There is certainly enough reason to want independent health studies. Pusztai's rats developed potentially precancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver and smaller brains, livers and testicles. Preliminary Russian studies on pregnant mice where most offspring died. CSIRO confirmed that unexpected proteins were produced and caused allergenic reactions.

The entire yield data for Australia shouldn't rely on a limited survey of what some Canadian farmers think when real statistics don't support the 10%-higher-yield or increased plantings (highest 1994-14million acres-CWB). Graphs: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/Statisticscanola.doc

Independent Australian yield data from the WAAgDepartment confirmed that Invigor performed the same as TT varieties and less than non-GM hybrids. The best yield on Monsanto's website was 17% below the national average.

Why don't GM companies want to do independent yield performance trials? The reason given publicly by our well lobbied WAFarmersFederation president was:
"Nor are they likely to conduct trials until such time as they can be confident of a new seed variety that will clearly demonstrate benefits over existing conventionally bred varieties. In effect, if all barriers were cleared today, it would be 2-3 years before trials were recommenced."
Obviously they do not have a good enough variety to outperform non-GM yet.

Clearfield is a non-GM chemical-resistant canola variety.

EU has started importing small amounts of canola oil for fuel, not for food.

Rebel, I didn't hide that a cheque went via Greenpeace, George didn't mention it when he originally gave me my website gift. I see nothing wrong with talking to Greenpeace, why are you so frightened? Paula's email confirmed she did state publicly that I was Greenpeace-funded when I am not.

EPR relies on signed contracts like delivery dockets. Brazil has set a 2% tolerance level = 100% royalty deduction. Blank cheque to Monsanto? Why no risk management?

Numerous market reports confirm the real (not forecast) carryover problem in Canada.

Why should non-GM farmers have our seed saving restricted?

Yobbo, you've missed the point, Non-GM farmers lose our options too as we are expected to sell as GM.

Pro-GM activists rely more on slander tactics rather than factual data.

Rebel
The selections you cite do not contradict my claim. The use of roundup was admitted in relation to weed control outside the paddock. This was the reason the court found that Schmeiser knew or should have know that the seeds he was collecting were GE. However, “The principal defence raised by the defendants is that they did not use the patent because they did not spray their 1998 canola crop with Roundup after it had commenced growing. Thus they say they did not make use of the invention as the inventor intended and so, did not use the patented gene or cell” (121)

The court disagreed with that argument.

No evidence was supplied to contradict Schmeiser’s claim that he hadn’t used roundup on the canola crop, but the court found that “ whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs' invention, using it, without permission.” (123)

Additionally, the court held the “the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997 crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement” (para 119). In acknowledging that he had been saving canola seeds since 1993 (you were correct on the amount of time he had been saving canola seeds), the court effectively acknowledged that the GE seeds had arrived on his property through contamination. But it didn’t matter.

In my view both these findings should be deeply disturbing to farmers who save seed and who grow crops in areas where GE crops are also being grown – even at relatively small scales. The higher protection in law quite clearly goes to the corporate patent holder, not to the farmer. When you factor in the fact that common law remedies are likely to be seriously ineffective and prejudicial to the non-GE farmer (see DAFF paper on liability, 2003) those concerns are simply magnified.

mahogany

GM Dave,

The vitamin A discussion was covered way back in the threads. There are other methods of getting vitamin A into the food supply without the use of GM foods. The vitamin A argument you are putting seems to justify the introduction of GM foods by stealth when the other methods could and should have been used way before this to counteract the vitamin a deficiencies in children.

It is shamefully tragic that a solvable problem hasn't been addressed in all these years because Governments and the Corporations haven't had the morality, guts or will to do it.

Now to use this as an example to take a risk on the underpriviledged of the world because we continue to let them down is in my view bad science. Don't use proven safe methods to cure the problem... here take this it is the quick fix and hang the consequences PLUS I can make a few bucks out of it and it gets my foot in the door for the future. C'mon Dave you must see this is a problem that can be solved without GM foods already.

In many of my posts people have ignored the shocking outcomes where science has failed to protect people using the the precautionary principle.

Read about Thalidamide and how the USA was protected by good science.

http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/MATHSCI/reynolds/thalidomide/history/history.html

Good science assists us by including things like the precautionary principle in it's thinking. It will protect us from risky science or science for the buck solutions.

Ethisists are only now trying to develop structures to counteract the marketing push by corporations. Science seems to be more interested in marketing the concept than limiting itself to it's core duty... hypothesising, testing and reporting results honestly and openly.

Scientists have to ask themselves - Am I a salesman or a scientist?

