Hi Jim,

It is my understanding that around 70% of the GM research dollars go into making plants more herbicide resistant - translation allowing companies like Monsanto sell greater quantities of herbicides to farmers. I don't eat cotton but canola is a different matter. I don't want the produce I am consuming to have greater amounts of poison dumped upon it. What would you think about GM labelling that gave an herbicide rating, a positive rating for less herbicide required and a negative one for more? Then the market could make an informed choice about the benefits of different GM modifications rather than just being told it will increase the competitiveness of our farmers.

Cameron

There shouldn't even be a debate about this issue GM's go for it. This issue is symptomatic of the general politicization of science and applied science that we see special interest groups scare mongering us with Frankenstein stories that have little basis in fact.

Jim: Are you on the payroll of monsanto by any chance? PLEASE! go to <sis.org.uk> and read about what is really happening. Also read just how safe this "frankenstein" food actually is. We had people like you, perhaps paid by large companies - who knows - who said that 'thalidomide' was fine. Big money paid for these "impartial?" views it seems, is it the same now? numbat

I find it really surprising that the AAS would support this argument and especially in the manner which Jim has chosen. Jim's argument that's GM is safe just because 5% of the rest of the world is already growing GM is complete bunk and has no basis in science. It's akin to advocating the bulk usage of untested drugs in order to save humanity even though we have no longitudinal studies of their effects. Just because everyone else in the world is jumping off the cliff doesn't make it safe for the rest of us.

This argument that keeps being dragged up about how Australia will be left behind competitively if we don't get on the GM band wagon is complete rubbish. There is more evidence to support the market advantage from providing non-GM crops and an agricultural sector free of imported diseases than there is for competing on the world stage with an inferior GM product. The only groups pushing hard for GM-crops are the agri-giants who can see a huge cash flow from tying needy populations into crops that defend out all the other crops and make them permanantly tied to the seeds, herbicides and pesticides produced by the likes of Monsanto. I'm sorry, but don't peddle this message under the guise of a social mission when it's really just about a small group of people making a lot of money.

This article is a trojan horse.

An interesting concept but Mr Peacock fails to mention that there are no benefits in GM canola that can not be achieved cheaper using non-GM chemical resistant canola. Independent testing from WA Department of Agriculture shows Bayer Cropsciences Invigor canola yields the same as non-GM. The best yields on Monsanto's website (before it was removed) showed yields of 1.055tonne/ha which is 17% below the national average yield. There are good reasons why these companies are refusing to participate in more independent trials.
There is also good reason why scientists like Mr Peacock are supporting GM crops... it is to attract corporate investment in to plant breeding because governments are trying to get plant breeding funding to be based on a cost recovery basis. When Bayer Cropscience's GM Invigor canola was given the all clear from the Federal Government (no assessment of economic risk) CSIRO announced a lucrative investment deal by Bayer Cropscience. CSIRO have refused to answer if another lucrative investment deal will be struck when states lift their GM moratoriums (based on economic risk).
The states have banned GM canola because of the economic risk to farmers that do not want to grow GM crops.
If those pushing GM crops want to resolve the issue, they should be pushing for a strict liability regime which will ensure the GM companies pay non-GM farmers for any economic loss experienced.

The author of this article, Jim Peacock, is on the boards of three biotech companies and on the payroll of one as an 'advisor'. He is also an advisor to the Howard government. This strikes me as PR dressed up as journalism.

weathergirl: Thankyou for blowing Jim's cover, I would like to ask Jim if he was paid for his article at all? numbat