In some overseas countries, agribusiness is increasingly turning to natural and sustainable alternatives to chemicals, as some consumers rebuff genetically modified foods, and concerns grow over Big Ag’s role in climate change.

Market research company IBISWorld forecasts that organic farming and ride-sharing are set to become the fastest-growing industries over the next five years. Consumers are expected to become increasingly health and environmentally conscious.

EvokeAg 2020

Agrifutures Australia’s EvokeAg 2020 conference held on 18 - 19 February, were full of talk about robots, plant-based protein, lab-grown meat and agricultural drones. Here in Australia there is big investment in some strange directions, possibly because consumer choice is continually ignored and regulations of the land prohibit freedom of choice, and possibly because many consumers and farmers have become complacent, unaware or are choosing to be ignorant, in a landscape that is dominated by big business interests at all costs. Mike Lee from the US-based Alpha Food Labs said at the conference that it's estimated that 75 per cent of the world's food is being made from just 12 plants and 5 animal species. “Since WW2 the food industry has essentially traded ecological biodiversity for more of less types of food produced industrially with little or no consideration for the environment or for dietary health”. The over producing, under nourishing system - in his view - is dying. According to his slides, for the first time ever, teens are spending more on food than clothing.

The painful truth about our adulterated food system

The topic of genetic modification as it may impact raw drinking milk (RDM) is a double edged sword. If we talk about it, it may impact the raw milk movement, and if we don’t, it may also impact the raw milk movement… Silence isn’t golden in this case, and talking about these issues may finally break the stalemate and enable regulators and politicians to support regulated raw drinking milk from cows.

Once people start learning about the details about industrial agriculture as it is today, they are often required to deal with intense heartbreak, and an extreme sense of loss of innocence. It’s a painful process for those who want food for nourishment, better health, and those with food allergies and intolerances; to learn that the majority of the conventionally reared animals that provide us with meat, milk and dairy, are reared on some GM feed. Not everyone is prepared to walk this journey, or take the chance to look reality in the face and decide if they like what they see. The issue of GM-fed animals speaks to the heart of consumer choice, which is ignored in this country. The only way to avoid GM fed animal products had been to buy organic, since standards prohibit the use of GM feed, but new

GM deregulation in Australia casts some doubt on integrity, see the Hello GMO video below.

The natural diet of farm animals is grass and pasture forage, not grains used in the industrial livestock system, which focuses on yield. Grain-based diets can produce serious digestive tract problems for cows, goats and sheep, because their stomachs are best suited to digesting high cellulose plants like grass. As this GMOs & Farm Animals: An overview leaflet shows, reports from farmers suggest GM feed had increased problems for the animals, and that switching back to a non-GM feed resolved the issues. We have a duty of care to our farm animals, our children, and also the food safety of animal products. Pasteurisation or cooking does not fix everything.

Adulterating Real Food: a 100+ year old activity and busyness

Sally Fallon Morell from the Weston A Price Foundation shares in her many presentations the history of how real traditional food - that often contain high amounts of healthy fatty acids, vitamin A,D,K, minerals and trace-elements - have been displaced around the world by fake, industrially-produced foods.

In a recent video, Bruce German, Ph.D., who is one of the top milk researchers in the world, and director of the Foods for Health Institute at University of California-Davis shared an insightful look at the history of milk, and how it has sustained life for generations as ‘nature’s perfect drink’.

“The single most valuable component in the food supply is milk. The dairy industry can begin first by recognising we have the most valuable health food there ever was. And they also need to begin to literally invest in that future. The greater the lessons we want to improve our health, the more valuable dairy will become,” he said.

Raw milk has always been legal in California thanks to those who fought to keep certified raw milk available. It is highly regulated for quality control, and available for retail sale, despite the reported early efforts by those like the Rockefellers to ban certified milk.

This article is an exploration of the basics around genetically modified organisms, and why it is important that both dairy farmers and consumers gain a basic understanding.

We know that dairy farmers are busy people. They don’t often have time to wade though research that include lengthy reading.

This is what inspired the writing of this article; to attempt to briefly describe why there are certain types of animal feed that may have been deemed suitable by industry for cows that produce milk to be pasteurised, but MAY NOT BE SUITABLE for cows that produce raw drinking milk.

