Rebel according to the Macquarie is a person that resists any authority or control or the other meaning someone who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against, the established government or ruler. So is that you? Anyway back to what we are meant to be talking about:-
Rebel, what has Mae-Wan Ho’s book on aids got to do with this discussion? Biotech, yes can buy however many great scientists they want at a price and I don’t give 2 hoots what Jimmy Carter is doing supporting GM as I’m Australian. Australia is setting a high standard before we fully immerse ourselves in this potentially hazardous product. If we find something major wrong with GM at least we would have a chance to avoid it. Rick Roush, you come in again at the website of Agbioworld. I found this Agbioworld comment under Myth 4 http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/myths.html "GMOs are not safe": "No one really knows whether GMOs are safe or not -- so little work has been done on this and even less has been released to the public. There has, however, been a lot of opinion put out, little of it substantiated." This is an admittance that consumers are guinea pigs. In the so called experiments, they are done by chemical companies, societies, universities etc. (which can be funded by large chemical companies) and the projects were done on bees and rats. I’m not a bee or a rat the last time I looked. Where are the human experiments?

NonGMFarmer. If I were to publicly ask General Motors why their motor vehicles disintegrate in head-on accidents, I suspect they would accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about (true, I know little about motor vehicle accidents other than a desire to avoid them) and that I was trying to start a scare campaign. I take it from your comments that you find it perfectly acceptable to make unsubstantiated comments about a technology, most of which are demonstrably incorrect and some of which are clearly fictitious, as a means of asking a question. If that is your moral compass, there is probably little point in this conversation continuing.

Opinionated2. No, I didn’t need to ask how to get on the list as the web site provided a means to do so should I wish. Anybody visiting the site could add their name and I am guessing here that some of these “eminent scientists” don’t in fact exist. Which of these particular eminent scientists do you think I should be looking up to and what are their qualifications that mean I should follow their advice? I have looked through the names and I must admit that I have never heard any of these people talk about managing field crops, what varieties are most suitable in which regions and soil types, what fertilizer rate to use, what nutrients should I be testing for, how certain weeds should be controlled or how to scout for insects. Most of them probably could not tell me what are the main agronomic issues for growing Bt corn. If you like, you can sign up for all sorts of internet petitions. Here is one advocating the labeling of pet food for road kill ingredients (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/406753774?ltl=1135115015). It already has 1879 signatures. I am sure some of these are eminent too. Should I listen to them and conclude that the science is out on the safety of pet food and it should all be banned? Let me know, I don’t want my pets becoming cannibals.

Hope you all have a merry and fun-filled Christmas.

Rick Roush, I did not mention you representing a company (thanks for pointing this out "isitreallysafe".
Ricks comment that it was the non-GM farmers fault for not taking steps to avoid GM contamination is exactly what our Network of Concerned Farmers chief debate is about as your recommendation follows the coexistence principles that have been prepared by the GM industry.
Rick may not feel it is worthy of him spending time on this but it is critical to farmers. As mentioned, GM is the intruder to the industry and it should be up to the GM industry to contain this wandering patented product that consumers are rejecting. If they can't, it should be the polluter that pays for the economic loss caused, not the polluted.

GMOPundit/DavidTribe: Who said that GM crops only succeed because of subsidies? As mentioned, the Australian GM debate is not about cotton, corn or soy, or subsidies, it is about GM canola which certainly does not have a track record of soaring adoption and yes, GM growing Canadian farmers are heavily subsidised. Without subsidies Australians need to avoid economic risk.
The news articles I put up on my website are just that, news articles expressing GM concerns, not pro-GM opinion pieces. Indian cotton? The latest: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2595 and http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2596 includes lack of performance in stress conditions.

Rebel, frightened to be honest enough to reveal your identity and accept accountability?
As mentioned, the feeding trials do not involve feeding the animals the food that consumers are expected to eat.
The CSIRO result has been what scientists with concerns have been saying for some time. Try reading IHER’s submissions.
Tolerance levels can only be accepted if they comply with law or market demand and if they can be complied with and tested with a cheap accurate testing regime. However, tolerance levels adopted by those pushing GM don’t comply with ACCC definitions of “non-GM”, don’t comply with all market demand and are not workable as there is no workable field test.

Agronomist: There are reports for GM performing worse in drought. Why avoid trials to test for it?

Dear Is-it-really-safe. Mae-Wan is the founder and principle member of ISIS, cited above. Her book on AIDS puts ISIS and its claims on GM in context, showing that she is off-beam in other areas as well.

