Great article Jennifer! The unsustainable ‘zero tolerance’ policy to GM canola in place in the canola growing States were instigated to a large extent by Greenpeace and executed by State Governments that didn't listen to the considered and clear recommendations of their own inquiries into the (lack of) economic impacts on the Australian grains export industry by a stepwise introduction of GM canola.

Due to these ill considered bans of GM canola the State Governments and the Australian grains industry now find themselves caught up in the middle of paralell Crime Scene Investigations reliant on costly forensic DNA sampling and testing technology for tracking the origin of the offending but safe GM canola variety in question.

But where is the smoking gun, where are the dead bodies, who are the victims of crime and what are the economic losses suffered by our marketers of export grain?

In reality the marketers are very relaxed about the trace levels of allowed GM canola detected and they have good reasons to stay alert but not alarmed. The levels detected (1 GM seed or less per 10.000 conventional seed) are 500 fold lower than those allowed in Japan, 90 fold lower than those allowed in EU and 50 times lower than the purity criteria required to be certified as pure non-GM canola seed here in Australia by the Australian Seeds Federation. So it can in principle be sold to even the most GM sensitive markets in the world and sold here in Australia to any farmer that wants to plant some more canola this coming growing season.

I urge the State Governments to scrap their unrealistic ‘zero tolerance’ policies and to sit down with the grains marketers and farming organisations and discuss threshold levels that make scientific and economic sense and will allow Australian farmers to evaluate if these technologies live up to their expectations while ensuring coexistence with non-GM farmers.

Congratulations- keep up the good work! The way I see it is that GM technology is coming and Australian farmers need to embrace it ASAP. It seems to me that the GM lobby is something akin to King Canute who was assured by his staffers that with a few words he could stop the tide coming in!
Pasted below is an extract from a media stament from Dr. Van Ripley a Canadian canola breeder who was in Australia on a visit earlier this year. See the real situation re canola there.

"In 2004, GM canola captured 77 per cent of the market (almost four million hectares), while herbicide-tolerant canola accounted for 92 per cent of the market (4.7 million ha). About 7.7 million tonnes of GM canola was produced in Canada in 2004 and this figure is forecast to rise to 10 million tonnes by 2015.

The impact on production has been positive, Dr Ripley says. From a survey conducted in 2000 by the Canola Council of Canada, it was clear the introduction of GM canola had accelerated adoption of minimum or no-till farming systems.

Among GM canola growers, about 80 per cent reported improved weed control. The survey also revealed overall savings in fuel consumption and a 40 per cent reduction in herbicide costs (equivalent to 6000 tonnes of herbicide not being used in the year 2000). There was an overall benefit of about $AUS14/ha."

I look forward to GM technology assisting in other intractable problems in grain growing in Australia- such things as tolerance to crown rot of cereals, frost tolerance in cereals, plant disease problems in pulses - the list goes on. Let's not have Australian crop improvement researchers trying to help us with one hand tied behind their back.

So the measure of the success (and validity) of the GreenPeace anti-GM position is based on the response of a novice Wollies manager, and whether she is "interested" in the issue of GMO's. Most people I know aren't "interested" in pollution, water conservation, alternative energy sources, sustainability issues...but that does not make these unimportant questions for society to deal with. The GM food industry is really a wolf in (cloned)sheeps clothing. Forget environmental protection, feeding the world's poor etc. The large agri-businesses develop GM products as a means of commodifying food stuffs. What once belonged to nature, can now be altered technologically, and through the use of patents, intellectual property rights and licensing, the laws of supply and demand can really take over.

The same scientist that said smoking causes lung cancer, says that test done on experimental rats proved that GM was a death sentence as well.

The study showed drastic changes in the stomach, following by a hardening of the organ which eventually made other organs break down and the mouse die.

So you think by feeding it to the population in small doses it will allow for the necessary mutations through the life cycle.

Or do we face the unknown backlash if this new technology fails?

Compulsory food labelling is required urgently in Australia. One would think that the total ban of GM meant that our food resource outlets could not secretly sell it in imported products.

You can eat the doughnuts and wash it down with some imported soy milk as well. I could conclude that you have an investment of shares with the GM Companies.

You just don't get it. When one power has control over the growth of even our basic necessity, the seeds we grow. You are at the mercy of this one powerful distributor. No money, no seeds.

Suebedoo2 raises an interesting point.
The probable reason driving Greenpeace activity against GM is indeed their antipathy against commercial involvement in seed breeding. It certainly explains why their campaign is purely propaganda rather that reason.

What else would explain their opposition to vitamin A rich Golden rice based on misinformation, when millions in the third world suffer from vitamin A deficiency?
What else would explain why they wrongly try and cover up the fact that Golden Rice will be given free to poor farmers, and spread movie clips by email implying that companies would control poor rice farmer’s seeds through Golden Rice?

What else can explain them ignoring the fact that GM golden rice could help prevent 6000 deaths a day from infectious disease, and that it could reach in a sustainable way the people missed by other vitamin A programs? That is the seed could be passed on next season at no extra cost? Season after season.

And where is the evidence that only one company is involved in GM, as Suebedoo2 implies?
Why does the mere possibility of monopoly control justify a campaign to prevent the technology being used?
Wouldn't it be better to provide conditions that promote the involvement of more companies, and so ensure both the benefits of the technology and of competition are passed on the community?

Don't use reason d, we are talking about Greenpeace here. They do not care about feeding the starving and for that matter their opposition to GM is bad for the environment. What would be wrong with a GM crop being developed that used less water, less pesticide, less fertiliser and provided better yield.
But of course, because Jennifer defends GM she must have shares in the GM companies.

t.u.s