Australia is experiencing one of the worst droughts in living history. Even regenerative farmers who had been building resilience into their farms are challenged. Also, both rural and city-dwellers have noticed the disappearing of many kinds of insects. Nature is in crisis, and we have to question the direction that agriculture is moving in…

Australia is now one of the first countries in the world to deregulate several new genetic modification (GM) techniques in animals, plants and microbes. Anyone could use techniques like CRISPR to genetically modify without the regulator or the rest of us knowing. This deregulation happened in November 2019, for more information see this page.

Examples of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and New Disruptive Technologies

The most prevalent example of GMOs is created by inserting bacterial genes of herbicide resistance into a crop plant. This is most often done by inserting genes of resistance to an agrochemical product called Roundup (with an active ingredient glyphosate). An example would be growing a GMO soy crop with herbicide resistance. “Roundup Ready” soy varieties allow a farmer to drench his soybean field with glyphosate, and thereby kill all the weeds without killing his crop.

The second most common class of GMOs results from the insertion of a bacterial gene into the target crop’s genes; making it a pesticide. A bacteria called Bt, Bacillus thuringiensis is often utilised, which elaborates a chemical that kills insect larvae or grubs. GMO corn that has the Bt gene inserted into it, will theoretically now resist corn borers, the larva that crawl in the tassel end of the cob and eat away, damaging the crop. The larva die from eating the Bt toxin that is now part of the GM corn plant.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) recently described in a review that new breeding techniques (NBTs) - also called NTB foods - are derived from the latest set of techniques for altering the genetic makeup of plants and animals. Some of the techniques involve transferring genetic material between organisms. According to a FSANZ website, the majority of GM foods in Australia and New Zealand are from GM crops grown overseas. “Various food ingredients from these crops (e.g. oil, flour, sugar) are used in processed foods, some of which are imported into Australia and New Zealand. Foods derived from these GM crops must be approved and listed in the Code before they can be imported here. Imported food that contains GM ingredients must also comply with the GM labelling requirements. Only three GM crops (canola, cotton and safflower) are approved for growing in Australia (by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator). No GM crops have been approved for growing in New Zealand.” On safety, the website states that: “If a GM food has been approved it means it is safe to eat. This is because all GM foods must undergo a safety assessment by FSANZ before they can be approved.”

The consumer, however, also have access to a variety of other resources and expert opinions on GMOs, and they are concerned.

Food derived from 60+ genetically modified crops can be imported into Australia.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand recently received an application to approve yet another GM ingredient, this time as GM yeast to be used as an ingredient in fake ‘meats’ that allows the product to “bleed”. The deadline to object was 14 February. According to Gene Ethics - for a GM-free Australia, heme imported from the USA, will be sold to the food industry as an additive. They say no GM labels are required on foods made and sold from food premises and vending machines, e.g. restaurants, junk food outlets, caterers, or self-caterers.

According to a report, rats fed the genetically modified yeast-derived protein soy leghemoglobin – a new kind of burger’s key ingredient – developed unexplained weight gain and signs of toxicity.

CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, established the Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform in 2016 to build their synthetic biology capability. This is now a A$60 million research and development program with 45 partners nationally and internationally. This article describes that the CSIRO are now using genetic technology to build organisms that evolution never did. At CSIRO, they have already used synthetic biology to produce energy-rich feed for livestock. Their scientists have “switched on” high oil production in the stems and leaves of plants, which could potentially triple the amount of oil they produce.

The New Gene Alteration Race

According to this article, the ag-biotech industry is desperate to dissociate GMOs with gene-edited crops, but suffered a blow recently when a French top administrative court ruled that organisms from gene editing should be subject to GMO regulation. In essence, the court has said that even though the technique is slightly different, it is still genetic engineering and must be regulated as such.

Gene editing the same as GMO?

There had been a massive PR campaign to convince the public that new gene editing techniques are different from modern genetic engineering, that it is precise, and doesn’t need regulation. In August 2019, scientists at the FDA discovered flaws in genetic-editing technology; foreign, non-bovine DNA inserted into an animal’s genome during the gene-editing process. It put the precision claims into serious doubt. The FDA found unexpected antibiotic resistance genes in the gene edited hornless cattle, which if had it not been detected, could have had unimaginable consequences… "One calf was found by FDA to have an unintended duplication of the polled gene locus; while the DNA of both calves contained two antibiotic resistance genes, along with various other gene sequences of bacterial origin. The inadvertently introduced bacterial sequences were found close to the editing site."

