http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/percy-schmeiser-and-seed-cleaners.html
Schmeisser GM case details:

"So, the "honest broker" Mr Freisen tested two batches of seed taken from the same original sample. The sample that came directly from the HFM treatment facility scored 95-98% Roundup resistant, and the sample that had passed through Mr Schmeiser's hands scored 63-65% Roundup resistant.

How can this be? The test is reasonably reliable and accurate. There is no way such a divergent result could occur without dishonesty. Obviously, Monsanto could not have adulterated the batch going directly from HFM to Mr Freisen."

..."Leaving aside that 63 to 65% Roundup Ready canola seed is too high a percentage for any of his "explanations" to be plausible, the fact that the independent sample was 95 to 98% Roundup Ready, just as Monsanto found in the subsample provided to it by HFM, means that Schemeiser must have tampered with the evidence"

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/allegations-of-corporate-legal-threats.html

Julie,
I'd like to return to the liability issue and raise some questions about the way GM liability has been represented to Australian farmers. Big liability fears were created by Percy Schmeisser during his Australian visit, a tour that you and the NCF were closely involved in.

Details of the Canadian cases are available (see links above). The big problem is that there are two Schmeissers, Percy the "victim" of accidental GM presence, as created by his theatrical appearances in Australia, and Percy of the court case. The facts in the court evidence show that Percy did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth while in Australia. Court statements existed PRIOR to his tour proving that Percy, by his own admission, deliberately selected pure GMseed.

Why wasn't this all told to Australian farmers during the tour by organisers wanting farmers to know the full, fair, and accurate story?

GMO Pundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

Portraying Schmeiser as a liar isn't actually correct. The court did say that Schmeiser knew or should have known that the seed he was collecting (remembering that he had been a seed saver his whole farming life) was GE. It also acknowledged that he never actually used the technology in that he didn't spray his crops with roundup. The court said, that didn't matter in deciding that he had used the patent. The court also indicated that there was no evidence presented by Monsanto contradicting the claim that the GE had arrived on Schmeisers property without intent or participation on the part of Schmeiser. In other words, the court accepted that Schmeiser had been contaminated. He was still found to be using the patent. The implications of that decision should frighten everyone - a biologically replicating organism that can move vast distance by wind, water, machine, or animal - maintains its patent no matter what.

What a scam.
mahogany

So Yobbo that is what I get for asking a few relevant questions... labelled, abused, told never to post again. Gee and I thought Australia was a democracy that loved free speech.

Yobbo you will have noticed that the GM lobby doesn't answer the questions I have asked because it hinders "the cause".

This is standard model for tough questions used by politicians - ignore the question because then you can't be held accountable for your answers. I'm not too sure whether science should be like that .. but hey perhaps scientists are evolving and becoming politicians.

I would absolutely love GM technology to be the answer to the worlds woes... but I'm afraid at present the science is still out. These things shouldn't be pushed through they should be debated openly.

Feel free to be used as a lab rat and eat as much GM food as you can find

I just read your comments yobbo - and despite your bluster and loud, abusive and aggressive comments, you're wrong. Take the issue of eating and buying GE foods. The vast majority isn't labeled. In Australia you will find fewer than 2 dozen GE labelled products on supermarket shelves. Products with GE soy, Ge corn, cotton seed oil, GE canola oil are all unlabelled.

It's interesting that when the first GE food came out - a GE tomato, it was advertised as genetically engineered, the next great thing in foods...That didn't last long. The tomato was a dismal commercial failure and no company in their right mind would (or does) advertise their foods as being genetically engineered.

As a note, I'm more than happy for you have your say - it's neither necessary nor convincing to do so in the abusive manner you've chosen.

mahogany

"Yobbo you will have noticed that the GM lobby doesn't answer the questions I have asked because it hinders "the cause"."

No, they don't answer your question because they don't care about your opinion. The same reason PETA doesn't answer my emails. You have no political power so why should they waste their time with you?

"So Yobbo that is what I get for asking a few relevant questions... labelled, abused, told never to post again. Gee and I thought Australia was a democracy that loved free speech."

We do. One of the great things about free speech is that it allows us to quickly work out who the morons are.

"The market has spoken" you said. Do you really think there is a "market" at work here when GM crops are banned in every state? If you do, you're a moron. If you don't, but said it anyway, then you are a liar. Take your pick.

"The tomato was a dismal commercial failure and no company in their right mind would (or does) advertise their foods as being genetically engineered."

You are probably right mahogany. Advertising foods with "genetically engineered" as the selling point is like advertising lollies as "Made with rendered cow hoooves". People don't necessarily like to be told directly where what they are eating comes from, but if you look at the pack of Milk Bottles, it quite clearly says that Gelatine is one of the ingredients.

People still buy them because they taste good, and that's the same reason they will buy GM foods. Do you really think there'd be much difference in taste between margarine made from GM or non-GM Canola?

No, the only difference will be that the GM version will be cheaper because it's cheaper to produce. If it isn't cheaper to produce then why would anyone bother switching to GM?

It is not cheaper to produce GM crops.

While "Yobbo" might think he should have the right to decide for all of us, I'm relieved that decisions of this magnitude involving risk to consumers and livelihoods are taken seriously by state politicians.

You don't have to be too smart to want to market a non-GM-product that consumers/markets prefer.

GM Canada versus non-GM Australia:

ABARE1990-2000 pre-GM: Canada maintained a consistent premium of US$32.68/tonne over Australian canola.

Our largest export customers:

China: 24.11.05 Graincorp Marketing Report-"Recent sales to China from Canada have been at a $US30 discount to current prices being bid in NSW." Canada is quitting stock cheap that they couldn't sell last year. (US$32.68 higher to US$30 lower is a huge fall)

Japan:2004 Japans Ag Dept- average 5% premium for Australia's canola over Canada's canola.

EU:WADeptAg04 report: A premium of 10% for our GM-free produce to EU.

Liability for d:

Pre approval - Farmers are already paying "industry" to do expensive testing.

Non-GM farmers are required to sign contracts guaranteeing there is no GM or under 0.9% GM but there is no field test to check before signing.

GM-sensitive buyers would either refuse contaminated consignments or pay less and it will cost farmers.

Despite numerous trial breaches, Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto have not been fined or punished and not required to pay for testing or recall.

After approval - all farmers are expected to market as GM and suffer the same market rejection losses. If not, farmers pay a fortune to try to keep GM out and are liable for recall and contamination cleanup costs if these attempts fail.

Rather than the GM company being responsible for getting their trespassing patented genes off our land, we are supposed to be liable for not eliminating it properly.

Monsanto has an end-point-royalty and can deduct their user fee from our income and we need to sue them to recover our money.

The GM industry shouldn't dictate the rules. Farmers shouldn't be compensating these multinationals by removing GM-free opposition.

We need a strict liability regime to ensure the polluter pays, not the polluted.