GM food no longer scary to the Greens

In an astonishing piece of kite flying, the Greens leader Richard Di Natale has said he “did not believe eating foods produced from genetically modified crops posed a risk to human health”,  a view he has since made known to several media outlets.

A virtual ban on GM foods is among the multitude of burdens the meddlesome political class has imposed on its bete noir, commercial farming.  Genetic modifications of plant structure allow a short-circuiting, often of many decades, of the genetic changes that have been traditionally engineered by breeding.  Almost without exception all cultivated plant and animal food we consume has been improved for our purposes from its natural state.

Genetic engineering arrived 25 years ago and allowed plants to become more resistant to parasites, use water more economically and grow faster.  In countries where technology is welcomed – especially the US and Canada, virtually all the crop of corn, cotton, soy is now GM.  In the case of soya beans, Monsanto’s seeds improve yields by 5 per cent and reduce production costs by 20 per cent.  Other GM crops have comparable savings.

Fifteen years ago, in a knee-jerk opposition to all things new, green groups stopped the use of GM technology in its tracks in the EU and Australia.  Greenpeace led the charge, maintaining that GM crops were harmful to human health and would not work effectively (they would create new “superbugs”, release toxic chemicals into the environment and so on).  They amassed a million signatures favouring an indefinite “moratorium” on the technology’s use in the EU.

In Australia, governments prevaricated about the introduction of the technology (except in the case of cotton which gained approval before the bogeyman could be created).  The IPA was one of the few voices unabashedly calling the opposition for the sham that it was in a series of articles including by me in the AFR, (and here) and Herald Sun.   But, succumbing to the familiar noisy green alarmism, bans were introdcued, first by the weak-kneed Bracks Government in 2003 at the same time as that government launched an amply funded biotechnology program.  Mike Nahan, now the Treasurer in Western Australia, excoriated the Victorian government’s decision which overturned the Gene Technology regulator’s approval of Bayer’s GM canola.

The companies researching and developing GM strains were demonised and the “frankenfood” epithet was adopted.  In Australia the cudgels were taken up by the Greens.  Bob Brown set the policy which has been holy writ for 15 years and, as the Victorian decision shows, the Greens dragged other political parties along the same route.

The policy is absurd with respect to human health – for 15 years the majority of corn, canola and many other foods consumed globally are GM products.  Ironically, Australians eat the produce every day since the nature of the world agricultural trade is such that GM food is imported –and it is identical to non GM sources.

The opponents also attempted falsely to claim that Australia’s “clean green image” from the ban led to our exports commanding a premium price.

The ban on the technology meant Australian farmers were saddled with a policy framework, which like those on land clearing and water buy-backs, seriously reduced productivity.

Di Natale says he arrived at his present position because as a medical doctor he could see no risk in GM foods generally.  Fair enough, but what took him so long to come round to this view, and what have his colleagues got to say?  If the Greens change tack, the ALP and Liberals will also miraculously see the light, further demonstrating that political parties are ethically deficient in responding to trumped up scares.

If the whole sad policy is now unravelled and Australian farmers become free to take advantage of the same technology their competitors use the nation too will benefit.  It is however doubtful that anyone will pay the penalty for imposing on farmers and the nation generally almost two decades of lost output.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to GM food no longer scary to the Greens

  1. Snoopy

    DiNatale is just being a clever dick. He admits that eating GMO poses no health risk, but claims Monsanto666’s RoundUp may cause cancer.

  2. Rabz

    Greens leader Richard Di Natale has said he “did not believe eating foods produced from genetically modified crops posed a risk to human health”

    Gee, that’s mighty magnanimous of him, given that the greenfilth have been advocating chowing down on insects as a solution to humanity’s terrible addictions to those costly proteins, the harvesting of which is apparently destroying the planet.

  3. Jack Lacton

    If anybody is wondering…there have been more than one TRILLION, with a T, GMO meals eaten in the world for a sum total of no issues at all. It’s hooey. It was always hooey.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    I see this as a good thing because if Di Natale can see sense regarding innocuous GMOs, then he hopefully will, like Patrick Moore, see sense about the innocuousness of global warming.

    Meanwhile perhaps Dr Di Natale would like to grow some egg-and-chips plants in his back garden:

    ‘Egg and Chips’ hybrid plant goes on sale in Britain

    A new plant that can grow both aubergines and potatoes has been developed and has gone on sale in Britain for the first time.