On February the 7th, the FDA officially stated that “genome editing in animals can have unintended consequences.”

Project Nature Now recently described on their website that there is “a new global gene rush underway, moving from engineering crops to engineering entire ecosystems” with “thousands of labs racing to get their invented organisms out there first”.

Many governments including the US, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and Japan are eliminating regulations and safety precautions “hoping that GMO companies can make quick profits and dominate”, watch the video here. In this interview Dr Don Huber is of the opinion that we are dealing with a “food and health safety issue” and it is all just to benefit the bottom-line of a commercial enterprise. He is Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology at Purdue University, US.

““I think that future-historians may well look back upon our time and write not about how many pounds of pesticides we did or didn’t apply, but about how willing we were to sacrifice our children and future generations… all for this experimental process we called genetic engineering that’s based on failed promises, flawed science, just to benefit the bottom-line of a commercial enterprise.” ”

— Dr Don Huber

Dr Judy Carman: Australia’s top scientist on the subject of GMOs

It is a worthy pursuit for the consumer and the farmer to do their own investigations, and look at expert opinions.

Dr Judy Carman is potentially Australia’s top scientist on the subject of GMOs. She is Director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research. Dr Carman is a world expert on the risk assessments of genetically modified crops and has conducted research in the area for over a decade. She has a Batchelor of Science, an Honours Degree in Organic Chemistry, a Ph.D. in Medicine in the field of nutritional biochemistry and metabolic regulation, and a Master of Public Health specialising in epidemiology and biostatistics.

In an August 2018 presentation titled GMOs and Food Safety Forum for Healthy Soils Incorporated, she explained some basics. Some GMOs are resistant to a herbicide (like Roundup) and others make their own pesticides/insecticides. These are the genetic modification types that started in the 1970s, and there are also more recent additions, like CRISPR and dsRNA. The addition of new genes result in new proteins in the crops, which can affect those who eat it. She also explained - that in her opinion - extremely little research are done on their effects, and that regulator Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) don’t require animal studies, human studies or any review of the raw data on the food safety of some GMOs. At the 8 minute time marker she described a review of 12 FSANZ reports covering 28 GM crops, and found them inadequate.

Video: Healthy Soils Incorporated is a group of farmers and community members in Queensland dedicated to seeking honest research about healthy soils to healthy communities. Members want to learn about GMO safety. Dr Judy Carman is Australia's top independent GMO scientist speaking at the Healthy Soils Incorporated GMO Debate August 2018, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.

Here are some of the highlights from the video:

Milk containing GM DNA

At the 23 minute time marker, she describes why we cannot trust labelling laws in Australia; because there are many things that are simply not labelled. She also described, that a study in Italy found 1/3 of milk samples obtained from supermarkets contain GM DNA, and how scientists could tell which GM crop the animals had been fed. There seems to be evidence already that the GMOs the cows eat, transfer to the milk.

Studies not properly conducted?

At the 27 minute time marker, Dr Carman explained the benefits of looking through a microscope, to uncover what GM crop feeding does to the digestive tract/organs of animals, and to see if there is damage. A review she had been part of, looked at the herbicide tolerant trait, and two particular Bt proteins, and according to her, the review found that not a single study had been properly conducted.

CRISPR and dsRNA

From the 30 minute time marker, she talked about the new GM techniques like CRISPR and dsRNA with their “unintended effects”, which have now been deregulated in Australia. See the video below for more information.

Dr Carmen described double stranded RNA (dsRNA) as a technique to silence or activate genes. She claims that the CSIRO now has patents on some of these DNA, and are trying to change the type of starch in wheat by silencing. She also described plants made to convey dsRNA genes, that would cause them to die, and manoeuvring to have an dsRNA spray that may be sprayed from an airplane. Could this practice then cause living beings - like plants and the insects below - to die? She also described how safety in feeding dsRNA was “assumed to be safe” or “not considered at all” by any of our government regulators.

Inflammation from GM feeding

AdobeStock_172007641 corn watercolour copy.jpg

From the 39 minute time marker, Dr Carman explained that pigs are often used for safety assessments, because their digestive systems are similar to humans. Evidence from the US showed commercial pigs fed GM crops often have reproductive and digestive problems. More inflammation in the stomach or small intestine, a thin intestinal wall that ruptures and bleeds, and higher rates of miscarriage had reportedly been observed.

