Ms Newman:

I have a lot to argue against what you claim, but that is not what at issue here, nor do I have the time. Others are doing a pretty good job of correcting you in any case. I need to be content with answering your charges against me.

I didn’t label you an anti-GM activist, but now that you raise the point, it doesn’t seem a far-fetched conclusion). You probably are biased, but I am still willing to analyze what you have said and offer documented facts. I did say that “You have largely focused on claims that anti-GM activists make rather than checking out the facts for yourself.” I didn’t say “only”. You do reference a lot of claims from anti-GM activists on your thread and at your website, right? What’s the percentage of your citations from websites that might be considered neutral or pro-GM?

I notice that you have been asked at least a few times on this site if you would ever grow a GM crop. Seems a good benchmark on which to judge your protests that you are not an anti-GM activist; would you grow GM?

If you are so intent to contradict me on US organic standards, which you seem anxious to do (I guess to explain away why you can’t find any evidence for problems with GM for organic growers in the US or Canada), please give us names and sources. Perhaps instead of being so quick to shout “ bias”, you can spend a little time to dig out that newspaper and find a name and exact quote for the US organic grower (I thought before it was a US GM grower). Give us your Canadian and UK sources. I have given you sources and quoted from the rules.

The Minister’s media release was unambiguous in linking GM peas to his decision. Give us the other statements if you think they prove otherwise.

With respect to your influence, I note the following media release (trimmed for brevity). How many WA members does your network have? Does it have bylaws and elections?

Biotech Industry Rejects WA Ministerial letter

- AusBiotech, 10 February 2005

AusBiotech, Australia’s biotechnology industry organisation representing over 2,600 Members is stunned at the release of correspondence between WA’s Agricultural Minister Kim Chance and a genetically modified (GM) activist during the current government caretaker mode.

At a time when the WA government has related to biotechnology industry representatives that the government cannot respond to the organisation’s correspondence dated 7 February, it is now evident that the same conditions have not been the case for GM activist groups.

“On the same day that AusBiotech was informed by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture that the Government cannot respond to our letter dated 24 January, a detailed letter was sent to Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmer (an organisation linked with Greenpeace),” said Dr Tony Coulepis, Executive Director, AusBiotech.

The letter not only contained many errors of fact but also brings into question the advice that the Minister is receiving in relation to agribiotech and GM crops.

AusBiotech has been working closely with industry members concerning the GM moratoria and distributed a five-point plan to state governments for the future development and opportunities for Australian agriculture late last year……

“The Minister’s action is not only taking away any opportunity for a level playing field, but also denying WA growers choice in canola production, as well as creating uncertainty about the pathway to market for other Australian GM innovations,” Dr Coulepis said.

This is despite OGTR approval for canola and the fact that triazine chemical currently used for most canola production in WA is 60 times more toxic than Round-up and is subsequently banned in Europe because of ground water contamination.

Greenpeace has called for the termination of atrazine use in several countries. ….

AusBiotech calls for an explanation of the letter and a commitment by Government to create a level playing-field…..

Media Contact:
Dr Tony Coulepis, Executive Director, AusBiotech, Mob: 0419 436 902
Dr Ian Edwards, Chair, AgBio Advisory Group, Mob: 08 9450 480

Back in November and December, NonGMFarmer made several posts about Bt cotton being a disaster in India quoting Anti-GM NGOs as sources. The following exerpts are from an article was published in the Times of India (can be found at: http://www.agbios.com/news.php) and quotes cotton industry officials from the production side. Such people are not involved in selling seed so would have no reason for talking up the technology for personal profit.

Bt experience in Punjab has a silver lining

30 Jan 2006

New Delhi - Success of the maiden Bt cotton crop has come to the rescue of farmers, with production expected to catch up with
last year's level of 243 lakh bales despite substantial damage to the standing crops in northern India due to the late Monsoon...

"Main reason behind impressive increase was attributed to near about 15 per cent acreage under transgenic variety,"
Confederation of Indian Textile Industry, Secretary General DK Nair...

"Cotton production in Punjab is estimated to be around 20 lakh bales this year," Chief Manager of Markfed, Birinder Singh told
PTI here.

This cotton production estimate was based on the trend in actual market arrivals, he added. Till last week, the arrival figures
crossed 15 lakh bales of 170 kg each as against 11 lakh bales in a year ago period.

Stating that cotton would continue to arrive in the market till middle of March, he estimated the final arrival figures to be around 20
lakh bales as against 70 lakh bales last year.

