I don't have a problem with genetically altered crops but the way some seed companies restrict the earnings of farmers by forcing them to buy new seeds for each new crop. One method is to implant seeds with "terminator" genes that destroy the seed after one crop.The farmers,even in the poorest countries,have to buy new seeds instead of using the seeds from the previous crop. I don't mind a company profitting from innovation but why should they have the right to profit from a single invention for eternity ? A limited patent would stimulate competition like our pharmacueticals in the free trade agreement we have with the U S A.

The argument of the article lacks logic within normal human understanding. For those who believe in God and the 7-day theory, then GM proponents say God made a mistake. ( Quite true, in one sense, (s)he did make a mistake creating such a stupid creature. And if it is Darwins evolution, or other sceitific theories, then GM is a dengerous interference, too vague and too far-fetched to spend our money and risk ourselves on.

Sorry, this is still an unacceptable way to push your profits.

I believe NonGMFarmer.... the general public and therefore the market is also on his/her side. We are a market driven economy and the market has and is speaking loudly.

People don't want GM food ... It may be sad for the pro GM lobby but it is true - people have stated it loudly. Now in a democracy that should be that but of course it won't be.

Science just doesn't seem to be science anymore. What happened to the precautionary principle and it's appropriate application in science? The market (the people or the consumers) are applying the precautionary principle on behalf of scientists loudly and clearly on GM produce. We don't want people (scientists) fiddling with our foods.

Here is a novel idea ... If we are so concerned about the children why not feed them untampered foodstuffs like many Aussie farmers grow. Why not diversify their diets? Should we test GM foods on the children anyway?

OR if the children are the main issue if/when GM foods are proven safe after long, full, totally independent scientific analysis why not take the patents off the GM foods. Then if a farmer chooses to let some of his crop become seed for next year he isn't obliged to pay some international chemical company royalties. The ownership rights stay with the farmer.

Do we really want multi nationals owning the rights to all the seed our farmers use?

NonGMFarmer: “It appears that ...a rather serious problem occurring with GM foods.”
GMO Pundit: In my view, this statement is untrue. Gossip by people with an axe to grind is not scientific proof.

Aspro: "some seed companies.. One method is to implant seeds with "terminator" genes that destroy the seed after one crop...why should they have the right to profit from a single invention for eternity? “
GMO Pundit: The so-called "terminator" crop has never entered the marketplace. Patents on GM traits last a limited time. Farmers in Africa and India already by seeds from seed companies, and don’t have to buy GM seeds in the first place unless they see advantages.

Sridhar: “And if it is Darwins evolution, or other sceitific theories, then GM is a dengerous interference, too vague and too far-fetched to spend our money and risk ourselves on.”
GMO Pundit: Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory has no statement in it about natural organisms obeying any Precautionary Principle, and many species, including plants, kill or poison others as part of their nature. On the other hand, vitamin A, drought resistance, minimised birth defects and cancer from fungal toxins, and reduced spraying of pesticides are not vague benefits. For details see gmopundit.blogspot.com.

Opinionated2: “What happened to the precautionary principle.”
GMO Pundit: Blocking investment in rural research has unintended bad outcomes too, and it takes a while before we realize how damaging such a penalty is. In my view, one should be precautionary about BOTH breeding of new crops AND with blocking the use of tools that are valuable for better farming, better nutrition, rural prosperity, and a cleaner environment. The precautionary approach would say – let’s NOT cause harm by blocking vitamin A enriched rice, by blocking new crops that resist drought, and by penalizing Aussie farmer’s future earnings with cost penalties our trade competitors don’t bear. It especially says, we should worry about the impact of trade bans on food security of developing countries

GMO Pundit gmopundit.blogspot.com

NonGM farmer is right Omega 3 can be bought off the shelf and also can be found in bread and other covenient foods.

However, she doen't seem to be aware that the omega 3 oil comes from what the Tuna canneries reject. The omega 3 in sausage, bread and other foods you buy in supermarkets comes from fish. The source of omega 3 is often contaminated with heavy metals and other chemicals that find their way into fish. And our fish stocks are running out.

To produce omega 3 in plants is a great GM invention that is good for the environment and good for us and one that is already here. We can expect to see Canola or cotton producing omega 3 within 3-5 years in Australia. That is if the moratorium on genetically modified canola is lifted and there is a clear path way forward for the ag biotech industry.I agree with David that the precautionary prinicple should be applicable in reverse. Omega 3 oil can't continue to be unsustainably harvested from fish . We need an alternative technology for omega 3 production.

GM can provide it.

GMO Pundit "Blocking investment in rural research has unintended bad outcomes too, and it takes a while before we realize how damaging such a penalty is"

I agree - just one such bad outcome is that myself and others like me have become so disillusioned with agricultural research in this country that we have changed careers or gone overseas. After completing many years of postgraduate study and research we find that only poorly paid casual six to twelve month contracts are available and project funding is continually being withdrawn or moved elsewhere.

This is a tremendous loss for Australia and we will become more reliant on crops that are more appropriate to other countries. There is a great opportunity with GM technology to produce varieties that are suited to local conditions eg. drought tolerance. However private companies are reluctant to invest when there is so much uncertainty and will continue to concentrate research on major markets.