At the 43 minute time marker Dr Carman described how a proper trial was done with the three GM genes (the herbicide tolerant trait and the two particular Bt proteins - RR, MON863, MON810) as GM corn/soy feed commonly eaten in the US. A large number of things were monitored, and great care was taken to make the environment the same for the GM fed group, and the non-GM fed group. Towards the end of the experiment, the animals were killed and inspected internally. She showed photos of veterinarians examining cut open stomachs, counting ulcers, bleeding ulcers, the level of inflammation etc. They found a 25% increase in the weight of the uterus in the GM-fed female pigs. They also observed a significant increase in inflammation of the stomach to severe in the GM-fed pigs.

The statistically significant results were, that the rate of severe stomach inflammation in GM-fed pigs compared to non-GM-fed pigs, were overall 2.6 times more likely (in males 4.0 times more likely, and in females 2.2 times more likely).

Dr Carman described that they had concluded at the time, that it was most likely, that the Bt proteins that were designed to cause damage by the rupture of the gut of grubs, was likely the same cause of the pig stomach inflammation. The pig study conclusions were, that a mixed GM soy and GM maize diet, caused stomach and uterine pathologies in pigs.

Changes in the integrity of the stomach lining

At the 52 minute time marker, Dr Carman described the details of a follow-up study of male rats. Every rat in a follow-up study fed GM corn showed under electron microscope (high magnification) that the tight junctions (cells in the stomach) broke down. Also observed, was elongated cells in, and the swelling of glands that deliver hydrochloric acid to the stomach, in all of the GM-fed rats. “None of the rats in the non-GM diet had a gland like that”, Dr Carman said. She described why the most likely explanation is the Bt proteins, again, “because they are designed to upset the stomachs of grubs”.

ORFC 2020: Wake up to Genome Editing: Is it a Threat or an Opportunity?

This year’s Oxford Real Farming Conference in the UK had a fascinating panel speaking about Genome Editing.

It is being pushed by the research establishment, government, media and industry as the smart way to achieve sustainability.

The agroecological and organic movements have been complacent and myopic in response to claims that genome editing is compatible with their principles. This session covered where they are with current opinions; potential health and environmental impacts; and how regulation – or lack of it – might impact.

Michael Antoniou, genome researcher and head of King’s College London gene expression and therapy group, said that after Brexit, ministers should retain the tough EU rules that have blocked most genetically modified crops and livestock from commercial use.

Michael warned that Crispr, the “high-precision” gene-editing technology that is revolutionising DNA research, is less precise than has been claimed and could create mutant crops that produce toxic or carcinogenic proteins. Read more here.

Speakers: Michael Antoniou, Kings College London, Lawrence Woodward, Beyond GM, Claire Robinson, GM Watch, Chair: Pat Thomas, Beyond GM. Listen to the interview above, and access the slides here: slide 1 and slide 2. Controlled animal feeding studies show clear signs of toxicity linked with GM crops e.g. GM potatoes, rice, peas, corn, soy, etc. Also listen to the ORFC session of the following day titled: Strategies for getting to grips with Genome Editing and access the slides here.

GMO Myths and Truths: A citizen’s guide to the evidence on the Safety and Efficacy of Genetically Modified Crops and Foods

Two of the ORFC speakers, Claire and Michael, co-authored the book to the right. GMO Myths and Truths summarises the facts on the safety and efficacy of GM crops and foods, in terms that are accessible to the non-scientist but still relevant to scientists, policymakers and educators. The evidence presented, points to many hazards, risks, and limitations of genetic engineering technology.

These include harm found in animal feeding and ecological studies, which in turn indicate risks to health and the environment posed by GM crops and foods.

The book shows that conventional breeding continues to outstrip GM in developing crops that deliver high yields, better nutrition, and tolerance to extreme weather conditions and poor soils. In agreement with over 400 international experts who co-authored a UN and World Bank-sponsored report on the future of farming, the authors conclude that modern agroecology, rather than GM, is the best path for feeding the world's current and future populations in a safe and sustainable way. According to this article, there is a large number of scientists who share Dr Antoniou’s concerns about the safety of genetic engineering.

