I think Davids article is a balanced view of a real problem that would best be solved by biofortification of the food.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has supported it and is bringing on vitamin A biofortification in sorghum , millet and banana. The GM Banana is being developed by Queenland University of Technology together with researchers in Uganda.

Omega 3 can be bought as a supplement today in the form of omega 3 bread etcb but the omega 3 oil comes from fish and fish stocks as we know are in the decline. Half of the fisherman in this country are getting out of the business because it is not sustainable.

The two examples given in Davids article are relevant and represents two projects with products that are beneficial to the human health. In both cases they are being developed with assistance from public sector scientists in Australia.

I share Davids belief that the real test of GM will be when these two products hit the market.

We are then standing in front of a ethical dilemma will the huge benefit outweigh the very small risk that these products pose?

I think that any right minded person will give these two GM projects a fair go.

Dear Julie Newman:

You still haven’t answered my questions. The issue is not that the Network of Concerned Farmers had meetings (at least over the phone) with Greenpeace or that Greenpeace set up your website. The issue is that you denied on that same website and to The Weekly Times that you or the Network were involved with Greenpeace until after Nic Kentish told us. (Why has Nic been so quiet since?)

What were YOU so afraid of that you didn’t tell us to start with? What, your website suddenly appeared without your knowing (or asking) anything about how it was created? Weren’t you a little curious? You told The Weekly Times one week that Greenpeace had nothing to do with your network. The Times continued “But on Monday, Ms. Newman said she had found out that Greenpeace had built the Network’s website”.

Even if your story about the virgin birth of your website is to be believed, how do you explain your claims of no links to Greenpeace when at least some of your members were in on their teleconferences? Were you also involved in Greenpeace teleconferences prior to April 1 2004? Are you still?

It’s been speculated that you, are planning to run for political office, perhaps the WA parliament. Will you deny here that you have any plans to run? Will you state here that you will never run?

Opinionated2 points out that politicians ignore tough questions because then they can't be held accountable for the answers. The other trick politicians use is “plausible deniability”. John Howard used the layer of his retiring Defense Minister to “plausibly deny” that he knew that the children were not thrown overboard but that their ship sank. You are trying plausible deniability here, but it isn’t working. Either you failed to exercise even minimal due diligence in your dealings, or you have misled us, either of which should give your supporters pause.

Don’t give us the political bulldust. Answer the questions, Julie. In late March and in April 2004, what did you know and when and how did you know it?

NonGMFarmer, you really need to learn to use official statistics – the most reliable source. With respect to canola carryover stocks in Canada, I quoted the forecast for 2004/2005 because the final data for this year is not yet available. If we look at 2003/2004, the last firm data available from the Canadian Government, carryover stocks were 7.7% of supply. This is lower than they have been at any time since 1997/1998 and the second lowest on record. Sorry Canadian farmers can and do sell their canola.

Yields. In Canada, InVigor canola varieties win yield competitions every year. If it were not for the fact that Roundup Ready hybrids are catching up in yield performance, there would be a lot more InVigor grown.

NonGMFarmer, I am intrigued by your funding from Greenpeace. In an early version of the current article on your website (I think I have a copy somewhere and could e-mail it to GMOPundit), you say that you only just discovered in 2004 that your farmer friend had given you money via Greenpeace. Before that all you knew you had was a website created by Greenpeace. How is this not support from Greenpeace? Now you tell a different story. Which are we to believe? Why does the story change all the time? Are you, or were you, trying to conceal something?

Mahogany. Percy Schmeiser did apply Roudup to his fields. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the court judgment make clear Schmeiser sprayed a good three acres of his field and then instructed his hired hand to harvest that area and store the seed separately. This seed was subsequently used to plant 1000 acres in 1998. The court found that it did not matter how the material came on to his farm as Schmeiser gave two conflicting versions in court about this. Schmeiser was guilty because of what he did after he discovered he had Roundup Ready canola: deliberately saving seed he knew, or should have known, was Roundup Ready and planting 1000 acres with it.

"There are other methods of getting vitaminA... without GM. The vitamin A argument...stealth when the other methods could..."

I thank the other posters for giving me space to reply to very reasonable and important questions from Opinionated2. I have touched on the relevant issues briefly in my original essay but I am pleased to come back to them because much more could be said, and its the main theme on the essay.

I agree that other approaches to Golden rice should be fully encouraged. Indeed poverty and unproductive farming is the root of the problem. This will take time to remedy.
As for these root causes - including poverty, GM can help there to, but that's for another posting. Meanwhile I'm reading The End of Poverty by Jeff Sachs. Its uplifting and relevant.

