NOTE: As GM scientists go, Pamela Ronald's a spin doctor's dream, with her marriage to an organic farmer with whom she's written a book promoting genetic engineering as the way forward for sustainable agriculture - Tomorrow's Table. That's probably why her blog of the same name is one of just 4 "biotechnology blogs" promoted by Monsanto: http://www.monsantoblog.com/

The following commentary's taken from the excellent newsletter of the Australian women's NGO: MADGE. MADGE stands for Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering, which perfectly describes what MADGE very successfully do, as you'll see below.

Check out the MADGE site: http://www.madge.org.au, and it's also well worth subscribing to their fortnightly digests because, although written from an Australian angle, they contain many items of general interest, like the following.
---
---
Tomorrow's table - GM promoters show why Monsanto's data untrustworthy
MADGE Digest No #107, May 22nd 2010 (item 6)

Pamela Ronald is a scientist who wrote a book with her organic farmer husband suggesting that organic and GM could co-exist: Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak.

A keen MADGE was recommended this book by Terry Redman the WA [Western Australia] agriculture minister. She commented:

"As the author is a highly qualified scientist involved in University research over many years, I expected to find in this chapter some scientific studies and outcomes. But no! It is a folksy-philosophical discussion about risk....the only sign of any numerical data and associated process is in the quantities of ingredients and the numbered steps in the four recipes she provides!"

MADGE Madeleine Love also read it. "The book could be subtitled 'Anne of Green Gables shares a GM recipe with Biopirates'. Its full of sunlight sparkling off the dew drops on GM corn on textured hillsides with gentle breezes, interspersed with recipes and arguments for why it's silly that we think GM food might be worth a concern."

Since WA ag minister, Terry Redman, told our WA MADGE the book "contains guidance to help the public distinguish rumours from high quality science," MADGE decided to rate the GM canola Monsanto material, that FSANZ [Food Standards Australia New Zealand] used for their food approval, against the checklist in Chapter 6 of the book:

1.Examine the primary source of information (Yes, we've got the Monsanto GM RR canola data and we've examined it.)

2.Ask if the work was published in a peer-reviewed journal. (No, after approval the trout production study was written up for publication.)

3.Check if the journal has a good reputation. (No, the Monsanto material wasn't published.)
 
4.Determine if there is an independent confirmation by another published study. (No, the GM RR canola is a patented product and there was no independent confirmation. FSANZ relied solely on material provided by Monsanto.)
 
5.Assess whether a potential conflict of interest exists. (Yes, Monsanto is presenting its own work to advocate for the safety of its own product.

Astoundingly the authors also say:

"If governmental regulators were to rely solely on data supplied by parties whose primary concern is not the public good but private interest, then the public would have reason to question the integrity of the research."

This is exactly why MADGE has been questioning the integrity of the research.)

6.Assess the quality of institution or panel. (No journal, no panel, no university - just Monsanto.)
 
7.Examine the reputation of the author. (Here is a list of some of Monsanto's achievements:

*2002 found guilty of conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society" ; Monsanto had released tons of PCBs into the city of Anniston and covered up its actions for decades.

*2005 fined $1.5million for bribing an Indonesian official, in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies

*2007 fined by a French court for misleading the public about the safety of Roundup. The verdict was confirmed in 2009.

*Oct 2009 investigated by the US Department of Justice on Anti-trust issues related to possible monopolistic practices.

*9th February 2010 a former Managing Director of Monsanto India admitted that in his time Monsanto falsified scientific evidence for regulatory approval.

*Covalence Ethical Quote system once again ranked Monsanto last on their ethical listing of multinationals; Monsanto was 581st behind companies such as Haliburton, and Philip Morris.)
 
So under the authors own criteria it seems that the scientific evidence in support of GM is not credible.

Who are the authors?

Our excellent WA MADGE has found out the following:

Pamela Ronald "started at Cornell University obtaining and mapping the Mali rice disease-resistant gene. She then moved to the University of California, Davis where she cloned and patented it. Monsanto & Pioneer then negotiated gene licenses from the University (but ultimately didn't commercialize it). .. Monsanto gave.. $20,000....toward the UC Davis biotech training program and they offer graduate internships. Agricultural research at UC Davis is funded by industry up to $10 million annually including (money) from biotech companies.

And Pamela's husband manages the UC Davis organic farm student project. I think their book is more an attempt to recoup some of the investment, further promote the biotech industry, and indulge the separate passions and careers of the husband and wife team."

Pamela Ronald has recently co-written an op-ed piece in the New York Times. The heart rending article states how the world, including farmers in poor countries, is being denied the miracle of GM by people concerned about the technology.

Phil Bereano wrote a letter [to the New York Times] describing his experience at the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol negotiations. "In every one of these it has been the poor countries (especially of Africa) that have been most critical of GE technology and the attempts of multinational corporations and governments (such as that of the US) to pressure them into adopting it."