    Horticulturalists have spent years carrying out grafting trials to produce the dual-cropping plant named “Egg and Chips” which grows aubergines from its stem and potatoes from its roots. Experts experimented with more than 20 varieties of aubergine, commonly known as egg plants, before selecting one that was deemed best for size and performance. They then carefully cut the delicate 2ins tall stems of the aubergine and potato plants in half at an identical angle before grafting them together. The lower end of the potato plant and the top part of the aubergine then naturally fused together and grew on.

    OK not a GM plant but fun nonetheless. Also a finger in the eye for the Malthusians who think global warming will starve us. And if you don’t like egg plants, there’s always an alternative:

    TomTato: ‘mutant’ plant that grows tomatoes and potatoes unleashed

    A bizarre plant which produces both tomatoes and potatoes, providing a ‘veg plot in a pot’, has been launched in the UK.

    Vegans rejoice!

  5. Pete of Perth

    I suppose the next step is for greenpeace to refund the Australian tax payers for destroying the CSIRO GMO crop in 2011? greenpiss

  6. I have grown vegetables and flowers in large quantities since I was a child ,it is amazing tge advances made in fifty years the number of varieties you can buy now compared to years ago is amazing ,these advances are the result of years of cross breeding and finding old varieties . Tgese advances with GM are of great benefit to tge human race and should be encouraged not supressed as the green communists and fellow travelers have been doing for years , these developments are Real Science ,unlike the weather freaks.

  7. Alfonso

    So I presume it will never be illegal to label a product “GM free”?
    Fair enough then, as long as we know and can choose.

  8. notafan

    Classic prog position on good science versus bad science.
    I remember arguing that humans had been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years but technology had just vastly improved the precision and the speed at which we could do it.

    Greens must be feeling like Stalinists getting the latest communique saying that black is white and always was white.

  9. Talleyrand

    Pity about all those blind African kids that resulted from the anti GMO campaign against Golden Rice
    You remember Richard , the one led by the Greens against evil Multi Nationals.

  10. jupes

    If the Greens change tack, the ALP and Liberals will also miraculously see the light, further demonstrating that political parties are ethically deficient in responding to trumped up scares.

    That the Greens can actually dictate policy from a minority position in the Senate is the most disgusting part or this sordid tale.

    Fancy living in a country where the moronic, anti-science Greens dictate policy. How did main stream politicians become so gutless that they stopped trying to explain and implement policy in the national interest and just fell into line with the Greens?

    What a bunch of arseholes.

  11. John Constantine

    Fuckers, fucking enfuckerated fuckers, upfucked, fucked up and cornholed fucking fuckers.

    Laugh off decades of being lying liers that lie in one over the holidays announcement.

    The dirty filthy ABC swampfilth will just tra LA LA along and get their next billion to tell the next lie.

  12. John Constantine

    And where was their fucking billion dollar abcuckingc fact check fucking unit when all the swampies were filthwhining over frankenfoods?.

  13. Gavin R Putland

    The threat posed by GMOs is not to health, but to liberty. Owners of GMO patents pretend — absurdly — that GM plants won’t cross-pollinate with neighbouring non-GM plants. Backed by this pretense, they can accuse the victims of the unwanted cross-pollination of stealing intellectual property, but graciously agree to settle if the victims secretly enter into licensing agreements. Thus the patent owners can demand payment for “services” that the payers don’t want, and threaten the payers with serious consequences if they don’t sign up. I think that’s called racketeering.

    Libertarians — if they really are libertarians, and not shills for corporate interests — should be worried.

  14. Entropy

    Aware was the ABC? Giving them a platform of course.

  15. Entropy

    Thinking about how the ABC covered GM issues reminded me of the scene in Flying High 2 where they showed how various news services around the world reported on the unfolding passenger space shuttle incident in the last one was on PBS, where the talk show host said:

    Tad Woman: [on a talk show] If this canned beet was run by vegetarian women rather than flesh-eating men, this whole space disaster would never have happened. You know right now, we’re working to raise the consciousness of the vegetarian minorities with diet sensitivity training, so that people will be able to deal with the foul…

  16. the sting

    The Greens are the enemy of the farmer.

