Just breifly as I am heading to Perth...
Some consumers will continue to avoid GM foods as rejection is also based on non-health reasons such as aversion to "unnatural" crosskingdom breeding or corporate mistrust. This rejection leads to a demand for uncontaminated produce.
Farmers not wishing to grow GM crops do not want to sell their produce as GM and do not want to spend a fortune to try to follow the identity preservation required to sell as "non-GM" (as happens in US/Canada)
We farmers, don't mind what our neighbours grow, but we do mind if it impacts negatively on our income or our farming practises.
If those wanting to grow GM want to help resolve the problems that have led to state based moratoriums, why not work out a way that it will not negatively impact on non-GM growers.
Just to tell us "she'll be right mate" and expect us to pay when it is not, is not acceptable.
We need to adopt rules where the responsibility is on the GM industry to contain their product, not on the non-GM industry to try to avoid GM contamination.

Interesting that the ABC raised the alarm over trans fat or hydrogenated oil yesterday.

www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1532155.htm

Trans fats are present in a lot of conveniece foods where it acts to give a crisp taste to the food. However it has also been shown to raise the bad cholesterol and lower the good cholesterol in humans.

It is estimated that 30,000 people die each year in the US alone due to consumption of trans fats and the diseases that it brings on.

This is why the US FDA has forced the food industry to label all foods with their trans fat content from 1 Jan 2006 and why Visitive Soy bean oil which contains lower linoleic acid is such an sucess.

Looking forward to 2006 as the year that GM products with a clear health benefit to consumers are marketed. This will undoubtedly make a difference.

The reason that I can see for the area sown to continue to increase is because of the contamination of neighbour's crops into non-GM forcing the non-GM farmer to become GM. Or am I missing something here? The OGTR I believe don’t consider what the general public wants. For example they are doing within Australia GM Sugar trials with antibiotic resistance. They do not want to seek public comment. FSANZ recalls foods on an on-going basis. Assessments are done on scientific evidence provided by the food/GM supplier. Even in their regulations: 2.4 The meaning of safe & suitable food. Food is not suitable if it (d) contains a biological or chemical agent or other matter or substance that is foreign to the nature of the food. And in the definitions: Hazards covers biological, chemical and physical conditions of food. i.e. specific foods when the specific agent causing the illness may not be identified. Food is not safe if it would be likely to cause physical harm to a person who might later consume it. 2 (2) The definition makes it clear that the presence of allegens that do not affect the general population does not make that food unsafe. What about the increasing amount of people that are getting allergies. What about them and even myself.
The way I see it, is these two bodies are not looking at a long term picture and GM cannot be recalled at a later date. I want to know outside of these bodies, Long term trials as previously stated, supervised by non-GM scientists so that we know that they are done correctly. When these tests have shown me that GM is safe, only then will I eat this potential hazard.

Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

On subsidies and the 8.5%, do you google these urls yourself or does someone give them to you? It doesn’t seem that you read them carefully. You have sent me chasing through a lot of words and wasted time, but I have studied your citations and they don’t say what you claim for them. Most obvious is http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2001/0615/epf502.htm, which is actually from 2001 (not 2005) and doesn’t even mention cotton, contrary to what you wrote on 13 December. The other, http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2005/05_01_21_china_inthe_wto.htm, is a “report” from a law firm and appears to be part of a lobbying effort to argue for tougher negotiations with China. Hardly an objective source, but even it doesn’t give specifics on any subsidies or tariffs for the GROWING of cotton, but general remarks about a lot of ag crops. It refers to “bulk agricultural commodities (such as wheat, corn, cotton and vegetable oils)”, textiles, and phytosanitary requirements (which are what we use to keep NZ apples out of Australia.

There is not one specific sentence in anything that you have sent me that contradicts international expert Sumner’s statement that there are no appreciable subsidies now for cotton in China. Nor have you managed to offer any evidence for subsidies for any other major GM crop outside North America.

With respect to your claim that US subsidies are going up in direct proportion to the area of GM crops grown, apparently referring to the silly Seeds of Doubt report, you could also show that US subsidies are going up in direct proportion to EU subsidies and/or the incumbency of farm belt Congressmen, which is what actually drives US subsidies. Bush tried to lower them this year; not one word was mentioned about GM crops.

I see that a summary of the paper that I mentioned earlier the lack of effect of Roundup on earthworms has been posted at GMOpundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005_12_11_gmopundit_archive.html. Can you now remove the Greenpeace/NGIN claims on this from your website?

Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

I am very familiar with the qualifications of Judy Carman and the rest of IHER. That was not my question. I asked if YOU thought they are appropriately qualified to undertake such tests. WHAT among their backgrounds makes them qualified? I want to make sure that when they can’t find any problems that hold up under scientific scrutiny that you and Is-it-really-safe will be satisfied. I just don’t want public money to be wasted. But then again, it is WA money being spent in SA, so why should I care. … On the other hand, don’t you think that if such work is to be done that it should be competitively bid?

Please, please do undertake your planned lawsuit. We’d all love to see the results.

Here’s some news for you about Japan from the Capital Press Agriculture Weekly. Despite resistance in some countries to importation of GM crops, Canadians have been successful in securing markets. Japan, for instance, is one of the largest importers of Canada’s canola. Japan may be thought of as a country where GM crops are frowned upon, but it is actually one of the United States' largest importers of genetically engineered products. Sixty-one biotech events in food, 38 for feed and 50 for planting have been approved. “Several countries dominate global GMO leader board”, Scott A. Yates, 9 Dec 2005.

Where is this significant premium and demand for non-GM soy, and what is your source for that, especially for oil? Please have the courtesy to make sure that your citations actually say what you claim, so that I am not sent off on another wild goose chase. Without such a citation, you have just admitted that GM soy is doing so well that it is overwhelming the world’s demands for oils, which hardly sounds like a failure

Can you name this mysterious Canadian farmer? He is sure out of synch with the vast majority of the Canadian farmers that Bill Crabtree and I have met.

NonGMFarmer. Some more questions for you to ponder.

If you don’t mind what your neighbors grow, why do you run scare campaigns about yields and susceptibility to drought of GM crops? Would in not be better to let your neighbors make up their own minds? Or are your neighbors so gullible that you need to tell them what to do?

If consumers are increasingly rejecting GM crops, why do you feel the need to promote exaggerated reports of the dangers of GM food to frighten people? Won’t GM crops die a natural death when nobody wants to buy them?

If subsidies are required to prop up GM crops, why do almost all cotton growers in Australia grow GM cotton? Are they getting a subsidy that you don’t get?

As there is no detectable difference between GM and non-GM oil from crops like soybean or canola, what is the point of doing feeding trials with them? Do you just like seeing rats killed for no purpose or are you a believer in the Law of Infinitesimals?

Do not both the OGTR and FSANZ require proponents of GM crops to provide evidence related to the potential for allergy of a novel protein? Would they not have asked this information from CSIRO?

Does not the Regulator need to be satisfied that a GM crop presents no additional risks to human health and the environment, or that any risks identified can be reasonably managed before issuing a license? Were such risks evaluated for Atrazine tolerant canola before it was introduced into Australia? (By the way, if Atrazine tolerant canola were proposed for introduction into Canada now, there is a strong likelihood it would be rejected on environmental grounds)