Farmers are not being told the truth. If farmers analyse GM canola what have we got?

BENEFIT:
Trait benefit? Chemical resistant canola: Bayer Cropscience Invigor varieties are hybrids resistant to Glufosinate Ammonium, Monsanto Roundup Ready varieties are resistant to Glyphosate.
Effectiveness? Australia's most critical weed control phase is pre-emergent and the "advantage" is only applicable to post-emergent control. Radish is our worst weed in canola, Glufosinate Ammonium does not control radish and Glyphosate is not very effective either.
Yield? GM canola doesn't yield more than non-GM.
Cost? Bayer Cropscience - costs are far higher than non-GM. Monsanto - costs still secret.

ALTERNATIVES:
We have non-GM chemical resistant canola, Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield and non-GM hybrids and soon non-GM chemical resistant hybrids.
Non-GM biotechnology will fastrack breeding desired traits.

RISKS:
It is too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM products.
Unfair costs and liabilities will be imposed on Non-GM farmers.
Consumers will be denied GM-free products.
Market loss and penalties.
RR will exacerbate resistance to glyphosate.
Increased use of herbicides for resistance management and volunteer control.
GM is not recallable.

RISK MANAGEMENT NEEDED:
Strict liability regime where the GM industry is legally responsible for containing their product.

The private sector is stearing the GM debate and it is clearly not in the best interests of the community. The reason for GM is explained by ISAAA:

"In 1995 the private sector viewed crop biotechnology, prior to the commercialization of the first GM crops in 1996, as an important new opportunity for markets that would contribute to lowering crop production costs, increasing productivity, provide a safer environment and a more sustainable system for ensuring global food, feed and fiber security. Later in the 1990's the private sector judged the life science concept to be an inappropriate strategy for the future. There followed a series of spin-offs and mergers culminating in consolidation that resulted in six transnational North American and European based crop protection/biotechnology entities."

Anybody thinking GM crops are for the benefit of farmers must be extremely gullible. We need to ignore the hype and get the rules right.

"Pusztai's rats "http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/furphies-are-flying-thick-and-fast-at.html

"Russian studies"
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2005/11/russian-super-myth-resprouts.html

Re Newman's misinterpretation of yield data
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2005/11/commentary-on-claims-of-20-loss-of.html
Key remarks:
JULIE:"Invigor hybrid canola displayed approximately 15% better vigour than a conventional open pollinated variety, but 20% less vigour than a conventional hybrid variety".

From this it appears Julie Newman can confidently assert that "actual trials of GM canola have produced yields of up to 20% less than non-GM varieties" (as cited on the ABC 20th September 2005). It seems somewhat of a stretch to turn data about vigour differences when you are not sure of the basis of measurement between varieties into actual yield trials.

Newman fails to quote the first part of the passage from the risk assessment. This part refers to actual yields:

"InVigor canola varieties have displayed yield increases of 10-20% over conventional open pollinated varieties in Australia and greater than 20% in Canada ". As well as ignoring that statement, Julie Newman further supports her stance on yields being less for InVigor canola by citing trial work from Western Australia where InVigor 40 had the same yield as a conventional TT variety (InVigor Hybrid, Canola, WA Crop Updates available from
http://agspsrv38.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/folder/ikmp/fcp/co/oilseeds_update_2004.pdf

Julie Newman is not telling is that InVigor 40 is a mid-late season variety, the trial quoted was sown late and therefore, the early-mid season varieties had a distinct advantage. Where growing seasons are short, later flowering varieties are often at a disadvantage because of the higher temperatures and lack of moisture in late spring and early summer. Even worse, Julie Newman fails to mention two experimental InVigor varieties grown in the same trial, both of which are early-mid maturity and both significantly out-yield InVigor 40 and all conventional varieties.

Likewise, a comparison of trials from eastern Australia shows InVigor 40 yields generally similar to those of Hyola 60 (a conventional hybrid) and far above those of a conventional and a TT variety. Yields of InVigor (109%) were below those of Hyola 60 (120%) in 2001, but greater in 2002 (122% compared with 112%). Further trial work in 2003 produced identical yield results for these two varieties
(http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s05/potter.htm).

It's been interesting reading the debate .
In the final analysis it comes down to consumer acceptance or rejection of GE food.
I am not swayed by the Pro GE argument, I've not changed my original view other than to confirm I will not purchase product that has been Genetically engineered.
I have learned not to trust the assertions of chemical manufacturers.
I recall Shell Company saying Dieldrin was perfectly safe to use on fruit trees for termite control. I'm a casualty of prescribed drugs Indocid and Celebrex.
I think I will join the Greens and Greenpeace.