  17. Tel

    The threat posed by GMOs is not to health, but to liberty. Owners of GMO patents pretend — absurdly — that GM plants won’t cross-pollinate with neighbouring non-GM plants. Backed by this pretense, they can accuse the victims of the unwanted cross-pollination of stealing intellectual property, but graciously agree to settle if the victims secretly enter into licensing agreements. Thus the patent owners can demand payment for “services” that the payers don’t want, and threaten the payers with serious consequences if they don’t sign up. I think that’s called racketeering.

    I agree, and that’s part of the overall issue of intellectual property that most libertarians just don’t want to deal with, because it’s a tiny bit complicated. Explaining it to a Green would (in most cases) be even more difficult.

    Libertarians — if they really are libertarians, and not shills for corporate interests — should be worried.

    Not for the reasons that the Greens have put forward, but yes there are good economic reasons to be worried. Then again, patents expire eventually (unless the corporates get a Mickey Mouse thing going, which seems unlikely but possible).

  18. egg_

    Next up: nukes is better than coal, per James Lovelock?

  19. Tel

    If the whole sad policy is now unravelled and Australian farmers become free to take advantage of the same technology their competitors use the nation too will benefit. It is however doubtful that anyone will pay the penalty for imposing on farmers and the nation generally almost two decades of lost output.

    If the producers had been enthusiastic supporters of labelling right from the start, this whole ugly episode could have been avoided. Consumer sovereignty… next time get onto that bus.

  20. John Constantine

    I don’t grow GMO at the moment, as the production system is the product, not just the seed.

    In order to defend themselves against lawfare, the corporate patent holders require endless training and accreditation, paid for by the grower.

    Suited for corporate farms and those that can spread compliance costs over huge areas.

    GMO solves unsolveable problems that come with some farming systems, so I support continued breeding programs and oppose the fearfilth that try and paniclink frankenfoods and cancer.

    Just easier for me to run livestock and sidestep all the compliance hassle.

  21. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    The Greens are the enemy of the farmer.

    I’m retired these days, but after the live cattle fiasco, I was explaining veeeery paatently to one of the swivel eyed loons that farming was a business, and, having seen the price of shipping wethers drop from over a hundred dollars a head to just over fifty, the matter had the potential to cost me between thirty five to fifty thousand dollars a year, and was I seriously supposed to absorb such a loss so certain others could feel good about themselves? Might as well have tried to teach a pig to play poker.

  22. Andrew

    Xmas 2030: ageing swampy and Greens House Majority Leader the Rt Hon Sarah Sea-Patrol announces that the Greens no longer consider AGW a threat after 50 years of China safely emitting increasing amounts of CO2 showed there was no risk.

  23. Entropy

    Tel, the problems you describe of cross pollination is a very, very tortuous interpetatiOn of what really happened in that case. And if you are against cross pollination, allow a terminator gene to be inserted. simples.

    Of course they don’t want to allow that, because it isn’t really about cross pollination at all.

  24. Rob MW

    From my perspective, probably the biggest problems, yet little discussed, I have with GM crops is the complete control that the GM seed producers – Monsanto et al – have thru property rights that are generated via IP rights. These rights are contracted back to IP holder from the grower, in the first instance, via ‘end point royalties’ (EPR) and non seed renewal from planted crops (all seed must be sold off farm), supply only of a certain amount of seed (area contracted) and the attachment of a ‘terminal seed gene’ to the purchased seed.

    Bit like a car manufacturer retaining an interest (outside of warrantee) in a purchased car because of some IP right in the design of the wheel.

    Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe on principle that these IP rights are inherent and must be preserved however, at some point in time GM crops will be all that is grown and the mind boggles at the thought that multinational corporations will absolutely control the production and consumption of crops produced for human consumption. In my mind, that will be a problem.

  25. gabrianga

    As late as 2014/5 the “Greens” guardians of the poor and starving were still voicing strong opposition against GM’s.

    LINK

    Why should the poor be given cheaper sustenance even cheaper electrical power if Greens say “no”?

  26. Robert O

    I do not understand the rationale as to why GM food is bad. DNA is made up of sequences of four amino bases: Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine and Adenine, the CAGT sequences. What is wrong in splicing a piece of an Arctic Cod’s DNA into a tomato to enhance its cold resistance? Nothing from point of view of chemistry.

