Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully Agronomist. I gave the yield data up to 2004 season on the 17Janposting: "If the claims were accurate that GM canola has increased yields in Canada by over 10%, statistics would show that the average yield would progressively go up in proportion to the adoption of GM with relevence to seasonal conditions. However, this has not occurred, when GM canola was introduced, average Canadian yields did not go up, they went down and have now come up to the level that they were pre-GM. Even though Canada is more suited to favour the post emergent benefit of GM canola, they have not had an increase in yields, not a decrease (based on ha and production statistics)"
and on Australia "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."

The Scientist article was referring to the GM research you mentioned but that is in the pipeline. The existing varieties clearly suffer yield penalties if the glyphosate sits active in the meristems. Naturally, rain would wash this off but dry conditions would exacerbate the yield penalty. Could this have been a reason why trials have been watered (claimed by a farmer at a meeting over east who witnessed this)?

Your comments regarding trials: "Why don't you allow them this year?" etc, are a tad misguided. Its not me that has the power to allow or disallow. I am pushing for small scale independent trials to be funded by GRDC so that we can assess the performance accurately. It is Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto that are refusing to participate. They want "coexistence trials" which is a backdoor commercial release of around 5,000 acres or more. In order to assess performance we need to know how effective the weed control is, what the yield penalty is etc.

If you support small scale, independent trials, we have a good starting point.

Non GM Farmer. Let me try this again.

Roundup Ready canola as grown in Canada and also as approved for Australia contains the glyphosate oxidase gene (http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/dir020qa.pdf).

Glyphosate oxidase is an enzyme that breaks down glyphosate.

Farmer sprays glyphosate on Roundup Ready canola.

Glyphosate goes into Roundup Ready canola and is broken down to non-toxic metabolites by glyphosate oxidase.

There is no glyphosate left in the canola.

As there is no glyphosate left it can't do anything in the reproductive tissue.

Was I clear enough this time?

Secondly, the 6 highest yielding canola years ever have been since the introduction of GM canola in 1996. That is, in 60% of years GM canola has been grown, average yields have surpassed the highest they were prior to the introduction of GM canola (http://www.canola-council.org/acreageyields.html). How is this evidence that yields have decreased? In the six years from 1999-2005 yields are 17% higher than they were in the period 1986-1995 before the introduction of GM canola.

Dec 9 2005 Question for Julie Newman NCF : You have made repeated demands for extra independent field trials of GM canola. What I cannot understand is why, given they are huge costs to other parties, how your demand for these is relevant to the liability issue you are concerned about. Why are you demanding extra costs for others: how is it relevant to your need to reduce your personal liability?

Is it Safe:
I don’t want this in any 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.
#The trait has been tested for genetic stability.

If multiple genes ... causes the overdose health problems, how are you going to recall and who will pay? #The problems you suppose we already have in our current food and they are manageable. Weed toxins pose similar risks already.

Scientists like yourself that have made your money producing this crop? #I dont get income from such work.

What I am doing is showing that the “Caution if overused” label on any drug or vitamin bottle should extend to these crops. #Why not same for existing linseed/fish oil then?

You didn’t answer my question of how do you get GM out of an existing non-GM crop. #I gave an example and argument. If you don't want to discuss my respose that's fine.

Dear Ms Newman:

I see that on Monday, 16 January 2006 you claimed that “the American organic industry accepts contamination levels up to 5% whereas the Australian organic industry does not allow any GM because this demand is dictated by consumer preference” and so on.

Where in hades did you get this? Look, there is no difference in the positions of the American and Australian organic industries on GM. Neither allows GM, both play leadership roles and fund much of the opposition to GM and, incidentally, both clearly profit by raising public concerns about GM (as Patrick Holden of the UK Soil Association was forced to admit for the UK by our interviewer on a radio debate on ABC a few years back).

Still, as noted in my last post on this (January 9), anti-GM campaigners couldn’t produce a single farmer who actually had trouble with a neighbor growing a GM crop (and by that I meant any losses). I continued “If you think otherwise, find the documentation”. So far as I can see, even with two weeks to try, you haven’t found any examples either.

Yes, you should learn some things from the experience of other countries, but from what I read on this site, you largely haven’t. You have largely focused on claims that anti-GM activists make rather than checking out the facts for yourself. Come on out to California (or even Iowa or Canada) and I’ll introduce you to some real farmers growing GM crops and neighbors who aren't. Maybe you’ll even learn that despite the President, most Yanks (and better still, Canadians) solve problems even over GM with discussion, not legal action. Surely we Australians are as wise.

You said the trait for genetic stability has been tested so what were the results? What are the dosages and are they more than fish etc? Could you say that exactly the same amount of genes producing a precise dose of Omega 3 or Vitamin A are in every grain?
If there are problems with current food, it can be recalled because it’s easy to identify as the recalled says “date, product, where sold etc.” With grain this would be extremely hard as grains are in most foods so the whole food chain would be affected and it has contaminated the seeds used on farms for the following crop. Are you saying at this juncture that it would be up to the government to recall all the products if fault is found? Great, so me the taxpayer pays for GM mistakes!
The reason that I’m asking for GM to be advertised as a cautionary note is because this is a “common” food that is put into a lot of different foods without people realising that it is there. Whereas you know if you are taking a vitamin pill as they are taken separately and it is your choice.
The example you gave is not taking GM out of the non-GM paddock. I want to know, seeing as I am not a farmer, how would you get the GM product out of the paddock of a non-GM. Do you destroy all the crop? Do you overdose the non-GM paddock with toxic chemicals and will both crops die? Do you wait for it to die (this doesn’t work as it’s still in the paddock as seed and will reproduce once the correct conditions apply). So how do you get GM out of a non-GM paddock? By the way who pays for this? Put it in this forum not in some obscure webpage so all can see.
You may not get a salary but have you ever been paid by a GM company or got grants? And before you ask, no, I am not on any salary to do with non-GM or Greenpeace.

Rick, I think ABARE, Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Canola Council, Oilseeds Federation, "The Scientist" etc, would not be impressed at your claim that the references I quoted from them are anti-GM references. You just don't like facts exploding your pro-GM myths.

American National Organic Standards http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html state labelled "organic" produce needs to be only 95% pure organic. Growers (including pro-GM) confirm the allowable tolerance but IP is needed and some markets are stricter. Canada too is lenient http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/032_310/standard-e.html

Agronomist, In "The Scientist" article Charles Q Choi quoted Henry Daniell, professor of molecular biology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando"Currently, Roundup Ready plants do not detoxify glyphosate, but rather overproduce EPSPS to resist lethal glyphosate levels, Daniell said. In these plants, the herbicide still accumulates in meristems, where it may interfere with reproductive development and lower crop yield."
The damage is not done when it is absorbed by the plant, it is when it is sitting in the meristems and when the emerging buds emerge from the meristems.

I was specifically referring to the drop in yields in the few years of early adoption of GM but I am sure you know that. Australia's yields have gone up in the same timeframe you quoted as well so GM can't be given credit for that. Improved yield is expected as better agronomic practises have been used and new non-GM varieties are bred with better traits. My debate is that Australian farmers are not going to be "left behind" and that Australian farmers are not experiencing the 30% yield penalty that Mr Crabtree (?Agronomist) refers to.

As I explained "d", my proposal is that GRDC (mainly farmer-funded) perform these trials in the same fashion as the National Varietal trials as farmers need to know benefits and alternatives. It is obvious we can't trust the promotion by people like Mr Crabtree who claim a 30% yield increase when there is no reason for it and no evidence to support it. The performance trials are nothing to do with liability, unfair liability is a risk and strict liability is risk management