The decision by Austria is politics rather than science.

Scientific analysis long ago showed that there was no basis in Greenpeace's claims, and this is not new evidence.

French Professor Seralini has made mistakes in his statistics, as shown by the comprehensive European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) response to these claims that Austrian politicians are relying on for a political decision convenient for their electorates, as discussed here (GMO Pundit) http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/mr-chance-of-wa-needs- to-go-back-to.html and by the Australian Food agency here http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factshee ts2007/updatefsanzreaffirms3622.cfm

About 50% of the time, the differences seen in the tests would occur by chance.

Trusting FSANZ to look after consumers and farmers best interest is like trusting the fox to look after the chickens.

It's time to wake up and outlaw these obnoxious crops before it's too late.

I do not normally agree with the Greens but I do on this subject. The overseas science has found many health problems with GM foods and we should totally ban any GM in Aust until there is proof of how it affects health over a period of time. How stupid are we? Many things in the past such as hormone treatment etc has proven to be dangerous over time. Aust should not open a Pandora's box by allowing GM into Aust.

On 28 June 2007, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), after a review of MON863 by an expert panel, stated: "The Séralini study provides no new indications of toxicologically relevant findings. The panel therefore sees no reason to alter the opinion published in 2004 which states that MON863 has no negative effects on the health of humans, animals or the environment."

That's because governments in Europe listen to fear and hysteria and don't read the science. FSANZ has to assess risks based on evidence and logical assumptions where there is no evidence.

GM crops have been shown to cause abnormaities in test animals in a number of refereed trials. They have also been shown to fast-track the evolution of pests that are resistant to naturally occuring diseases that help to keep pest populations in check. When most of the commercial releases of GM crops have clearly been made with profit and product consumption as the main drivers we can assume that public health is a minor consideration.

FSANZ has let the Australian consumer down on countless occasions regarding GM foods and this example is just one of many. It has also approved a GM corn variety developed as a biofuel as safe for human consumption. Australia is the only country to have done this. FSANZ relies on data submitted by the companies that develop GM seeds, and does not conduct its own testing. Greenpeace is right in alerting us to independant studies which bring these approvals into question. However, I think the worst thing that FSANZ has done is develop GM labelling laws that clearly protect the GM producers at the expense of consumers' choice. Label all GM derived foods and allow us to make informed choices.

it's about time the green lobby and the so-called do-gooders got their facts right - genetically modifed food has been eaten since the first strain of wheat. It's about time uni academics got a real job and used common sense and practical experience before they spruik stupid ideas.

Greenpeace opinions are usually alarmist as it is this time. Most of our food is not coming any more from native crops, they have been already modified into modern commercial crops. I would think nowadays it is more likely we are more exposed to chemicals and additives in food than having any impact from GM crops.

Petro you are in need of some basic science.

Crops have been selected on specific characteristics and cross polination for a long time - that is not GM. GM is where a deliberate attempt to introduce a foreign protein into the dna sequence is made.

As an example, take a protein that is poisonous to some lifeforms or is resistant to a poison and add it to the dna of a plant. Many things we do in the name of producing more has unintended consequences - more and more evidence is coming to light with health-related problems associated with GM food. Independant testing should be mandatory before new strains of GM food is considered for human consumption.

When those transparent procedures are in place then perhaps we can have the confidence in foods to market.

However, the consumer has the right to know if the food being consumed has GM components - it's called being fully informed and making choices with all the information.