Singh attributed the increase in production mainly to Bt cotton variety which reported 15 per cent acreage in the state during the
first year of the introduction.

"The increase in output in North India was due to a host of contributory factors including 10-15 per cent increase in cotton acreage
under Bt cotton variety," a Bhatinda based cotton trader Ashok Kapur said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1357708.cms showed on Jan 04 HYDERABAD: Agricultural scientist and chairman of the National Commission on Farmers Prof M S Swaminathan believes seed companies ought to provide insurance cover to farmers.

Pointing out that in several cases, seeds supplied by these companies are turning out to be spurious, causing crop losses and driving farmers to suicide, he said, "the companies have an obligation to provide insurance to the farming community."

Speaking to The Times of India on the sidelines of the Indian Science Congress, Swaminathan said spurious BT cotton seeds drove many farmers in Vidarbha to suicide.

He felt there was a need for an 'evergreen revolution' to enhance agricultural productivity.

29/1/06
NEW DELHI: The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) on Friday issued notices to biotech major Monsanto and its Indian affiliates on a reference made by the Andhra Pradesh government on the controversial Bt cotton seed.

The chairman of MRTPC, Justice B K Rathi, said that at the next hearing of the Monsanto case on March 7, One far-reaching question raised by the case is whether a company selling a much sought-after technology could have an unfettered discretion in determining the quantum of royalty it could charge under the guise of "trait value" or "technology fees." In its application before MRTPC, the Andhra Pradesh Government contends that the saving-on-pesticide argument of Monsanto amounts to saying that polio vaccination should be priced at Rs 30,000 as it saves treatment costing more than Rs 50,000.

He said that the criteria for fixing trait value was "neither scientific nor based on any analysis of mercantile system."

You obviously don’t like pro-GM Ausbiotech not having full say in what the WA Government is checking out. I say pro-GM because if you look on their website www.ausbiotech.org you will find these words in their mission statement: “Agbio advocacy on GM moratoria” and have pro-GM conferences (Perth 2005)involving speakers from Monsanto.

You have not given me research on GM experiments on human or human type animals over long periods so I assume that there are none which means that humans are the guinea pigs

Pro-GM tantrums aside, we are farmers and you can have your way providing you do not negatively impact on our existing industry. Rather than trying to progress by bullying and lying, why not progress by accepting the liability. If you are right about the "no problems" bit, it should not be a problem for you.

Your quote of the rantings of Ausbiotech is typical of the lies pro-GMers are prepared to put out:
“On the same day that AusBiotech was informed by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture that the Government cannot respond to our letter dated 24 January, a detailed letter was sent to Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmer (an organisation linked with Greenpeace),” said Dr Tony Coulepis, Executive Director, AusBiotech. The letter not only contained many errors of fact but also brings into question the advice that the Minister is receiving in relation to agribiotech and GM crops."

I have no idea why Ausbiotech would claim that I was sent a letter full of misinformation when it was a response to a commercial seed cleaner regarding a serious question asking which canola seed was contaminated. The letter explained the contamination of Grace seed and the bulk of it was taken from the Oilseeds Federation document which at that time was not released. Why is Ausbiotech claiming that this "contained many factual errors". The letter was obviously prepared by the Ag Dept, not the Minister personally and contained nothing that Ausbiotech could possibly construe as being linked to misinformation.

Claiming we are an organisation linked with Greenpeace is typical of the lies Ausbiotech are prepared to claim and this sort of trash from supposedly professional people disgusts me.

That aside, how did Ausbiotech get to read a letter the Minister sent me

Rick if you compare the historical yields of both Canada and Australia, they have gone up since the introduction of canola which should be expected. This is clearly not due to GM as the statistics prove the yield did not go up in proportion to the rise in adoption. This was obviously due to improved farming practises such as minimal till and improved non-GM plant breeding such as hyola (remember roundup ready is only one gene added to an existing non-GM plant). You can't give credit to GM where it is not due and it is obvious that it can't stand up in its own right if you have to resort to misusing statistics in that way. Compare the average yields for Canada and Australia now and you will find that there is little difference (except Australia is less stable due to adverse conditions.)
Wait for the Australia yield data to be released for this year. I am sure we will have the best year ever recorded... and we have no GM!

We did contract crops spraying for over 20 years so have enough experience in chemicals to know there is often a yield penalty associated with spraying, and this needs to be considered with the burden of weeds and the cost of application.

The US grower was a corn grower claiming to grow GM corn, conventional corn and organic corn on the same farm and yes, when I get time I will look for a name for you.