Please take a deep breath and go back and read things a bit more carefully. What foods do you think GM will exclude from your preferences based on what I wrote earlier?

I took a quick look at the claims you attributed to Roush and Myth 4 of http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/myths.html.

The lines you quote are the myths being rebutted, not an admission of a problem! You may have also overlooked more recent articles such as
http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html,
http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMmyths.html, and
http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

Animal feeding studies are more precise than human feeding studies because you can dissect the subjects afterward for any hints of a problem.

I was wrong to think that Jimmy Carter would have any impression on you. After all, he is just a Nobel Peace Prize winner, international humanitarian, and leading moral example. Why would you care when all that matters is your own fears?

Julie NonGM:
I see you have found another string on the National Forum to attack Jennifer as well as here, but have continued to dodge questions on your own dealings.

I ask the following because you have admitted here on 13 December 2005 that you wrongly claimed that Bill Crabtree took twice as long to get his degree, and corrected this only when contacted by the accused. You were otherwise apparently quite content to impugn his reputation without double-checking your facts.

Going back to your claims that you threatened to sue Paula Fitzgerald because she said that you were funded by Greenpeace, I heard Fitzgerald speak around that time. She said only that you were Greenpeace linked or were getting help from Greenpeace, which turned out to be true. Do you have any evidence that Paula said you were funded by Greenpeace?

Can you tell us when you started (and ended?) teleconferencing with Greenpeace, or do we assume from your lack of answers that you want to keep this secret?

Oh Rebel (? Paula Fitzgerald), you certainly rely on the persistant and predictable "discredit by contantly claiming association with Greenpeace" tactic don't you. I am continually answering the same questions but you don't like my truthful answers. ? How can you possibly claim I have given you a lack of answers?
These teleconferences just involved farmers giving farming information to others. Greenpeace mainly listened and asked a few questions. Actually I was very impressed with the intense research Greenpeace did on these issues and the questions they asked (considering they were not farmers). The conferences finished when they understood the farming issues. But really who (other than you) cares about who we talk to and for how long and what about?
I would have responded to your question more times than I had these teleconferences.

Contrary to misleading claims: I made it clear that I was repeating (for the first time) what I was told about Crabtree and I did so on this casual forum because I figured I would be immediately corrected if I was wrong. When you are told by someone that did the same course, you presume their information is reasonably accurate. My correction was immediate and genuine. Perhaps the agronomist meant that Crabtree needed to resit exams, I don't know but I will clarify that when I see him next. I didn’t repeat far worse statements I have heard.

While it helps to know who is funded by the GM industry (eg. Jennifer Marahosey and Paula Fitzgerald) I am more interested in the issues.

You are being deliberately misleading by claiming "She said only that you were Greenpeace linked or were getting help from Greenpeace, which turned out to be true."
Paula was saying I was funded by Greenpeace but later claimed only “links”.
Why not say the same about my links with Bayer Cropscience because I have had numerous communications with them and they even funded a flight? Exactly... it would be silly, and it is just as silly to continue saying I am linked to Greenpeace when everyone knows full well I am not.

Contrary to what Rebel claims, I mentioned the myth and the rebuttal. The rebuttal states clearly that there is not enough known about health. On one of your GM results http://agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMfeedsafetypapers.html (Alexander TW etc.) I looked at the one on sheep and canola just as a sample and it said “On a qualitative test on sheep, this study shows that digestion of plant material and release of transgenic DNA can occur in the ovine small intestine. However, free DNA is rapidly degraded at neutral pH in DF, thus reducing the likelihood that intact transgenic DNA would be available for absorption through the Peyer's Patches in the distal ileum”.

It is a reduction in the likelihood of GM affecting the intestinal tract of the sheep. Hang on a second. Humans have only 1 stomach not 4 that sheep have so the possibilities of absorption surely would be higher. In the sheep, the food has more time to break down GM through the rumen storage, reticulum, cud chewing, omasum and the abomasums. What about rumination? Humans are always under stress and don’t ruminate, so food is absorbed at a quicker pace and would not have the ability of the sheep to breakdown DNA from GM. This is why I want human testing.

Rebel said “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…” and yet if GM is approved in wheat, canola and all grains, then there is no way that organic cannot have GM in as it will contaminate. Also there are other things being trialled now that are GM including tomatoes, sugar, beets etc. that would not leave me much to eat. Are you denying me concern for what I eat by telling me “she’ll be right mate” knowing that it will not be? You have to prove to me that GM is safe and you have not done that so far. I look forward to Carmen doing independent tests.