Other effects of GMOs

Liver damage and kidney damage (both in rats). Independent data reportedly confirms this, and adds heart, spleen, adrenal glands, and blood producing organs to the list of damage in rats fed GMOs.
Reproductive failure (miscarriage and infertility). Enlarged uteri in pigs fed GMO for 23 weeks.
Gut flora disruption and the inhibition of the shikimate pathway of microbes.
Herbicide use is resulting in emerging chemical resistance, and more stronger herbicides needed to control herbicide-resistant weeds and other plants.
The killing of beneficial insects and potential resistance in pest insects that come in contact with agrochemicals.
Harm to beneficial soil microbiology through the use of chemicals that go with GMO, and also the creation of resistant microbes or resistant-pathogens (Dr Don Huber is an expert).
Some formulations of glyphosate-based weedkillers are toxigenic, meaning they are damaging to human DNA, tests show.
No increase in crop yields to feed a growing population, has been reported.
Antibiotic marker genes in GM crops could transfer to pathogenic bacteria, making them antibiotic resistant. This may lead to more superbugs.
According to a 2011 Canadian study at Sherbrooke hospital, GMO Bt toxins were found in blood serum of 93% of pregnant women tested, and cord blood of 80% of their unborn babies.
Here are two more recent reports:
- Rat Feeding Study Suggests the Impossible Burger May Not Be Safe to Eat
- GM Bt Corn Caused Organ Damage and Altered Blood Biochemistry, and Threatened Male Fertility
See this for a longer list.

Stockfeed: Health concerns for animals that produce raw drinking milk

GM Corn

Both cows and humans have been eating corn and corn-based products that are imported from all over the world for many years. What does this mean for the long-term health and integrity of the cow’s digestive system and rumen microflora? What does this mean for the heath and integrity of the human stomach and gut if they consume these animal products?

GM cotton seed

The new type of GM cotton that FDA regulators in the US has just approved, is supposedly a protein-rich feed, however many potential risks are reportedly ignored. Gossypol in the seed is supposedly lower, but it is toxic for humans and animals, though less so to mature cows with healthy rumen microbiology. Gossypol can also be an effective male contraceptive, resulting in infertility. New GM cotton, called TAM66274, reportedly contains a gene to express a protein, NPTII, which reportedly confers resistance to several antibiotics. There also seems to be no previous toxicity testing conducted with the new type of GM cotton seed intended for consumption. Over 99.5% of cotton grown in Australia now is genetically modified. The GM cotton plants are either herbicide tolerant, resistant to major insect pests, such as bollworm, or both. Cottonseed is increasingly featuring in the diets of ruminants, and as forage had become scarce, it has been described as '“white gold”. Cottonseed and canola meal are used as milking ration supplement for the industrial dairy industry. Commercially it is also called Cottonseed Protein Meal Pellets.

GM Canola

This article reveals: “vast quantities of genetically modified soybean and canola meal are being fed to Australia’s milking cows.” A feed mill operator revealed in the July 2017 article, that more than half a million tonnes of canola meal are going into stockfeed, and it’s nearly all mixed (GM and non-GM). In 2015-16 the Australian dairy industry used 3.06 million tonnes of stockfeed, which reportedly contained 10-20 per cent canola or soybean meal as its main source of protein.

GM Soy

"Nearly all” of the vast amount of soybean meal imported into Australia are from sources like Brazil and Argentina are reportedly GM. This soybean meal is used as a key source of protein by Australia’s pig, poultry, beef and dairy industries.

Mixed rations and byproducts

PMR and TMR ingredients can come from all over the world, and there may be little traceability, accountability or integrity. Who knows what microbial dangers and other trojan horses mixed rations might contain? We know that some dairy farmers around the world - that produce raw drinking milk in regulated systems that don’t lay down adequate rules as part of the production system - do give their cows some mixed rations. This should not be done! Australia has been mostly pasture-based for many years, but recently expanded into the use of partial mixed rations. Even locally-grown GM safflower meal can be used as stockfeed, according to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

All of the above have high ratios of the more unhealthy omega 6 and 9s, and is detrimental to the quality of RDM for a variety of reasons. Soy, cottonseed, and canola are definitely not suitable food for cows that produce RDM, for a variety of reasons. Things like distillers grain, brewers grain, maize silage, dry or wet cake, food waste like commercial bread and pastries etc. carry MANY REAL RISKS that could transfer to the milk. Organisations like the Weston A. Price Foundation have also done extensive work in this area.

