Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

Here are just a few more questions:

Your main issue is coexistence. Who and where are there paying customers wanting guarantees that there is no GM canola present? Do you or any other members of NCF sell to such customers now? How big are these markets for Australia in terms of dollar value or a percentage of the Australian crop? Such a market has had 9 years to develop.

If the aim of Benbrook’s tour was to teach about the failures of the US experience, why didn’t we hear of evidence of a significant problem for coexistence in the US? After 9 years and hundreds of millions of ha planted, has there been one farmer sue another for so-called contamination?

Other than for Starlink (where the pay-outs exceeded US $110 million), how many cases have there been of farmers suing any one else?

Other than Starlink, how many cases, and for how much money, have there been any documented claims of losses to GM “contamination” from farmers anywhere in the world?

In 2004’s ” Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops?, Brookes & Barfoot argue there have been no significant economic or commercial problems (www.pgeconomics.co.uk) at least in part because farmers talk things out ahead of time, despite more organic farms and relatively smaller farms than we have in Australia. Can’t we do the same?

If you really believe all those claims from Greenpeace and NGIN that you have put up on your website about Roundup, do you still use Roundup or other glyphosate products on your farm?

Will you keep using TT canola if atrazine resistance is found in annual ryegrass on your property?

I don’t believe that you have answered my questions about whether you were also involved in Greenpeace teleconferences prior to April 1 2004, but as the leader of the NCF, I have to assume that you were. When did you start? Are you still in teleconferences with them? There is nothing wrong with an association with Greenpeace, so surely we deserve this transparency

Cotton seems to be your so called strong point or so you say. The 2004 cotton crops estimate increased due to rainfall events whereas the 2003 crop was drought affected from 61% to 49.7% I think you need to look not only at the increase in crop estimates but the reason that they did increase and I am sure that it is not GM that you so claim.
You must have your nose in the ground to think that consumers like myself are not increasing. More and more people are finding that when they eat organic and non GM then their health improves. This is happening everywhere and I can foresee in the not too distant future that a lot more people will be trying to avoid any GM or pesticides. The way I see it, there is no way that you can put GM next to non-GM and expect it to not be contaminated. There is a slight problem we have called nature. Nature moves via wind, wind and birds moves the seeds of GM across the paddock. Get real. There is no way you can stop nature doing this and slowly the GM completely contaminates the non-GM. If you think that your GM seed would stop at the fence then you definately need that extra head.

Rebel (?Bayer Cropscience):
Your comments regarding legal action is typical of the arrogance of the GM proponents and their confidence that the legal system is inadequate to protect non-GM farmers.
I do have confidence in Judy Carmen as she is very meticulous and honest. If a problem is found, she will certainly say so, and she will not claim there is a problem if there is not. IHER has lobbied for funding over some time and has finally had it approved. If you want someone else to do more health testing, they need to do the work to get their proposal approved.
If you do a search, "55,185 results containing Chinese Cotton Subsidies" comes up. Considering it is harvest and I have a far slower internet speed than normal (as do most in remote rural locations) You can pick and choose which as I feel it is a waste of time to try to please you.
You certainly can't claim that all Canadian farmers are pro-GM, there are many that are opposed to GM crops and very opposed to marketing as GM when they are not growing it and not happy that it is harder to obtain non-GM seed.

Agronomist (?Chris Preston):
We want risk management so that if our neighbours do decide to grow GM crops, we will not be negatively impacted.
Exposing misleading statements about yields and asking for trials to assess drought susceptibility is certainly not running a "scare campaign".
The debate is about canola, not cotton as GM cotton does not have the contamination problems associated with GM canola.
Why should the human consumer be the first to do feeding trials on GM canola oil?
If you check the Senate explanation, the CSIRO data was not submitted to OGTR or FSANZ.
I'm not surprised that Canada would be unsuitable for triazine considering it is under snow for so long. Australian conditions however do not present the same problems.

Sten: The technical difference between Omega 3's has certainly not convinced me as a consumer that there will be a "clear health benefit to consumers" soon.

Regarding the competence (or otherwise) of Dr Judy Carman and her colleagues at IHER to second guess the OGTR which has already declared the two types of GM canola , Round up Ready and InVigor, as ' as safe as conventional canola' please see open letter from international scientists to Minister Chance appearing on Jennifer Marohasy's blog and gmopundit.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html#comments

http://www.gmopundit.blogspot.com/

What a laugh!! We have Jennifer Marahosey (paid PR consultant with a role to attack opponents of GM http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I) promoting a letter from overseas pro-GM scientists known for their pro-GM activism. They attack a reputable scientist just because she was invited to talk at the same time as a scientist known for anti-GM activism.

The letter is signed by a who's who of pro-GM activist scientists:

Individuals such as Prakash (author of Agbioworld) are known for misleading pro-GM statements http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=106&page=P

or Rick Rousch http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=112&page=R

Companies these people represent are also known as paid PR promotions for GM.

Hudson Institute http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=59&page=H

How much are they being paid by the GM companies?

Why test? The allergic problem with the GM pea was due to glycosylation of the the protein. The best way of determining if the protein is dangerous is to feed the purified protein to animals and watch them.

GM companies believe it is the protein that the GM plant is designed to make that is the only thing that could cause health problems but the protein used in experiments doesn't come from the GM plants at all! The GM companies genetically modify a bacteria to make the protein but bacteria cannot glycosylate proteins when plants can. These companies feed the unglycosylated protein from the bacteria to the animals used in these plants.

However, consumers would be eating the glycosylated protein from the GM plant, not a constructed protein from bacteria.

Regulatory bodies do not consider that GM plants may produce a different protein than expected (eg with a a different glycosylation pattern) or that no other, unexpected, adverse substances will be produced by the GM plant.

If a GM plant is being produced, eg GM corn, then the GM corn should be fed to animals in long term feeding studies. Consumers should not be the first to be the guinea pigs in an unmonitored experiment.

Dear Is-it-really-safe: The main advantages of the use of Bt and RR cotton are reductions in persistent pesticide use. Those have not varied dramatically from year to year, but are increasing greatly with the increased use of the two Bt gene cotton in the last year or two. There has, for example, been a clear reduction in endosulfan residues in water bodies since Bt cotton was introduced, now down to near zero, without losses of jobs or income, except for pesticide companies and aerial sprayers.

I am not ignoring your comments on food safety, but know from past experience that I will never persuade you otherwise. Stick with organic and better yet unprocessed foods so you can avoid real threats like transfats, and use olive oil. GM crops in Australia will have no influence on content of organic. GM cotton and even canola cannot contaminate fruit, vegetables, etc. If organic expands as much as you hope, and consumers are willing to pay Australian farmers for the difference in costs, it will be good news for farmers all over Australia, even if not necessarily good news for soil erosion due to use of tillage rather than herbicides for weed control. Many organic foods will be produced in developing countries where labor costs for hand weeding are lower.

Julie NonGMFarmer Newman: Yuck! I’m not with Bayer.

Can you explain to us why the current legal system in Australia cannot protect non-GM farmers? All you need to do is to be able to show financial harm. In the case of canola, I don’t think you can. There is no significant organic canola industry in Australia, and no significant premiums for any large market for GE free conventional canola, even 9 years after Canada went GM. “Loss” is the burden you’ll have to meet in court, so let’s see it.

Thanks for your comments on Carmen. I now understand that you believe that personality is more important than technical skill. In government, most research proposals are funded in a competitive process of some kind, not due to lobbying. Isn’t that a good practice?