As of yesterday arvo Big Mal Turnbull last posted a two year-old video on YouTube 4 days ago, hasn't uttered a tweet on Twitter since the 18th June, not really updated news on his personal website since the day before that, hasn't uploaded to Flickr since the 15th June, last posted a note on Facebook on the 25th May and last logged in to MySpace on 14th of May 2009. 
Two former Clarence Valley residents, Peter Bartley (left) and Richard Mutton (right), have been players in Dubbo City Council's emailgate.The conduct review committee was called in by Mayor Greg Matthews to investigate an email leaked to the Daily Liberal in January.
Cr Matthews was the author of the email about medical consulting rooms in North Street, Dubbo, at the height of the drama at the departure of doctors George Albert and Baghat Gerges from Dubbo.
Dubbo City Council and the conduct review committee asked the Daily Liberal to divulge its source, but it refused to do so.
The result of the conduct review committee went before councillors in a meeting that was originally intended to be a closed meeting, but went to a public hearing.
Cr Mutton moved that Cr Bartley had breached the code of conduct, should be counselled and should apologise to the council.
As has been pointed out before - markets do respond to consumer pressure.Statement of Australian, Canadian and US Farmer, Environmental and Consumer Organizations
June 1, 2009
Summary Statement:
In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we travel the road towards global food sovereignty.
Statement in Full:
In the interest of reiterating the decisive global rejection of genetically engineered (GE) wheat, culminating in Monsanto's 2004 withdrawal of requests to the Canadian and U.S. governments for commercialization of their GE wheat; and in the interest of laying to rest the attempts by Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations to introduce genetically engineered wheat, the undersigned organizations issue the following joint statement:
1. Wheat is an ancient grain that is vital for meeting the nutritional needs of many societies and has deep religious significance in many cultures. Wheat is one of three staple crop plants (the other two are rice and maize) that account for two-thirds of the diet of the world's population. Over centuries of cultivation, farmers have developed a tremendous diversity of wheat varieties, many of which are adapted to the soil and climate conditions of certain regions of the world. These locally-bred varieties are critical to ensuring local food supplies during times of weather-related disasters. In Australia, Canada, and the US, farmers and public scientists have worked collectively with this diversity to develop varieties adapted to local conditions and suited to relevant markets. Multinational seed companies have played an insignificant role in fundamental wheat seed development in these countries or anywhere else in the world.
2. The remarkable achievements in wheat breeding that farmers and scientists have managed over generations have not involved genetic engineering or patenting. While farmers and conventional breeders continue to lead the way in innovation with wheat, there are currently no genetically engineered traits in the pipeline for wheat that promise basic agronomic improvements. In reality, the only GE trait in wheat for which approval has been sought is for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. This trait is not designed to increase yields, but to simplify herbicide application. Not only does this technology contribute nothing to feeding the world, genetic engineering is a direct threat to global food security. Genetic engineering can and does lead to contamination of seed varieties, and poses a decisive threat to organic farming and the production of crop varieties bred specifically for local conditions. Moreover, the introduction of GE wheat would put the wheat seed supply in the hands of a small number of multinational corporations, as has happened with the introduction of GE soybeans, GE corn and GE canola. During the recent food crisis, these companies used their oligopolistic positions to dramatically increase the price of seeds and agrochemicals. Farmers planting wheat in the Australia, Canada and the US were less affected by these price increases because they were free to save seeds and had access to public varieties. Monsanto, the world's largest producer of GE seeds, increased its profits by 120% in 2008. It should also be noted that since the introduction of GE crops in 1996, the number of people going hungry in the world has ballooned from an estimated 800 million to over 1 billion.
3. Rather than the area of wheat production decreasing due to competition from GE crops, a March 2009 Statistics Canada survey of farmers in western Canada found that farmers plan to increase acreage of wheat, barley and peas, crops for which there are no GE varieties and where plant breeding is primarily in the public sector. The survey also revealed that farmers intend to cut back on acres planted to canola seed, which is mainly GE in Canada, in order to decrease production costs. Additionally, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that GE crop varieties increase yields.
4. Plant breeders and farmers have for too long narrowly focused on economies of scale and higher yields. This has resulted in higher input costs and lower net income for farmers. Higher yields have come at a high cost economically, as well as environmentally, because high yielding crops tend to require more fertilizers and chemical inputs. Improved crop quality is more likely than bigger yields to provide higher realized net incomes for farmers. Higher quality wheat can be achieved efficiently and accessibly through conventional plant breeding, and this is where support for research needs to be located.