GM Ryegrass

According to this article, GM High Metabolisable Energy (HME) ryegrass is in its trial phase, which is why the timing of publishing this article now is vital. Scientists are conducting experiments hoping for reduced ruminant methane emissions (greenhouse gas emissions), reduced nitrogen excretion from animals (meaning less nitrate leaching and lower emissions of nitrous oxide) and higher growth rates. The security and secrecy around this subject is strong, so one can only speculate on the methane-reducing mechanism, by looking at other ruminant methane reducing projects. This article describes the potential use of a particular seaweed with inherent antimicrobial activity; as a cattle feed supplement. In order to get the reduced methane effect in the cows, the rumen microflora - that is a natural bio-digester - is potentially adulterated. Could antimicrobial activity be built into the GM ryegrass DNA? Intensive livestock farming systems that use lots of antibiotics also see an increase in animal growth rates…

Seaweed livestock methane emission supplementation

A researcher - who previously worked for the CSIRO to discover which seaweed species would have the greatest impact on ruminant methane emissions - now experiments with a particular pink-red algae with antibacterial properties called Asparagosis. The ratio given to cows seems very significant according to a chart illustrating varying ‘effectiveness’. At or just above two per cent appears to be the optimal amount - the study found that when Asparagopsis made up 10 per cent of the animal's diet, the cattle had more trouble digesting. The researchers are still working to determine the dynamics, but the basic summary is that it functions as an enzyme inhibitor, stopping the processes that produce methane in the animal’s specialised gut. Ruminants utilise bacteria, protozoa, yeasts and fungi in the stomachs to break down plant cellulose. The sugars that results from the microbial fermentation are by-products like lactate and propionate - which help produce good milk - and methane are created. In the article, the researcher admits that when he first stumbled across the Asparagopsis while working at the CSIRO, his first test indicated complete elimination of methane emissions.

According to an Australian study, extracts of the seaweed Asparagopsis armata do have antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus spp. strains. However, not all e.coli and other microbes are harmful. Many are commensal, beneficial and even essential. What about the potential for the creation of antibiotic-resitant microbes in the rumen in the process? This would be a recipe for disaster for cows that produce raw drinking milk (RDM).

This paper cautions that the practice of supplementing cattle feed with seaweed may not be a realistic strategy to battle climate change, yet research steams ahead in order to create new industries that can capitalise on new trends, which may be the main reason behind attempting to reduce livestock methane emissions… read more here. Cattle methane emissions is part of a natural cycle, but methane released from deep earth fracking is not…

Livestock Genetics:

There is concern over the genetic engineering of farm animals. These days, without most people being aware of it, genetic engineering is spreading from the crops in the field to the farm animals. Using new genome editing techniques like CRISPR, biotech breeders are proposing to breed a new world of farm animals that don’t get sick, don’t feel pain and produce more meat, milk and eggs at a lower cost than ever before. Gene-editing could be used to control reproduction, for instance to produce more female dairy cows (thus more milk).

The drought, high input costs and other factors have also contributed to the decimation of farmer’s best genetics - bred over decades - but sent to the abattoir out of necessity.

We may be losing our best genetics and biodiversity at a faster rate than we think.

More farmers are also turning to Artificial Insemination (AI) in hopes of benefiting from ‘supposedly’ better genetics.

More control of our food supply is moving into the hands of biotech companies, and we may live to deeply regret it very soon. See this Friends of the Earth report Genetically Engineered Farm Animals: From Lab to Factory Farm. According to the report:

“Many of the ‘solutions’ offered by genetically engineered (including gene-edited) animals are in response to problems caused by current intensive animal farming systems. A more ecological (and humane) way of farming would address the root cause, which is intensive animal farming.”

See the video below about hornless cows, and consider the potential consequences:

Video: The Senate voted on Gene Technology on 13 November 2019, on amendments that allow many genetically modified (GM) animals, plants and microbes to enter our environment and food chain with no requirement for safety testing or traceability. See this link to discover who voted for this.

Contamination with GMOs and exercising freedom of choice

There seems to be “indisputable evidence” that the market favours non-GM. The world is demanding cleaner, greener and more natural food.

