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

Whenever I hear of Greenpeace I am reminded of an unknown politician called Konrad Henlein, who led the sudeten germans in Czechoslovakia in the nineteen thirties.

Konrad let the cat out of the bag by saying:

"We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

So what has changed?

How many unsubstantiated assumptions can GM supporters make?

1. According to the W.H.O. there's already sufficient food in the world to feed everyone. It isn't a matter of agriculture but politics that keeps people hungry. If there's drought - a cause of much current starvation - it doesn't matter how much you fiddle the genes.

2. No-one can claim with any certainty there are no ill effects from propagating GM crops. Surely one of the the biggest impediments to making a profit from it.

3. Vitamin-A boosted rice is all very nice but you'd need to eat several kg of the stuff to make a difference. (didn't they mention this in the brochure?)

4. Opposition to GM is always from idealogical luddites. GM proponents have only the well-being of others in mind.

If we're going to supplant evolution/nature/god/environmental balance we ought to try it out on something that won't affect other parts of the environment. Grow GM if you want but not where it contaminates non-GM. All of North America, for example. Tasmania reckons there's more benefit in remaining GM-free since that's what people want.

I think people who want to grow GM crops and eat GM foods should be free to do so, if this does not take away the right of others to grow non GM crops and eat non GM foods.

There is evidence to show that it is not possible for GM canola growers to avoid impacting on their neighbouring famers. In some cases farmers have been prosecuted by Monsanto for growing GM crops when they have made every effort to grow non GM crops.

It may not be a good idea to hand over the entire world seed market to half a dozen corporations, and to deny the rights of farmers to harvest and use their own seed.

RE Bennies comments

RE: 1. According to the W.H.O. there's already sufficient food in the world to feed everyone. It isn't a matter of agriculture but politics that keeps people hungry. If there's drought - a cause of much current starvation - it doesn't matter how much you fiddle the genes.

REsponse: China, with population growth, and greater wealth, over the next decades will need much more food but doesnt have any spare farmland. Isnt it good that they try and improve output to meet growing demand and reduce pesticide use using GM and other methods? This takes time. Similar comments apply to other food resource poor countries.
Less efficient farmers who compete with efficient or subsidised countries on world makets can also keep in business by using GM to reduce their costs. Local costs are usually set by world prices. This is pretty tough for poor farmers unless they use the best methods.

BTW did you notice if food supply had stayed at 1960 efficiency levels we wouldnt have enough food now? We have enough because of improvements since 1960 in crop breeding.

RE 3. Vitamin-A boosted rice is all very nice but you'd need to eat several kg of the stuff to make a difference. (didn't they mention this in the brochure?)
RESPONSE: I read the scientific papers found through NCBI website not brochures, These give all the details. Latest results from the scientists involved say 60g of vit A rice is enought to do the job. The Kg figure is Greenpeace misinformation.

Jennifer Marohasy is in a paid position with a company paid by companies such as Monsanto to specifically target groups protesting against products companies such as Monsanto develop.
The general public however want a choice to avoid GM foods as they have concerns about GM foods and as there is no benefit and many identified risks.
Farmers also have rights and farmers want to continue to provide products that consumers prefer. If GM crops are introduced, farmers will lose the ability to market as GM-free or non-GM as contamination will occur and therefore market loss will occur.
Independent trials have proven the claimed "benefits" are little more than a scam. Farmers pay more and get less weed control and no additional yields when compared to non-GM varieties.
We don't mind farmers giving this product a try but we certainly do mind if those farmers that know better are expected to accept the economic loss caused by vandalism of our product.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/outside-view-on-australian-gm-wine_30.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/gmo-wine-in-america.html

Dont forget genetically engineered Kenth beer and wine together create a hangover for brewers and drinkers
GMO Pundit
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

For the record, I am not paid to specificially target groups who target products developed by Monsanto. I am paid to research and write on environmental issues of national significance always taking an evidence-based approach.

Jennifer, the institute of public affairs is funded by the companies you are defending. Your targets are those that oppose the products your company defends. For more information see

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I

Quotes: With Monsanto amongst its funders, the IPA has a specific focus on 'biotechnology', saying it wants to 'combat the misinformation put out by radical groups' who oppose genetic engineering. It claims this technology is actually 'safer', 'cheaper' and 'more environmentally friendly' than conventional plant or animal breeding. ...
In 2001 IPA launched what it claimed was 'an international first' when it 'started publishing a monthly corporate newsletter, by subscription only, dedicated to watching activist NGOs' [Non-Governmental Organisations]. These were, it warned, 'targeting business' and other 'organisations as never before'. This new corporate newsletter was NGO Watch Digest

With regard to its own funding, the IPA claims it maintains its independence because, 'Our annual budget - of about $1 million - is obtained from more than 2,000 individuals, corporations and foundations'. However, according to Sharon Bedder , 'Almost one third of IPA's $1.5 million annual budget comes from mining and manufacturing companies.' Interestingly, IPA's attack on Aboriginal treaty and land rights has included a call for 'no bias against miners' (Gary Johns, The Australian, 20 June 2003). The aggressive character of IPA's attacks on Aboriginal self-determination eventually lead mining company RioTinto to withdraw its support. (Disinfopedia )