You say that I am mixing up what you said and I disbelieve this but we will look at Vitamin A with overdosing. http://www.vitamin-supplement-reference.com/vitamin-A.html will show you the side effects with toxicity associated with overdose. With Vitamin A, you have to remember also that it is only fat soluble and overdose can occur over long periods as the body stores it in fat content and over time will build up the toxicity. “Acute toxicity occurs after accidental ingestion of a single large dose (100,000-300,000 UI). Patient will present headache, vomiting and stupor because of intracranial pressure. But remember that chronic toxicity may also occur in patients with liver disease or in adults who takes in excess of 50,000 UI every day during a long time period. Signs and symptoms are: hair loss, anorexia, nausea, fatigue, gingivitis and dry skin. Pregnant women must avoid vitamin A supplementation because of risk of birth defects. The same recommendation is for women who are breast-feeding an infant”.

If you have a normal diet and have your vitamin quota, when GM food has been bombarded with Omega 3 or Vitamin A, the side effects will be rife. You will not know how many parts of the additive are actually in the grain attached to the DNA. With you saying that I have selectively taken from the website of Omega 3, then you should see that I have looked at the side effects of overdosing and I said this. I am mainly interested in the safety of GM for humans. I have looked at the side effects only. Yes, Omega 3 is a fantastic vitamin, but if you overdose on it then you will have side effects. This is what I am interested in as you are planning to bombard my food with a product that may be very harmful to my and other consumer’s health. And what I have quoted says that extra bombardment of what you say is a fantastic product will make my food toxic.

P.S. You still haven’t told me how you get rid of GM in a non-GM paddock.

Contrary to what Agronomist claims, the stastics for canola in Australia show very clearly that Australian canola yields have consistently improved since adoption of canola (non-GM).
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/a89f51dcb5e2e31bca2568a900139429!OpenDocument
The map referenced as 6.8 shows yields consistently improving. On introduction of canola, yields were around 1tonne/ha but apart from in 1994/1995 (bad drought), yields have steadily risen. How can you possibly claim that yields have got lower?

To top it off, Agronomist also claims either the reputable magazine, "the Scientist" is wrong or I have misinterpreted the statement using some lame excuse that the glyphosate is not in the DNA. No, of course it is not, the idea of Roundup Ready crops is to make them resistant to glyphosate. The problem that causes the drop in yield is spraying the glyphosate where the Scientist explains that the chemical remains active and rests in the meristems affecting the emerging buds/tillers. This would explain perfectly the yield reduction in any chemical resistant crop. As I explained, performance trials are needed to establish how much of a yield penalty is associated with this. One would say that the yield penalty is significant considering the best on their website is 1.055t/ha which is well below the national average and that is despite integrating the RR gene into "elite varieties".

How can Agronomist possibly say I have prevented trials? I want independent small scale performance trials but Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience refuse to participate. What they want is large scale commercial release under the guise of "coexistence trials" where it is obvious that coexistence is not possible by just reading the principles of coesistence and there is no ability to return to the status quo and non-GM growers don't approve of accepting liability when the "trials" go wrong.

Is it safe.
Re excessive doses of vitamin A and omega3

Overdosing of vitamin A is not the problem in the third world that golden rice addresses. As far as possible harms omega3, I reiterate, GM methods are proposed as a way of producing omega3 enhanced oils that are an #optional# part of a diet. People can decide to use low-omega3 foods if they think this is a risk, but they probably would be making a bad decision. I continue to occasionally buy omega3 bread even other sources of different omega3 are better, they are expensive.

With your line of reasoning one might argue because excessive eating does harm, we should therefore ban eating! Almost everything does harm in excess, and almost everything we do is a mixture of harm and good, like exercise for instance. The healthiest path is a trade off somewhere in the middle. Why you chose to discount all the benefits listed in the link you gave and pulled out the only negative evidence of omega3, and not realise in any case the evidence is unrelated to GM, I cannot fathom.