According to Senator Janet Rice’s plea in the video above, it may now be impossible for farmers to claim that that their produce are absolutely GMO free due to the GM deregulation of November 2019. But all is not lost… Dairy farmers CAN take many measures to assure local Australian customers that they ARE taking precaution to keep GMOs out of their livestock’s diets. This is why it is important to educate dairy farmers on the risks of GMOs. It is a good thing that farmers become aware of these realities, because they may have many consumers knocking on their doors in the future, asking for farming systems that avoid GMOs at all costs. Here are some of the GMO health concerns from a Choice article:

Triggering an allergic reaction
Outcrossing of genes
New diseases could emerge
Gene transfer of antibiotic resistance

According to the Choice article, many of the GM foods listed in the article, are unlikely to be labeled as containing GM ingredients, including meat, dairy and eggs from animals fed GM feedstock.

““Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.””

— Margaret Mead

Many consumers don’t want GMOs in their food, and the Federal government’s own research shows that GM is a “high risk” in terms of consumer perception. Australia’s clean and green image have already been degraded in the eyes of those who understand the details. This is not only about the perceptions of GMOs, or “an image” of Australian agriculture; it is about consumer preference that is continually ignored, because different industries intend to profit and dominate a market.

Some overseas markets prefer GM-free food. Some Australian farmers will be disadvantaged by the new GM status, and may need to explore alternative ways to both make a living, and satisfy consumer preference. The reality of allowing unregulated GM technology is, that the choice of a farmer to grow GM crops, impacts on the choice of neighbouring farmers to grow non-GM or organic crops. This is because wherever GM crops are grown alongside non-GM or organic crops, there is a substantial risk that contamination will occur. This is not opinion. This is fact, and it is supported by evidence of numerous instances of contamination in locations where GM crops are grown.

In North America verified non-GM foods are available with the Non-GMO Project label on it, and is reportedly their most rigorous standard for GMO avoidance. The Centre for Food Safety, is another resource to keep up with trends in this rapidly changing landscape.

Global Food security in GMOs? How realistic is this argument?

Food security is often the justification given to produce new crops to supposedly improve productivity and sustainability.

Many herbicides have antibiotic properties, which means they may disrupt or kill off beneficial soil microbiome, leading to soil degradation, loss of soil fertility and over time increased public health crises, and the creation of dustbowls. Beneficial soil microbes are an essential ingredient in nutrient-cycling, nutrient-dense food and carbon sequestration. There are many articles about this on ARMM’s website describing the details. Maintaining soil ecosystem services is vital, because the long-term ability for soils to feed the world is under threat. Some people have limited insight into the long-term impacts their actions have on soil and its complex networks of microbes and microbiological processes, and how that affects animal and human health.

Last words on GMOs in Australia

It would be irresponsible for ARMM not to raise the concerns around the potential impact of GMOs on the food safety of raw dairy, and why they should be avoided.

Dr Judy Carman’s descriptions of how poor research around GMOs are, is of concern. It may be a good risk reduction strategy for raw dairy producers to avoid GMOs completely. No matter what authorities might say, these GMOs are not specifically tested for their potential impact on raw milk for human consumption. It is possible that feeding cattle the kind of GMOs previously described, might disadvantage their health in some way, or suitability to produce raw drinking milk.

We already have concerns about the agrochemicals with antibiotic properties, that are commonly sprayed on GMOs and commodity grains from monoculture systems. When given to cows that produce RDM as feed over a long time, this might affect healthy rumen microflora! If beneficial microbes are killed off - no matter how slowly - that may allow toxic or pathogenic bacteria to flourish eventually. Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason says that glyphosate is a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. Animals and humans need minerals for good health. They also both need abundant beneficial microbes for good health.

Some raw dairy systems around the world have not installed sufficient barriers, that promote and protect the beneficial microbes in the rumen of cattle.

The irony is, that as pathogenic or antibiotic-resistant microbes increase in our environment, our need for more beneficial microbes may grow to counter their effects. Lots of beneficial microbes in the terrain is key to the food safety of raw drinking milk. Industrial agriculture is creating an increasingly hostile microbial terrain. Details about how GMOs and their associated agrochemicals with antibiotic properties relate to RDM have been added to the list of risk identification and risk reduction strategies discussed in the 11 categories of the Risk Identification and Risk Reduction program.

