Dear Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

Let’s get to the bottom line. You have raised many criticisms and complaints about GM, but are there any conditions under which the NCF would accept GM canola in Australia, short of prohibitive conditions like strict liability (ie, making companies responsible for mistakes by anyone in the production chain)? If not, is there really any reason to bother arguing about your other claims?

What about any crop other than cotton ?

I already know that the answer from Isitreallysafe and Opinionated is that there are no such conditions.

Why should it matter what my name is? Accountability for what? In a sense, I am too frightened to reveal my identity. As I said before, I don’t have the resources to defend myself against the kinds of apparently groundless legal threats that you have made against others who dare to disagree with you, such as Crabtree and Fitzgerald. Why did you make such threats? Are you so sensitive about the rough and tumble of political debate? Since there is little they could do to affect your reputation (your website and the sources you cite sets out your agenda and does that pretty well), it appears that your intent was solely to intimidate and bully. You still have not offered evidence for your claims against Fitzgerald. Why did you need my name other than that so you can attack me personally?

That you interacted with Bayer is well documented, so not at issue. What I want to know is by what month and year that you started teleconferencing “with Greenpeace listening in”. In March 2004, you claimed a lack of links with Greenpeace, which seems to be incorrect from Nic Kentishh’s remarks. When these teleconferences started is a key factor in the history of the anti-GM movement in Australia, linking farmers with Greenpeace. You have never answered this simple question of a date.

I think I have answered all of your questions to me except giving you my name. In contrast, you have left many of mine unanswered, since at least 16 December. Can you please address these

I thought this forum was talking about GM foods not people some of us have never heard of. All those pushing GM seem to be putting this debate in a boxing ring with “added to this corner we have Mae-Wan Ho and this corner we have the most famous Jimmy Carter”. I’ve searched through your tests and they don’t satisfy what I’m asking. Jennifer you haven’t denied the GM Watch profile on you so it’s obviously true. Rebel I’m sick of this Greenpeace attack on non-GM farmer. I don’t consider phone calls as links to Greenpeace. Non-GM farmer is not being paid a salary by Greenpeace so it is not an issue. Unless she is, then get off this little kids tantrum. You GM’ers don’t seem to be taking any notice of what consumers and farmers are saying. Let’s play the ball rather than playing the man and look at what the game is about. The issues are what we care about and we need to look at them.

Nice to see you are settling down a little Rebel and actually discussing a way forward (albeit amongst ridiculous continual time-wasting questions about phonecalls that don’t equate to "links"):

Our aim is to ensure non-GM farmers can continue to market unhindered on the non-GM market - without the ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed.

The following are the key issues to address:

If tolerance levels are set, they must be based on market demand (not just international legislative guidelines) and our legal definition of non-GM. With moratoriums we can currently prove that contamination caused during pre-OGTR-approved trials is accidental, but not after any commercial release.

No GM contamination can be accepted if a "user fee" is to be charged on contaminated produce.

Coexistence principles must be based on ensuring the GM grower contains their product, not that the non-GM farmer must take steps to avoid contamination. A closed loop marketing system for GM is logical and principles like a GM zone rather than a non-GM zone.

Workable, practical, cheap and accurate testing regimes must be in place prior to any release. If you have not got a field test, how can coexistence hope to work?

If GM crops cause economic loss to those not wanting to grow GM, there must be a fair and practical compensation regime.

Any GRDC or government funded research must not withhold new varieties to the non-GM industry ie. the add-the-GM-gene-for better-profits-for-everybody-except-farmers can not be exclusive to a variety, the variety must be available in uncontaminated non-GM (pre add-the-GM-gene) form too.

Prior to acceptance, there must be proof that there is widespread education and acceptance of coexistence protocols, that no sector of industry is faced with unmanageable problems or additional costs and liabilities without approval from those expected to accept these.

Independent performance trials must be undertaken and proposed costings must be released to ensure accurate information is given to farmers to allow them to make an informed choice about growing this product.

This is just common sense risk management and yet the pro-GM sector find these unacceptable. Why?

Dear Is-It-Really-Safe:
You have clearly indicated that you can’t be convinced that GM foods are safe, so why should we continue discussing that?

Julie Newman has clearly indicated a desire to go after the person rather than the ball in her unprovoked attack on Crabtree’s academic record, and in asking for my identity, instead of answering many questions about issues (partial list below). I am offering her what she didn’t offer to Bill; a direct invitation to clear up confusion.

Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

It’s an interesting style that you use, following your exact words: “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.” In other words, throw mud first, and if no one corrects you, it‘s ok. Why didn’t you just ask Bill first?

In any case, I am trying to get your side of stories in the papers and ABC. You have argued that there is no embarrassment in talking with Greenpeace, so I don’t really see why you find my questions about a date to be so hard. In any case, I won’t ask again. By the way, when did your website go up?

Thanks for the answers you’ve given so far. I am also still keen to learn:

About subsidies. Again, do you have any evidence that the Canadian subsidies are any higher to support Canadian GM canola than they would be for non-GM canola? All we have agreed is that GM soy is being so successful as an oil crop that it is pressuring Canadian growers. Are Canadian subsidies any higher than for the EU subsidies to its canola growers, all of whom are nonGM?

An estimate of Carracher’s market losses from some 0.5% GM in his canola. This would help us understand how to address liability.

What liability or other rules did you refer to (on 5 December) as what the US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop?

Continued later.

Contrary to the assertions made, NonGMFarmer clearly doesn’t care a rats for the issues. It seems that NonGMFarmer has an agenda to push at all costs. If people get in NonGMFarmer’s way, she bullies them. NonGMFarmer’s repeating of untrue allegations about people such as Bill Crabtree, Jennifer Marohasy and Rick Roush in order to belittle them is the classic behavior of a bully.

NonGMFarmer claims “While it helps to know who is funded by the GM industry…”. Why does it help? So NonGMFarmer can discount their statements solely because of those links and not have to worry about whether they are accurate or not?

If NonGMFarmer were truly interested in the issues, why should it matter whether I work for Monsanto, Bayer, a PR company or not? It is what I say that should matter. Is what I say right or wrong? Can I back up my statements with evidence? Even Monsanto can occasionally get things right.

If NonGMFarmer was so interested in the issues, she would have checked the claims in her postings rather than just repeating things she was told because they fit her agenda. NonGMFarmer has posted many statements on this forum that are either totally untrue or bear little resemblance to reality. We could start with Golden Rice being nowhere near the trial stage (actually the first field trial was harvested in Louisiana in September 2004), move on to Monsanto’s end point royalty being based on 0.5% of their material in the crop, then to “Argentina: “RR soya crops also yield 5% to 10% less compared with the non-GM varieties grown under similar soil conditions, confirming findings in the United States."”, Charles Benbrook was a “chief advisor to the White House”, the Canadians have the highest carryover of canola ever, and so on (I am going to run out of room soon). It strikes me NonGMFarmer is either careless or doing this deliberately.

Why target side issues that are not really relevant to the debate? How do you think this issue can be resolved? By bullying your way around and insisting non-GM farmers just put up with contamination and accept any economic loss associated with it? No thanks!

I happily answer your questions and give suggestions for solutions to the problem and rather than discuss the issues logically, I get slammed for doing it.

Who's “bullying” who? Lets get this in perspective, I have constantly been accused of being linked to Greenpeace when you know full well I am not (as mentioned, my first Greenpeace phonecall was the first day of employment of the first Australian Greenpeace anti-GM campaigner). I have even been misleadingly accused of not being a farmer and of being a threatened competitor to Monsanto. Why can't I question the credibility and vested interests of the pro-GM sector when they specialise in doing that themselves? And no, it doesn’t worry me because I have come to expect it in this debate.

I am not keen on the character assasination style that is so popular among those promoting GM either. Rebel(?GraemeO'Neill), I strongly suspected you were Bill Crabtree but I made it clear that I was repeating what another agronomist said about Bill. You implied he had respect and I responded explaining the mild version of what I have heard from others. I genuinely believed it was true and immediately corrected my mistake. There is no doubt that Bill is pushing GM, he is even taking tours of Australian farmers to visit Monsanto and Bayers facilities in North America. http://www.no-till.com.au/studytour.html

You are taking this forum out of context, this is an internet chatline and postings do not need to be scientific papers or press release statements. I have not spent much time on giving references or fine-tuning responses for the simple fact that I’m a farmer and spend most of Nov/Dec helping with harvest. I've enjoyed chatting and I look forward to continued debate.

We do need to get past the conflict and discuss practical resolutions.