet Grogan, of the Network of Consumers for GM Free Food, said the trials would inevitably contaminate neighbouring crops because buffer zones would not be wide enough. She said she had not heard of any plans to vandalise crops, but said “people will make up their own minds as to what they will do”.
 
Science and Innovation Minister Troy Buswell has denounced the idea of activists planning sabotage.
 
He said he hoped protesters “will voice disapproval through measured and responsible channels”.
---
---
3.GE no solution
Hobart Mercury, 24 January 2009    

THE story "GE pegged as saviour" (Mercury, January 22) incorrectly
states that a report by a United Nations expert panel of chemists and engineers claims that we need genetically engineered crops to cope with
climate change.

In fact, the report was by a panel from the Royal Society of Chemistry and Institution of Chemical Engineers, which included a representative of the GE crop company Syngenta. The report was written by exactly the sort of individuals who benefit from the adoption of chemical intensive GE crops.

The findings of the report directly contradicts the UN's most recent
report which looked at how to most effectively feed the world's population. The final report of the UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology project, released in April last year, shows that GE crops have no role to play in solving the world's food crisis. It shows that GE crops pose unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and the economy and have no proven benefits. That is why countries all over the world are rejecting GE crops.

Australia should do the same.

Louise Sales
Genetic engineering campaigner, Greenpeace Australia Pacific