    Crops such as Maize, Wheat, Rice … are hybrids, diploids, triploids etc.

  27. Entropy

    I think the problem is they describe it as “arctic cod dna” rather that ” a gene for cold resistance”

  28. classical_hero

    The policy is absurd with respect to human health – for 15 years the majority of corn, canola and many other foods consumed globally are GM products. Ironically, Australians eat the produce every day since the nature of the world agricultural trade is such that GM food is imported –and it is identical to non GM sources.

    The bit in bold is absurd, otherwise it wouldn’t be genetically modified if they were identical. It is modified and thus can’t be identical.

  29. Alan Moran

    Rob MW
    If the seller of the seed were not to ensure this is “mule” and cannot be reused in subsequent crops, he would not be able to retrieve his R&D outlay – the first sale would be his last at any sort of premium price. There are two ways the monopoly is prevented from being rapacious. The first is that the farmer can always revert to the non-patented seed. Secondly, if the agric supplier is charging a high price imitators will be attracted.
    There is nothing wrong with contracts that, gfreely entered into, limit the buyers’ rights to on sell or adapt in ways the seller does not like.

  30. Alan Moran

    Classical hero
    The nature of the food produced by GM is, unless it is a totally new product, identical to that produced by “natural” means,. The plant growing the food is different. There may in fact be means of detecting wither canola is GM or not but these are so difficult to develop and administer that no country uses them.

  31. Alan Moran

    And in today’s Australian Di Natalle reneges and discusses the “precautionary” principle saying, ““The best evidence available tells us that GMOs have not yet been proven universally safe for our environment, agricultural systems or human health,”
    It is still a struggle to arrive at com,mon sense when for a generation the Greens have demonised the technology. As with eugenics, we may have to wait for the former policy advocates all to die off before their views are discarded.

  32. Entropy

    You gotta love anti GM tactics. Force the breeder company to impose stringent rules to minimise the risk of scary scenarios like the seed of these apparently evil plants turning up somewhere unexpected like it was lantana, and then the activists get to ping them for the stringent rules.

  33. Entropy

    And in today’s Australian Di Natalle reneges and discusses the “precautionary” principle saying, ““The best evidence available tells us that GMOs have not yet been proven universally safe for our environment, agricultural systems or human health

    I am sick of activists abusing the precautionary principle as a way of avoiding rational risk managem not. Said the way Di Natalle has expressed it, you could never satisfy the precautionary principle.
    It is as fair minded and honourable as saying ” Di Natalle has not yet been proven to not be a risk of king hitting his fellow senators and thus promote a universally safe workplace”

  34. Entropy

    Di Natalle has not yet been proven to be a genuine Green Party member.

    Di Natalle has not yet been proven to be safe around children or SHY.

    Di Natalle has not yet been proven to always act in the interest of the Australian people.

  35. Entropy

    Di Natalle has not yet been proven to hate Tony Abbott.

  36. egg_

    I am sick of activists abusing the precautionary principle as a way of avoiding rational risk management. Said the way Di Natalle has expressed it, you could never satisfy the precautionary principle.

    I once worked with a senior (safety) engineer who couldn’t bring himself personally to lower the risk score once mitigating controls were introduced, he could only do so with a committee (how it’s usually done) so they could ‘share the blame’ if anything went wrong – ‘nothing’s are queer as folk’.

  37. egg_

    Di Natalle has not yet been proven to be a genuine Green Party member.

    He came across that way on Kitchen Cabinet – his diesel power plant with occasional solar input certainly seemed that way. /sarc

  38. Tel

    And if you are against cross pollination, allow a terminator gene to be inserted. simples.

    I never said I was against cross pollination, I’m against the assertion of ownership rights applied to the pollen that naturally will blow in the wind from any grass, and has done since humans started agriculture.

    You can own your land, but you cannot own the dust that wafts onto someone else’s land.

    I’m not opposed to terminators, they may well be a good solution to it. Better than lawyers at any rate.

    As for lawfare crippling those big corporates, they do their share of it to cripple their competition, I don’t feel the slightest bit sorry to see them getting the same back. Mind you, none of them care, all just part of doing business.