Other technical high tech methods are to vitA are being tried. They involve giving vitamin pills made by Roche in Switzerland to malnourished people. This program is huge, and a good idea, even though it is not "natural" or sustainable, and helps a big company make money. (For myself the last is irrelevant, but some rich idealists don't like it.) Should we ban this because it not ideal nutrition? I don't think so. That would be morally repugnant.

In any case these programs are not fully effective.(Numbers in essay).They depend on ongoing funding from aid agencies.

Compared to that, Golden Rice is much more financially sustainable. It is not being done by stealth, and is not being rushed (years of trials). Its virtue is that it could reach some kids the other efforts miss, and once started is self funding- the seed is free, and can be passed from farmer to farmers, and multiplies. Pills don't do that.

Most importantly, Golden rice could help people being missed by the other strategies, and provide substantial improvement until the end of poverty arrives which will sadly be sometime yet.Its immoral to carelessly delay. Worst of all some powerful NGOs actively oppose many of the initiatives like Golden Rice that can accelerate the end of poverty.

I'm certainly not dodging any questions, I’m just not giving the untrue answers Rebel wants. Why can't you just accept the truth? I immediately told the Times the only Greenpeace link I found out , they (and you) played it out of all proportion.
Bayer Cropscience paid for a trip to Canberra for a meeting, why not say I am "involved" with Bayer Cropscience? Or considering I am having regular dialogue with you, that I am involved with you?
I’ve refused political offers.
In your pro-GM-reference re ABC I was misquoted (not unusual). ABC Transcripts:"Invigor has 20% less vigour than a conventional hybrid" ex OGTR, "Invigor yields less than non-GM hybrids" ex WADeptAg.
The OGTR stated that GM does not improve yield and Invigor has less vigour than non-GM hybrids. Experimental varieties are not being offered to farmers.
The data given to the WAparliament showed non-GM trial comparisons were sown twice as thick which drops yields as does incorrect swathing times (swather stated this request).
We need transparent independent trials in different conditions. Assessment of yield penalties for spraying/no spraying is important as is radish control (trials pre-OGTR-approval could not include radish). Trials should compare popular existing varieties, not the low-yielding-1993-superseded variety used.
If Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto were confident, they wouldn't be refusing independent trials. Prove me wrong, support trials.
Fish-farming (tanks) will increase due to commercial demand/supply. Why GM Omega3 into wheat when none of our market wants GM wheat and it ‘s too expensive/difficult to segregate?
Farmers are restricted from planting seeds or if they do, they must pay a user fee, it is not free.
Canadian farmers have markets closed to them and are now faced with a far lower price. If they did not have trouble selling their canola, they would not be accepting a lower price for it. You need updated statistics, try March 05.
Why not work to introduce GM so it will not impact negatively on others? Support a strict liability legislation. Trying to convince us to accept risk by bulldusting and bullying is not going to work.

Perhaps it would be interesting for readers of this thread to see what products Monsanto is planning to bring online in 2006 in the US.

This was reported on the agbioview web site on 30 November 2005:

In the fall of 2005, contract farmers harvested the first commercial crop - 100,000 acres of non-GM Vistive soybeans, bred by Monsanto to contain a reduced level of linolenic acid. This change makes the soybean oil more stable, so it doesn't need to be partially hydrogenated for longer shelf life. Partial hydrogenation creates unhealthy trans fats.

The oil will be in some consumer products by Jan. 1, when a new government regulation requires trans fat content to be included on
food labels, Monsanto said. "It will be out in crackers and cookies in a couple of months," said Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief technical
officer.

Coming close on the heels of Vistive are other consumer-benefit products:

* Soybeans bred with higher levels of beta-conglycinin, which will improve taste and texture in products such as soy milk, meat
alternatives and energy bars.

* Vegetables bred for a variety of consumer characteristics, such as
melons that last longer after cutting, or sweeter corn.

* Soybeans genetically modified to contain Omega-3 fatty acids, which improve heart health and may have other benefits such as reducing swelling in arthritis.

Later versions of Vistive soybeans, genetically modified for further
oil profile improvements - making the oil stable for baking uses; and adding oleic acid, a healthy monounsaturated fat that boosts good HDL cholesterol. CSIRO has got trials with GM high oleic oil cottonseed under way in Narrabri in NSW produced using the GM-lite technology.

Monsanto will begin marketing these food offerings at the same time it introduces a next generation of beneficial agronomic traits in soybean, corn, cotton and canola, Fraley said.

It's interesting times we got ahead of us with foods with proven health benefits hitting the markets in the next 12 -18 months. This will be the real test if a direct benefit to the consumer will overcome any lingering doubt about the technology.