Are you insinuating that I am racial prejudice? I am not and never will be racial prejudice and my clients can attest to this. I have not mis-stated anything and I have corrected Rebel on his mis-statement that I had so called quoted. Read it right as I had quoted the rebuttal of Agbioview and I have not mis-stated Agronomist. The pro-GMers just seem to think it is OK to misread and misrepresent statements, but people reading aren't stupid. Is that your best debate? I am more concerned about health as the end product of this potential biohazard.

Non-GM farmer should have every right to sue GM companies because of the law of the State government that has said to keep GM out of Australia until further notice (moratoria). GM companies have slid into the country via contamination in trials and seed sellers that have sold seed to farmers without them knowing therefore contaminating their crops.

Rebel – milk and peanuts have been around forever and like cigarettes were accepted by the populace of the time and would be hard to retract from the population. But, unlike GM food, those with allergies or concerned for the risks can avoid these products.

Why cannot you accept the human tests that I as a consumer have requested? You are not even giving me an alternative testing regime but just denying all human tests and yet, GM companies are wanting the human population of Australia to be guinea pigs of GM. This is wrong and very unethical. I want to know before I eat what I am eating and the potential problems associated with it. I will not take drugs without knowing the side effects whereas others would as they trust the drug companies and let’s look at the amount of deaths associated with that. I demand a choice to avoid GM until I am satisfied it will not affect my health.

Wishing you all a great Christmas and a Happy GM-free New Year.

Looking forward to 2006 with renewed confidence. The States have accepted thresholds that make economic and scientific sense for GM canola.

A good first step towards a more reasonable tone in the GM debate and GM acceptance. Watch the often quoted EU GM sensitive market for new coexisitence rules between GM and non-GM in 2006 in response to pressure from US.

New canola varieties are needed for Australian farmers to compete on the international vegetable oil market which from the 1 Jan 2006 will see Kellogs and other big food manufacturers introoduce Vistive oil into their products.

The GM lite Australian canola with low linoleic acid content is what we need.

The Australian alternative is on the way with GM lite high oleic oil low linoleic oil being field trialled and is two years away from our markets. The puiblic doesn't seem to be concerend about our first GM food crop ,cotton oil which is competing with Australian canola for market share.

This is what Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of PG Economics had to say in a paper published this month (http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm). Happy reading!

GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact - The First Nine Years 1996-2004
Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot PG Economics Ltd., Dorchester, UK

Abstract.
2005 represents the tenth planting season since genetically modified (GM) crops were first grown in 1996. This milestone provides the opportunity to critically assess the impact this technology is having on global agriculture. This study examines specific global economic impacts on farm income and environmental impacts of the technology with respect to pesticide usage and greenhouse gas emissions for each of the countries where GM crops have been grown since 1996. The analysis shows that there have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to a cumulative total of $27 billion. The technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kg and has reduced the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 14%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which is equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads.

Ho,ho,ho. Thanks for the Christmas present Agronomist.

An excellent report, I particularly appreciated the information on Canadian GM canola. Based on a 10.7% increase in yield, the cost savings (excluding the cost of technology) is C$39/ha and the cost of technology is C$44.03/ha. That equates to a loss of C$5.03/ha despite a 10.7% increase in yields.
Almost 70% of Canadian farmers now grow GM canola and the yield increase mentioned does not reflect the statistics based on ha and actual production . http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2530 The real yield has remained stable and consistent with seasonal variation.
The report also forgot to mention that Canada has lost their US$32.68/tonne consistent premium over Australian canola (1990-2000) and now sell for US$30/tonne less than Australian canola.
In reality, GM canola has cost Canadian farmers dearly.

This is why we need to have independent yield comparisons, to be able to work out the cost versus the benefit of GM canola prior to any consideration of GM introduction.
Incidentally, GM canola will not reduce chemical use, it will increase it due to the control of unwanted volunteers.
The debate in Australia is regarding GM canola, not GM soy, cotton or corn and we need to look beyond the bulldust hype to see what we are really getting.

Hopefully the New Year will bring more common sense to the debate.

Cheers.

Sangita Shah writes in the Financial Express that Bt Cotton demand is up 155% in India (http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=112218). This is hard to reconcile with Bt cotton being a disaster in India. To quote: “Despite all the uproar against Bt cotton in the country, the demand for bollgard seeds has risen tremendously. The acreage under bollgard cotton across the country has also jumped substantially. Bollgard hybrid seed companies have sold nearly 30.55 lakh packets across the country in Kharif 2005, which is equivalent to about 30.55 lakh acres under cultivation.”

For those not familiar with the Indian numbering system a lakh is 100,000. So 30.55 lakh acres is 3.055 million acres.

Another quote from the article: “Considering the sales of bollgard cotton this season, nearly 14% of the acreage is under bollgard cultivation. In India, Bt cotton acreage has been rising at a fast pace since it was introduced in 2002. The acreage has gone up from just 72,000 acres in 2002 to 2.3 lakh acres in 2003 and 12.13 lakh acres in 2004. The demand for bollgard cotton has been on rise chiefly due to higher yields. Farmer Vishnu Jagtab from village Shelgaon in Phulambri Taluka said, "I harvest nearly double the raw cotton I used to take when I cultivated non-Bt cotton a couple of years back."”