  39. Tel

    … the thought that multinational corporations will absolutely control the production and consumption of crops produced for human consumption. In my mind, that will be a problem.

    No, national governments with the power of police and military absolutely control production, and the IP ownership is a privilege which can be revoked if necessary. When it comes down to it, IP property only exists with backing of government enforcement.

    That said, to date governments have tended to side with IP holders, mostly because of money. As long as agribusiness sells a lot of product, no one cares too much about the details.

  40. Tel

    I am sick of activists abusing the precautionary principle as a way of avoiding rational risk managem not. Said the way Di Natalle has expressed it, you could never satisfy the precautionary principle.

    Even the precautionary principle itself does not satisfy the precautionary principle.

    Long ago we had the concept of liability and responsibility… if you take an action and you hurt someone, then you must pay for that. If you don’t hurt anyone then you can make all the profit you like. The lawmakers don’t need to decide ahead of time what will be acceptable risk (as if they could do that?!?) but instead just need to know who to hold responsible IF anything should go wrong in future.

    What we did wrong was abandon this concept and replace it with government regulation. Note that even the people in government are not in any way responsible for the regulations they write, nor are the people following those regulations ever responsible for what happens. If there’s a problem (and there always is somehow) we just need more regulations. Eventually you get down to everything over regulated to the point where a self contradictory precautionary principle almost makes sense.

  41. egg_

    What we did wrong was abandon this concept and replace it with government regulation. Note that even the people in government are not in any way responsible for the regulations they write, nor are the people following those regulations ever responsible for what happens. If there’s a problem (and there always is somehow) we just need more regulations. Eventually you get down to everything over regulated to the point where a self contradictory precautionary principle almost makes sense.

    Our case was a scaremongering Barrister, likely hawking for business, (to the extent of legally wording certain Safety Bulletins) scared the Engineers witless – underground mining vehicles, where human contact with said vehicles usually ends in fatalities due to the confined environment – the old engineer was always crapping on about ‘what would you say to the Coroner?’ – my reply: ‘next time we see him (never)?’.
    Due diligence is the main issue, this guy was just an old softc*ck trying to cow everyone else.

  42. kevin

    A dangerous move by Di Natale. The whole Green fraud might start to unravel.

  43. rich

    Even the precautionary principle itself does not satisfy the precautionary principle.

    Nassim Taleb (whom I didn’t pick as a Greens supporter until the end of his book, Anti Fragile, when he lionised Ralph Nader, the USA equivalent of Bob Brown) does have a point when he says the longer that information (such as a design) has been around and is “in print”, the longer it will remain around without dying out as an idea: the opposite of neomania. The precautionary principle is part of that argument, where we get small benefits up front (e.g. aspirin) the market weighs immediate value and utility, but does not consider long term (and catastrophic) side-effects.

    The precautionary principle is a good personal principle to follow in choosing food or medicine. It cannot and should not be weaponised as a regulatory weapon, however, because laws are too blunt- you get a hammer when you need a scalpel.

    It should work as Tel described: after the fact, by allowing those who suffer catastrophic side effects demonstrable to sue the producer. That’s how income tax works (instead of “outcome tax”) and how habeaus corpus work: as de-facto principles, but applied in our societies in the passive tense.

  44. JohnA

    Dr Di Natale is about 7 months behind, or else he is taking advantage of the summer break to carefully position the Greens along the same lines as Mark Lynas (see blog linky here) who issued a largely unreported mea culpa after he studied the science of climate change in that debate (but that’s a separate story).

    He realised that he had NOT studied the science of GM crops, nor the economics of enforcing cumbersome regulations upon GM producers such as Monsanto (the only name that ever seems to crop up). So he went back and did that and was honest enough to discover and report his wrongness, and to apologise.

    I am not sure if the Greens are ready for that kind of honesty since the consequence would be a significant re-write of their policies.

    But we can hope.

  45. Motelier

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1909114, posted on January 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    I see this as a good thing because if Di Natale can see sense regarding innocuous GMOs, then he hopefully will, like Patrick Moore, see sense about the innocuousness of global warming.

    Will someone purlease click their fingers in front of the class nerd.

    BoN just has to be dreaming.

  46. egg_

    The precautionary principle is part of that argument, where we get small benefits up front (e.g. aspirin) the market weighs immediate value and utility, but does not consider long term (and catastrophic) side-effects.