Re getting rid of GM in a paddock
Sorry, hadn't noticed this question was outstanding
This can be done; see
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/starlink-crisis-shows-that-contrary-to.html
Cultivated crops, including GM die out if not looked after by farmers ( studies by Crawley results Nature 363, 620-623, 1993 illustrate this). This can be accellerated by judicious use of herbicide.

That reminds me that some questions I put previously to Julie Newman NCF wern't answered- concerning relevance of her demands for "independant" field trials to her liability concerns.

d, you appear to have taken the question out of context. Geoffrey Carracher found he had contamination and did not want it. If contamination was found in a paddock, how can you remove it without destroying the non-GM crop? For example, How can GM plants be removed in the crop and in following crops without declaring the non-GM product permanently contaminated? It can not be sprayed out (The Topas 19/2 is now resistant to triazine), can't be handpicked out (plants look the same and there is no cheap field test), can't grade it out of seed (sorts by size and weight and it is the same and even all looks the same etc).
We don't want GM contamination in our non-GM product.
If segregation is not possible and if dosages are not controlled, overdosing of Vit A and Omega 3 will occur. While you say it is an "optional" part of the diet, if it is too expensive and too difficult to segregate GM from non-GM, farmers and consumers will be denied the choice to avoid contaminated produce. Thats the difference between excessive eating, smoking, drug taking etc, it is the users choice to take this risk. The problem with GM is that consumers will not have the choice to avoid it, as more and more GM products are grown, more and more contamination with a range of GM crops with a range of traits will be found in our food.
How exactly will farmers segregate GM food crops, GM pharmaceutical crops (with a range of traits from vitamins to anticoagulants to viagra), GM industrial crops (from plastics to fuels) with our non-GM crops? We can't! What value is our crop if it is contaminated with a range of unwanted mixed GM traits? We insist on compensation and will not accept contamination until this fair risk management is in place. Non-GM farmers shouldn't be expected to compensate the GM industry.
What question were you referring to re liability and trials d?

I don’t want this in any of my food. Starlink was not approved for human consumption which required expensive government intervention. How do you get an approved variety out of my food? On golden rice, what is the dosage and will it be consistent with every kilogram ever produced from a golden rice crop. If multiple genes trigger over production of Vitamin A or Omega 3 and causes the overdose health problems, how are you going to recall and who will pay? Scientists like yourself that have made your money producing this crop? You should do, but I don’t think so. What about the people that have little variety that eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner compared to those that need it that only have one meal every week. How are you going to adjust the dose? You astound me that you say that Omega 3 is not related to what you are doing as you have said the benefits of the Omega 3 in the GM. Are you confused? I’m not confused. What I am doing is showing that the “Caution if overused” label on any drug or vitamin bottle should extend to these crops. And consumers like myself should not be forced to eat what we don’t want to eat. You didn’t answer my question of how do you get GM out of an existing non-GM crop.

Non GM farmer, you need to read more carefully.

Firstly, It was you who were saying that GM canola yielded less. I just pointed out that yields in Canada were increasing despite the increased use of GM crops. I didn't say Canadian yields are better than Australian yields. I did point out that yields in Australia are at best flat over the period 1995-2004 for which I could get data. Your link shows that both area sown and production increased between 1989 and 1999. It does not show relative yields and has no data for the last 5 years. At least I was able to find data for 200 to 2004.

Secondly, I said nothing about glyphosate in DNA. To summarise in a more lengthy fashion so that you might understand. Roundup Ready canola contains a gene for a glyphosate oxidase protein. This protein breaks down glyphosate within the plant to non-toxic compounds. This means there will be no glyphosate accumulation in the reproductive tissues unless you spray at flowering. If glyphosate is not present, it cannot have any affect on reducing yield.

Thirdly, I said nothing about you, or indeed anyone else, preventing trials. You asked whether I supported trials. I said yes and asked: "Why don't you run trials this year?". You have complained consistently about the lack of trials in Australia. Based on the Canadian and US experience, I would be confident that GM crops would also perform well in Australia.