5. Genetic engineering is a highly imprecise technology. GE crops are inadequately regulated by governments that rely on corporate data rather than public, peer reviewed science. Complex questions relating to the effects of GE crops on soil health, non-target insects, and human health remain understudied. Over 10 years of experience with GE crops has exposed a convincing record of high levels of irreversible contamination and corporate control over seeds as well as continued scientific uncertainty. Additionally, research from wheat organizations (Canadian Wheat Board and Australian Wheat Board) has indicated very strong market rejection of GE wheat. Commercial GE crops have so far been limited to crops used primarily for feed, oil and fibre and have thus not been subjected to national labelling requirements in many countries. GE wheat, however, would primarily be used for human consumption and food products derived from GE wheat would be labelled as GE in many countries across the world. Additionally, if GE wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE. Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses.
6. Private seed companies are not investing in wheat research because of competition from strong public plant breeding programs and the desire and capacity of farmers to save wheat seeds from year to year. The main reason why seed companies want to introduce GE wheat is so that, by means of gene patents, they can stop farmers from saving seeds. The introduction of patents into wheat breeding will destroy the collective heritage of plant breeding for wheat and erode the strong public breeding programmes for wheat in the Canada, Australia and the US which have always generated impressive returns through minimal public investments and/or farmer contributions. Additionally, in February 2009, 26 top US corn scientists sent a statement to the US Environmental Protection Agency asserting that independent research is being thwarted by industry technology/stewardship agreements.
In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we travel the road towards global food sovereignty.
Signed By: National Farmers Union, Canada Canadian Biotechnology Action Network Union Paysanne, Canada Union Biologique Paysanne, Canada Réseau Québécois contre les OGM, Canada Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Canada Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia Organic Federation of Australia Biological Farmers of Australia Gene Ethics, Australia Greenpeace National Family Farm Coalition, USA Western Organization of Resource Councils, USA Center for Food Safety, USA Organic Consumers Association, USA
Hot on the heels of The Daily Examiner office at Yamba being broken into and what sounds like an amount of petty cash stolen, that newspaper attempted to run a crime wave scare concerning people of aboriginal appearance and allegedly low police numbers [The Daily Examiner, 11 June 2009].
Something that Grafton Police Chief Inspector Darren Spooner flatly denied as he happens to live in Yamba [The Daily Examiner, 13 June 2009,p5].
By 12 June 2009 this inchoate media beatup had quickly morphed into a generalised attack on the indigenous community of Yamba.
Now 22 year-old Maree Jay of Grafton has taken the newspaper's boastfully unrepentant editor to task for his judgmental, one-eyed, hearsay-ridden view of the Yaegl community.
Once again, Peter Chapman has added an editor's comment which reflects his inability to recognise his own journalistic shortcomings.
Ngaru Village
THIS is a formal complaint written to the people involved in the production and publishing of the story 'Yamba's Mission' (DEX, June 13).
This article is an example of social segregation and disinclusion. These are two words identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner 2003 as contributors to a) the history of oppression of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait lslander people and b) the continuation of such abuse.
By publishing this story you are actively continuing that cycle. The 'Yamba community' is spoken to as if they are white, and the 'Aboriginal people'are not spoken to, they are spoken about.
It is 2009, I am 22 years old and the printing of this story made me feel sick in the bottom of my stomach.
I wonder how a story with the same stereotyping, ignorance, opportunism and the lack of factual research seen in stories published when my grandmother was 22 years old can be so destructively distributed throughout our community.
Did you ask anyone in the Aboriginal community anything about their life? No. You snuck in at 6.15 in the morning to rely on photos that give an out-of-context, sensationalised impression.
lf you were a Koori person, would you want to go into town with this story in the press?
Maree Jay,
GRAFTON.
EDITOR'S COMMENT; The response from Maree Jay reflects indignation that someone would dare criticise Yamba's Ngaru Village.
Like us, you know that our story is based on fact, not on rumours.
Key details of what is happening at the village have been known to this paper for many months.
Rather than attack us, the question I put back to you is: As a concerned 22-year-old what have you done in the past few years to assist Ngaru Village and to help improve the living standards of the children who call the village home?
It would have been easy for this paper to have ignored Ngaru Village. We knew we would generate howls of protests like yours.
I don't apologise for taking the stance we have, in fact l would have been embarrassed if we
hadn't.
As the editor has not yet made one constructive suggestion or concrete offer of help, it is the height of hypocrisy on his part to suggest that another should be doing so.
Peter Chapman may not be embarrassed, but I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few reputable journalists who would be embarrassed by his amateurish existence.
Click image to enlarge
Humpback Whale breeching off the Perth coast from PerthNow
On Monday 22 June 2009 the International Whaling Commission will commence holding a series of meetings in which those nations wanting to break the international moratorium on commercial whale hunting will seek to prevail.
As I write, the annual whale migration on the east coast of Australia continues and the migration up the West Australia coast has begun.
Phone, email or Twitter the Australian Prime Minister now and let him know that you do not want to go down any concession path which would result in more whales being killed each year by those nations which have sufficient access to protein for their citizens as it is.
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Whale breeching off the Kimberly coast