    In technology, there are terms such as ‘well proven’* with the test of time; ‘fit for purpose’ usually being a legal term used in Government Regulations and there is a move to National Industry Codes of Practice, drafts of which I’ve evaluated for my Global company H.O.

    *FMEA and newer variants.

  47. GM beanshoots ? Oh My Gaia ! What will they come at next ! It sacrilege I tells Ya ?

  48. H B Bear

    Di Natale just engaging in a little taqiyya ahead of the 2016 election.

    Doris Bagshawe and Sarah Hyphen-Seapatrol will pull him back into line.

  49. Rob MW

    Rob MW
    If the seller of the seed were not to ensure this is “mule” and cannot be reused in subsequent crops, he would not be able to retrieve his R&D outlay – the first sale would be his last at any sort of premium price.

    Alan – in normal circumstances yes. But sadly, in some GM crops, this is not the case. Terminal gene GM seeds are replenished each growing season by the manufacture therefore the R & D remains intact.

    There is nothing wrong with contracts that, gfreely entered into, limit the buyers’ rights to on sell or adapt in ways the seller does not like.

    Absolutely and I said as much. Can’t wait however for when these same contracts apply to the family car etc 🙂

  50. Entropy

    Alan – in normal circumstances yes. But sadly, in some GM crops, this is not the case. Terminal gene GM seeds are replenished each growing season by the manufacture therefore the R & D remains intact.

    My understanding is that terminal genes are not currently included by agreement, if not regulation.
    But in any case, wouldn’t terminal genes be desirable if you were the organic grower next door? People seem to want it both ways:
    *that evil monsanto’s GM seeds are breeding with my crops! Bad Monsanto!
    * that evil Monsanto GM seeds have a terminator gene so it can’t breed so I get the next crop for free! Bad Monsanto!

  51. My most recent job on a farm was in Canada. Amongst the usual selection of cereals & oils was a considerable acreage of Canola.
    Some GM modified, some natural.
    After they came out of the ground nobody could tell which was which. So one of my tasks was to maintain a demarcation line in the field so we knew where one ended & the other began.

    I did this by using the boss’ ride-on garden mower with the rotary hoe attachment & maintained about a 6-foot wide fallow strip between the two varieties.

    This was important coz the Genetically Modified canola was resistant to various bugs that ate regular Canola.
    The non-modified canola had to be sprayed for bugs during the growing season.

    Interestingly the Genetically Modified Canola was known by all the farmers as “Chemical Free Canola”.
    Something for the swivel-eyed loons to reflect upon.

  52. JohnA

    Tel
    #1909500, posted on January 8, 2016 at 8:42 am

    … the thought that multinational corporations will absolutely control the production and consumption of crops produced for human consumption. In my mind, that will be a problem.

    No, national governments with the power of police and military absolutely control production, and the IP ownership is a privilege which can be revoked if necessary. When it comes down to it, IP property only exists with backing of government enforcement.

    That said, to date governments have tended to side with IP holders, mostly because of money. As long as agribusiness sells a lot of product, no one cares too much about the details.

    Indeed, I understand that those in the tobacco industry could explain this to us if necessary.

  53. Nuts cause allergies and bread causes problems with caeliacs yet these have not been banned.

  54. Rob MW

    My understanding is that terminal genes are not currently included by agreement, if not regulation.
    But in any case, wouldn’t terminal genes be desirable if you were the organic grower next door?

    Monsanto et al doesn’t ask for a growers agreement for the manufacture of their GM product. It is in fact included because Monsanto et al manufactured it that way……..simple really.

    But in any case, wouldn’t terminal genes be desirable if you were the organic grower next door

    That was not my point, so I suppose it is yours. My point was this: Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe on principle that these IP rights are inherent and must be preserved however, at some point in time GM crops will be all that is grown and the mind boggles at the thought that multinational corporations will absolutely control the production and consumption of crops produced for human consumption. In my mind, that will be a problem.

  55. Garry Stannus

    Alan Moran’s piece seems to be a blinkered response to Di Natale’s statement. In my opinion, those that viewed his report as gospel, might well have double checked before rushing to judgment. For example, they might have compared Moran’s account – which by the way is unattributed/unsourced – with the original report written by the ABC … [Here]

Comments are closed.