I am not sure that I really agree with some of the premises put forward in this article. GM technology is not something that is being specifically imported from the Americas.

In the first place a couple of the major crops (maize and soybeans) are not ones that are grown widely in Australia. The fact that the area of GM crops in Australia is a small fraction of that in the world reflects this. Until useful traits are developed in other crops, farmers in Australia will not be interested in adopting the technology.

GM cotton was rapidly and completely adopted in Australia, because it provided traits that were useful to the growers. GM canola has been more slowly adopted because the trait is not as useful to growers. The major issue being the lack of residual effect of the herbicide and the need to apply it so early in the growing season.

The author is correct that State Government moritoria and the cost of regulation are sniffling innovation and the availability of traits. Certainly after the best part of 20 years of successful commercial production of GM crops it would be prudent to take a look at how regulation of low risk events is managed.

It appears Asher has gone ahead and poked the hornets nest the moment GM is mentioned. Sadly few of the antis really understand the science, are scared of the unknown and don’t really see the opportunity.

I agree strongly with Asher. Australia has enormous potential agriculturally which we are missing being stuck in yesteryear. Transformational change is always challenging. IF you can’t use the latest science in plant breeding why would you hang around?
There is always going to be risk in plant breeding. The advantage of GM is the plant remains the same with a genome added to it.
Conventional breeding can have an array of unknowns come into play. There was a sub-clover in WA in the 60s which resulted in ewe’s giving birth to their uteruses due to spikes in oestrogen from the plant. Trials didn’t pick this because a tipping had to be reached in the body – do we stop conventional plant breeding as well because of this? That would be stupid.

Cotton farmers in Qld have taken to BT Cotton because of the economic and environmental benefits. Pesticide rates reduced from 42kg of active ingredient to 0.4. That is why they advocate for BT Cotton, it reduces their environmental footprint on the land.

Imagine being able to stop the impact of frost – a Victorian genome could do that.

Those who blame the big companies for dominating – that is because the pipeline to market has been made so large start-ups can’t survive.

The regulatory system is robust with vigorous longitudinal testing to help reduce the risk. We want more food – perhaps the question instead of being anti-GM or tech options is how to we stabilise population growth than we can enjoy the luxuries of lower agricultural production. Until then, what are the best option to produce food whilst reducing the impact on the land

Dear J P C,

<<Sadly few of the antis really understand the science>>

What's there to know? They take a gene out of one species and place it in another - isn't that what they do?

Which for me, as a vegetarian, could mean nearly a death-sentence:

If they take an animal-gene and place it in a carrot, and those carrots can contaminate other carrots, then it means that I could no longer eat carrots. And I could no longer buy anything that goes in the mouth - food, drink, toothpaste or medicine, which could have carrot ingredients in it, or eat at another home, or function, or restaurant, or institution where they cook carrots because I wouldn't know where they sourced them from.

Thus you starve me to death!

Oh, you want me to understand, big scientist...

Would you even have the courtesy to synthesise the very first gene which you place in the first carrot, so at least it comes from minerals rather than from animals? Well, you haven't even thought about it, right? because all you think is about how you can make money, never about the suffering you create.

Just proves Vegetarians are odd, if its not from an animal, it is not animal. Life shares between fauna and flora there are chemical cross-overs, it is not an Iron Curtain.

Yuyutsu wrote:

"If they take an animal-gene and place it in a carrot, and those carrots can contaminate other carrots, then it means that I could no longer eat carrots. And I could no longer buy anything that goes in the mouth - food, drink, toothpaste or medicine, which could have carrot ingredients in it, or eat at another home, or function, or restaurant, or institution where they cook carrots because I wouldn't know where they sourced them from."

Sadly you have already been a cannibal. Humans share 57% of their genes with the cabbage and 75% with pumpkins. http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Primer.html

Lillian says the article is evidence-free. There is plenty of evidence to show that GMOs are not harmful - have a look at the following, and make sure you download the PDF:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/