Risk Identification & Risk reduction program3.jpg

In a recent episode of ABC The Drum, chef and author Matthew Evans discussed why he considers it a waste of the earth’s resources to feed ruminants grain. 75% of Australia is non-arable rangeland, and ideally suited for large ruminant animals to graze. This land is not suitable for growing crops.

The GM deregulation of November 2019 opens the gates for anyone with a little bit of knowledge on genetic insertion, to create experiments. We have yet to learn what new dangers or allergens lurk. We also have yet to learn what new hidden potential dangers the newly anticipated GM ryegrass might introduce. Some Australian dairy industry leaders are eagerly anticipating new GM ryegrass, but will it be the panacea they hope for? Vast areas of perennial ryegrass is already highly problematic for society. Industry will also be tinkering with phalaris grass for the pasture-fed red meat industry.

In 1980 there were 22,000 dairy farms in Australia and today there are little more than 5,000 left. Australian dairy farmers cannot diversify and save their business with raw drinking milk. They should be allowed to graze their animals on pasture, and produce the raw dairy consumers desire.

At the end of 2019, ABC Landline announced that they will be reporting on GMOs in the new year. This has not materialised yet. There is already evidence to show that news consumers are concerned about Australian journalism, that is “polluted with opinion and commercial influence”. A survey showed that 85% of respondents were concerned about news being reported from a particular point of view. 83% were concerned about news being influenced by large advertisers. Australians have major trust issues with the news.

Regenerative farming: we don’t need GMOs in food production to ‘save the planet’

regenerative farming no GMOs in Australia

Despite regenerative agriculture being one of the top censored news stories of 2018, it is what will save humanity and our environment.

ARMM has already written many different articles on why growing a large range of different plant species in the paddock (without the use of agrochemicals or synthetic fertilisers) will to lead to more ecosystem services and a larger plant biomass, which includes more minerals, trace elements and nutrients, making significant contributions to animal health, and human health. Grass-fed and pasture-raised animal products are significantly superior in quality and health benefits. Research shows these lush pastures can be more drought-resistant, and regrow fast when given short grazing and long resting time, because they protect and enable soil microbiology to flourish, see this dairy example from the Savory Institute. These pastures can be large carbon sequestrators. Many decades ago, grazing animals used to enjoy roaming lush pastures of many different plant species. Colonial grasslands had 300 - 400 different kinds of native species in them, not the modern day ryegrass monocultures.

Today many livestock feeds are adulterated with generous agrochemical use, and may include GMOs that could potentially act like trojan horses that could influence food safety. In addition, livestock are often given all sorts of things to eat during a drought that may not contribute to their health, like cottonseed. Grasslands and pasture are on the disappear, and some paddocks may resemble dustbowls, but GMOs are not the answer to our problems. In addition, farmers who want to purchase cover crops for grazing, should be careful what seed they purchase. Is it coated in a herbicide or insecticide? Is it potentially a GMO? In other words, does it have the integrity to express its full natural DNA behaviour, for which it is naturally programmed for?

The food industry and others have served up adulterated processed food with all sorts of trojan horses that affect human health. Equally, some have served up adulterated animal feed with consequences for animal health, and the animal’s suitability to produce raw drinking milk. Sick or immune compromised animals are not suitable to produce RDM. The compilation of this article has been a rather painful process, but it is necessary that this information be presented to the raw milk movement.

A film was recently made about a mother-daughter investigative journey into why GMOs are not labeled on food products in the US and Canada: Modified: A food lover’s journey into GMOs. Also see the free feature film Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs.

As humans we make mistakes. Humanity may be on a slippery slope towards self-annihilation, from a certain point of view. However, focussing too much on these errors doesn’t serve us, but can hold us back. It is important for revelations to be made, and for grief and forgiveness to follow, so we can rebuild new foundations based on truth, honesty and integrity.

Anti-GM Event in Adelaide, March 3rd. Learn what the GM lobby won’t tell you:

On the 3rd of March, there will be community forum on the cost of lifting the GM crops moratorium in South Australia hosted by Greens MLC Mark Parnell who had been a supporter for raw milk for many years. Speakers include Dr John Paull and environmental scientist, farmer Bob Mackley, and Mark Parnell from The Greens. Dr Judy Carman will be joining for a panel discussion and Q&A. See this flyer, and get more details here. South Australia is one of the last vestiges where GM crops are banned, which may soon be overturned.