So far GM has been little more than a devise by which companies like Monsanto hope to gain a patented monopoly over what are currently public domain food crops. The hope is that by inserting some genes into that public domain food plant they can patent that 'plant'.

Cannola is a good example of how little value to the public there is in this intention'.Cannola is a member of the Cabbage/mustard tribe (Brassicaceae), this tribe cross hybridizes very easly. There are lots of weeds in the family , some are quite poisonous .

The coding for making the toxin produced by Bacillus thuringiensis and for resistance to Glyphosate'roundup/zero' herbicides have been inserted into the genome of Cannola.

The genes for Resistance to glysophospate and resistance to the caterpillar that loves to eat brassicaeae will quickly spread to weed species .

The caterpillars will develop resistance to Dipell ( brand name of a spray composed of Bacillus thuringiensis spores)of much more quickly and the usefulness of the safest herbicide yet developed will be seriously reduced.
All of this is simply so Monsanto can have a monopoly over the supply of canola seed .

Geoff,

While Monsanto may be in financial strife, I don't think its accurate to blame it on GMO technology. I'm sure you understand that any organism can easily be genetically modified, and your claims that they are 'static' are untrue, as if given free reign, they will evolve too. This very fact is one of the main concerns of environmentalists.

While you condemn the entire technology after such a short period of time, perhaps you should compare your views to those criticizing organ transplantation ain the early development of that technology. The two technologies have alot in common, technically as well as ethically. Organ transplantation had its own failings, and its critics, which were ultimately proven wrong.

Although I don't agree with all the article, I agree with the main thrust that if activists admited that they are wrong every now and then, when they are wrong, it would help their overall credibility..

GM foods is a good case in point, because the evidence against GM foods is and always was virtually non-existent, and now its been in use for a decade with no-one being able to point to any ill effects..

Even now most activists do not realise that GM technology is not much more than an extention of good old fashion selection of traits through breeding..

.. and then activists ask to be taken seriously on other matters..

Nice piece Max.

And Monsanto's GM cotton, grown in Australia now for over 10 years, has resulted in a more than 90 percent reduction in pesticide use, plus a reduction in water use with the shorter season.

And of course most of France's baseload electricity is from nuclear. With much/some of the uranium from Australia?

And for those interested Jennifer Marohasy from the Australian Environment Foundation with be debating John Williams from the Wentworth Group in Sydney next Monday at the Centre for Independent Studies, see AEF website for more details.

Excerpt from Genome by Matt Ridley:
"In the same way, geneetic engineering is as safe and as dangerous as the genes that are engineered. Some are safe, some are dangerous. Some are green, some are bad for the environment. Roundup-resisant rape may be eco-unfriendly to the extent that it encourages herbicide use or spreads its resistance to weeds. Insect-resistant potatoes are eco-friendly to the extent that they require fewer insecticide applications, less diesel for the tractors applying the insecticides, less road use by the trucks delivering the insecticides and so on. The opposition to genetically modified crops, motivate more by hatred of new technology than love of the environment, largely chooses to ignore the fact that tens of thousands of safety trials have been done with no nasty surprises; that gene swapping between different species, especially microbes, is now known to be far more common than was once believed, so there is nothing 'unnatural' about the principle; that before genetic modification, plant breeding consisted of deliberate and random irradiation of seeds with gamma rays to induce mutations; that the main effect of genetic modification will be to reduce dependence on chemical sprays by improving resistance to diseases and pests; and that fast increases in yields are good for the environment, because they take the pressure off the cultivation of wild land."

And yes, France generates most of its power from nuclear fission - cleanly, safely and economically. I believe they generate so much power that they are a net exporter of electricity to other European nations. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't have a thriving nuclear industry in this country, save for the whingeing of NIMBYs.

RIZ.

Yes good call. Australia would benefit greatly by following Frances lead, and No-doubt is the smartest way to fuel our energies needs for the coming future.

Just look at these figures.

Some 435 nuclear power plants operating around the world generate about 345,000 MWe of electricity in 32 countries, about one-sixth the world’s electricity supply. Some countries depend vitally on the electricity generated by nuclear energy. France generates 76% of its electricity from nuclear power plants; Belgium–56%, South Korea–36%, Switzerland–40%, Sweden–47%, Finland–30%, Japan–33%, and the United Kingdom–25%. Bulgaria generates 46% of its electricity from nuclear power, Hungary–42%, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia combined–20%. Although the United States is not a leader in percentage, it has the largest total electric output from nuclear power: 98,000 MWe from 105 plants, generating around 20% of US electric power.

The only problem I have with this is,is the threat for 3 world or worse getting their hands on weapons grade material. Waste is another huge problem. ( dirty bombs ETC )

We need to bring terrorist active to a full stop.

That way, we can all live in peace without the threat of these fools doing the un-thinkable.

BLUE