Maracas on dioxins. It is indeed a pity if dioxin levels in Sydney Harbour are high enough to ban shrimp harvesting. As I understand it, there are several possible sources of dioxins including natural processes, municipal waste incineration and industrial processes, although PVC manufacture does not seen to be a culprit. The following websites will provide you with some useful information. http://www.eurochlor.org/index.asp?page=103, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/dioxinqa.html, http://c3.org/chlorine_issues/understanding_dioxin/dioxin_brochure/b-by-products-blue.html. As to who to blame, the biggest producers of dioxin emissions are municipal waste incinerators, perhaps you should take the problem to them?

Is it really safe? Are you trying to tell me that a conspiracy within Monsanto would see 20 employees in the know try and harm their 4980 co-workers? I love conspiracy theories because it is so much fun to see the ridiculous lengths some people will go to in order to keep their pet theory alive. But, I find this one a bit hard to swallow. You indeed have the choice to eat everything organically-grown and GE free and I wouldn’t want to take that away from you. Likewise, I am happy to consume food that is not organically grown, because it is cheaper and has fewer pathogens on it. I am not against organic food when it is the same price and quality, I just don’t get too hung up on the other issues. I would like to be able to keep that choice. By the way, I had Kenyan coffee this morning, not organically grown as far as I can tell, and sorry, but I can’t actually taste any difference.

Opinionated-Careless untrue speculation from all sides raises serious moral questions?
##Well yes I do.
You slant your questions?
##There little space and you come from one direction
CSIRO was right to take the steps RE mice?
##Absolutely. I posted the information on my website the day it issued. also http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-on-csiro-genetically-engineered.html

Trust CSIRO more than an American multinational? ##No. A mistake in this area is industry suicide. Also my own experience with corporations was that they had higher safety standards than the government bodies and Universities I had experienced. I have not worked in CSIRO.
3rd world-Less likelihood of good science taking place compared to trials conducted by the CSIRO?
##This is starting to get ethnically biased, which raises moral issues again.

bad science caused Thalidomide problems
##Not sure, probably a business decision, need details and Agent Orange problems?
##Even less sure, need to know about specifics.

Can you attest to the fact that all science carried out by rich corporations is good science and safe science?
##No, neither is conventional breeding or trying new untested foods like kiwifruit and nectarines such good precautionary science.

##But let me ask: Would penicillin be allowed today, and does expensive risk aversion penalise the poor?

Do corporations in the food industry currently use false advertising ? ##Marketing is marketing whether by Kellogg's or by Organic food producers using scare campaigns against competitors.

When money is involved is it more or less likely for business to not tell the full story on their products?

##Last time I checked, organic farmers still charged twice as much, so what does that mean?
Why are all corps tarred by one corporation in the past.
Why not all government bodies because Russia was bad, or all vegetarians because Hitler was bad?.
Why the denigration of all members of a group, rather like racism.
And how can we have a modern society without organisations like companies except in Utopia?
Money is involved in EU CAP/trade protection-driving the constant stream of paid anti-GM visitors to Australia; lets also mention NGOs who depend on scares for donations

Why not reveal who you are Agronomist? Going by your times you post your comments, I am presuming you are American. Are you the pro-GM PR consultant that visited Australia? I asked that because you are following the prescribed recommendation of constantly claiming I am misleading while misreading or misrepresenting what I am saying.
Putting both sets of statistics together we get a further picture of what is happening. Markets were sluggish buying the 2004/05 harvest. Price was held up by not selling until late 05 and finally selling cheap with an aim to clear ending stocks in preparation for this years harvest. (Apologies for not reading your full earlier post - harvest is a rushed time.)
This reluctance could be due to China joining EU in their compulsory labelling of oils. Japanese consumers are now lobbying to introduce GM labelling of oils which could see even worse market rejection.
ABB confirmed at an Adelaide conference that the first detected GM contaminated consignment out of Australia caused problems with markets confirming that if Australia went GM, they would prefer to buy Canadian canola as the oil consistency is better. While Australia is GM-free they prefer Australian.
What do you see as a solution?
We have consumers not wanting GM and farmers wanting to supply the consumers with an uncontaminated product.
We have the GM company wanting returns on their GM investments and scientists believing they will attract corporate investment to plant breeding if they adopt GM.
Why not make the GM company liable for the economic risk that they are saying is not a problem. The obvious solution is a strict liability regime where the GM industry only pays if they can't control their product and it causes economic damage.
We do not want to market as GM for obvious reasons and we should not be forced to without adequate protection. If non-GM farmers can’t market as non-GM, consumers lose their choice too.
If the GM-industry believe their own “no-risk” propaganda, why don’t they accept liability?
Will you answer or ignore this question?

