Funny you should mention Monsanto's cafeteria. It was reported in UK that the headquarters of Monsanto had a GM-free cafeteria.
Like I said Agronomist, your statistics need updating. Try March 2005 or any 2005 market report. Yes, Canada is selling canola but they have a large carryover stock. That would explain why they are quitting stocks cheaper because they would not be if they could sell it for the same price as Australian. And no, statistics show the tonnage is not suddenly up. Why are you avoiding this years statistics as it was this year that I was referring to. I am sure you know that but do you really believe yelling "liar" often enough will make people believe you? These tactics plus the "great for health and the environment" and "funded by Greenpeace" have been adopted and recommended to the pro-GM sector by a paid PR consultant that visited Australia to help you.
What I find more relevent is losing the US$32.68/tonne premium they always had. If it was only the GM grower that was to market as GM we wouldn't mind, but it is also expected of the non-GM grower. No thank you. You don't have to be too smart to want to retain a market advantage and GM-free is a market advantage.
Why should we allow someone to vandalise our product with something that consumers are rejecting?
Why not work on resolving the issue and stop dodging the question. We will not accept the economic risk, if you think there is no economic risk, why do you think the GM companies are refusing liability? Don't they believe their own pro-GM "no-risk" propaganda?

It’s interesting that someone so opposed to GM-free is consuming organically-grown coffee from Costa Rica. How do you know that the label “organically grown” has actually been organically grown and is not just labeled that, is there a test like GM? How do you know that some Monsanto employees are not eating organically-grown because they know the results of what GM is doing or maybe they don’t know the results? Monsanto is not doing the health testing that CSIRO did to detect the potential health problem for consumers but they have found problems with their corn which was ignored. I understand they do not even test the canola oil which is the part I am expected to eat.

Only a small percentage of Monsanto people would know the results of these very limited tests. Most staff, like the average consumer wouldn’t know. So are we in reality looking at about 20 people that are sworn to secrecy (even to other staff members) about tests that went wrong? So in reality how do you know that these 20 people are not choosing organically grown, just like you, except they would be looking at everything organically grown? So why do you choose organically grown coffee? Does it taste better?

I want a choice to eat everything organically grown and GM-free and know that it is. Maybe the FDA have gone so far into the rabbit hole of Monsanto that they do not want to panic the populace.

Consumers are quite capable of making up our own minds. They don't need either Greenpeace or Monsanto to tell us what to eat. We know what we want to eat and we want to keep OUR GM free choice.

No David I do not agree with this statement as strenuously as you do.

Now if you had worded it ... Do you agree that this indicates that careless untrue speculation from all sides of the GM food debate raises serious moral questions?

I may have said yes. But you always seem to slant your questions one way.

Read : http://www.pi.csiro.au/GMpeas/GMpeas.htm

Do you agree that the CSIRO was right to take the steps it had when side effects were found in mice?

Do you trust the CSIRO more than an American multinational? Do you accept that in third world countries there is less liklihood of good science taking place compared to trials conducted by the CSIRO?

Do you agree that bad science caused Thalidomide problems and Agent Orange problems? Can you attest to the fact that all science carried out by rich corporations is good science and safe science?

Do corporations in the food industry currently use false advertising to help sell their products ... low fat, light etc.? When money is involved is it more or less likely for business to not tell the full story on their products?

Non-GM farmer: If what you are really worried about is having profits reduced if GM grain is introduced then I don't really understand why you expect the average person to sympathise.

It's not the job of the government to subsidise or support by legislation obsolete technologies or occupations that no longer exist.

The discover of the automobile created millions of unemployed blacksmiths, but governments didn't ban the automobile so blacksmiths could keep their job. Likewise, whalers got little compensation for the discovery of petroleum and electricity killing the demand for whale oil.

If GM technology is held back for the sake of luddites you who are opposed to it on principle, then the government will simply be looking after special interest groups at great cost to the rest of the country.

Of course, this wouldn't be a first by any means - look at the Australia auto manufacturing industry - but it would be a sad regression to the protectionism of the early 20th century.

I don’t think that Non-GM farmer is talking about GM making obsolete normal grain. I think he/she is talking about the non-choice of consumers and the ability of the non-GM farmers to do what they want because they will be contaminated by the GM farmers and will not have a choice and have to pay the price. What Non-GM farmer is saying is that farmers have a great opportunity to give people what they want and that is non-GM. GM will not improve Australia’s exports. You obviously don’t know what a Luddite is if you think that Non-GM is trying to destroy the machinery age. Don’t you remotely think that any new technology should be checked out if it can cause harm? The car was redesigned for more improvements in safety before it was fully manufactured. You can however recall a car.

Now you may say that I am a Luddite but when it has any small chance of affecting my health, I want to know about it or don’t you believe in seat belts? The thing with GM is you cannot change it once it is in, so no safety precautions. I think the government should be holding back the GM because of the health possibilities. Can you honestly say that GM is 100% safe? If you can, have a look at the sites that previous people have pointed to like CSIRO tests. Then YOU put up your hand and be the lab rat for GM. I certainly don’t want to be. I think that I am worth protecting and I am not part of any special interest group or don’t you listen to the silent majority?

Are you someone that believes the GM hype and prepared to make your judgement without costings or performance trials just because the salesman said you were progressive? Do you buy all your products without knowing the price or how your product is expected to perform for you?
An aim to irreversibly contaminate the world food supply with a product known to have adverse affects is certainly of concern to the general public and a reason to discuss rules and risk management.
OK Yobbo, we will use the machinery assimilation to make it easier for you to understand.
Imagine how we would live today if the car was first introduced under self-management where the multinational company that introduced the car could manipulate government and industry decisions to introduce road rules where the pedestrian was at fault if a GM car hit them or a property owner would be deemed negligent for having insufficient protective buffer zones if a car smashed into their house. The public would be liable for any problem the car would cause rather than the manufacturer.
Naturally the car manufacturer would sell more cars as their cars damaged others and would have a front seat to invest in subsidiary companies to build the public protective measures necessary. They would design future GM cars to require more and more destructive features requiring more and more protective measures for their companies to prosper.
However, if the GM car manufacturer was liable for negligence for designing a product that is known-or-ought-to-be-known could not prevent damage if used carefully or if the the GM car driver were to be liable for damages they caused not due to faulty design, the GM car manufacturer would design safety features into their car (brakes, power steering) and the driver would drive carefully to prevent damage.
When the car was introduced, it was introduced with road rules and it is similar road rules that need to be introduced for GM crops.
It should be up to the GM industry to keep GM contained, it should not be up to the non-GM industry to keep GM out