Dave,

#Little space and you come from one direction ....No I don't I would love GM to be the solution to the world's problems... I am just very wary of Corporations and the science
used by them to justify things.

#This is starting to get ethnically biased, which raises moral issues again.... no it isn't I meant can you trust Multi National Corps in third world countries? Remember Bhopal?

I am in no way ethnically biased. The third world may be the backdoor for GM products to be released onto markets under the guise of "doing the right thing".

#Organic farmers still charged twice as much, so what does that mean? I'm against this... but if GM and the Chemical companies are so good ... Why an organic market anyway? The people don't trust chemical companies.

#Thalidomide ... All decisions to market a product are business decisions... but science said it was side effects free and long term effects were disastrous.

# Why are all corps tarred by one corporation in the past. You really believe that all the things I have listed in my posts are only one corp? Wrong!

# The why not all Govts argument... not worth debating.

# Nothing like racism... not worth debating.

# You can have corporations marketing the food supply without them owning it. Pass a law!

Agronomist, you are being deliberately misleading: Max Foster's (ABARE) reference to the graphs was "There is some evidence that the gap between Canadian and Australian canola prices has narrowed in recent years which is consistent with improved demand for non–GM canola (figure B)." He does however further explain that the markets are in a discovery phase determining what premiums markets are prepared to pay.
The bulk of the Canadian canola is sold to the United States which is not GM sensitive.
Only 12% of the worlds canola is GM and it is almost all grown in Canada because Canadian conditions favour GM chemical resistant crops because they have snow and rely more on post emergent control. We, however live in Australia.
ABARE's report also states: "Commercial release of GM crops may require changes to existing laws and regulations to ensure the costs and liabilities are borne by those who impose them and so facilitate efficient allocation of resources."

d/GMO Pundit:Farmers are not being offered "crops that resist drought" or crops that will avoid "penalizing Aussie farmer’s future earnings with cost penalties our trade competitors don’t bear." We are only being offered GM chemical resistant canola similar to non-GM. Considering weeds are developing resistance to glyphosate without us wanting them to, you would think it would be relatively easy to breed non-GM glyphosate resistant canola.
You are claiming Canada has a 20-30% cost advantage but still only refer to a very limited survey and claim that me ignoring it is a "lies statement". Using the costs available to Australian farmers and the trials grown in Australian conditions, could you please draw up a cashflow that would explain this. I come up with a very dismal negative. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=389

d/agronomist: Do you support independent performance trials? Who do you think should be liable for economic loss?

In true Yobboish style Yobbo just claims anyone against GM is "talking out of your arse", "a moron", "a Gaea-worshipping luddite who lives in the woods eating berries dressed in loincloths" and "liars, inveterate morons and hidden Greenpeace activists".

This discussion is truly enjoyable!

Julie NonGM Newman:

You really need to read something from sources other than anti-GM. Where do you get the idea that the rules you are proposing “are exactly what US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop”? Who represents this official US and Canada position? Canadian and US growers don’t see much advantage to Roundup Ready wheat, but ask Canadian growers about GM fusarium resistant wheat and you’d learn they want it. The next US crop IS being introduced; it is Roundup Ready alfalfa, without any new rules.

Just what rules are you proposing? No GM car or gene manufacturer could overturn basic tort law. There is a GM (General Motors) car. If accidents are due to manufacturer error, the manufacturer is liable, but not for driver error. Not only are you proving to be a poor biologist, you seem a poor lawyer. Just give us the case, not the weak analogies.

Not all US soy or corn growers market their crops as GM; why would Australians have to do so? You need to talk to some real US and Canadian farmers, or for that matter, Australian cotton growers, rather than the Percy Schmeisers (whose evidence forced 4 Canadian judges to conclude that he was deliberately growing GM, a contention Percy gave up contesting before the Canadian Supreme Court). Maybe you just need to talk more with a real agronomist, Bill Crabtree, who has seen Canada. Why can’t you learn from North American successes instead of saddling WA with more than $100 million per year in lost profits, as Crabtree has shown. You still have not answered how so many millions of farmers around the world are wrong but you are right.

You probably haven’t seen the latest: Paul Feng, Washington State University, and colleagues, showed that “Glyphosate inhibits rust diseases in glyphosate-resistant (GR) wheat and soybean.” See it in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I don’t know about Agronomist, but Julie’s posts are enough to give me insomnia; I’d be up in the middle of the night to reply!