On the subject of India, I have twice been to India to talk with Indian farmers and scientists about Bt cotton (including in their fields with no Monsanto reps in sight). The Bt cotton is working very well, so well that some farmers are growing whatever varieties are available even before locally adapted varieties can be refined and released. Indeed, one issue is that the Bt cotton carries so many bolls (because they have not been eaten by bollworms) that the cotton is maturing a bit too early for maximum yields, and the cotton varieties will have to be re-bred to maximize yields. The very fact that Indian farmer advocates are complaining about what they see as a monopoly is an express recognition that farmers want and benefit from the seeds, but like farmers everywhere, want them at a lower price. As is already the case in China, Indian scientists are developing their own Bt cotton, so the monopoly will soon end, and in any case, India has hundreds of small seed companies from which farmers have many other non-GM seed options. Further, Swaminathan's concern is about illegal "fake" Bt cotton seeds, ie, seeds that are advertised to be Bt but aren't, which further illustrates that farmers want Bt seeds and can see the difference when they don't get them.

Liability has already been addressed in this site, and I don't see any point in repeating the arguments that have been made in detail by several writers (see above). Strict liability is not legally warranted. Current liability laws protect farmers if they can show harm. Farmers have not shown harm or sued their neighbors in more than 8 years of broad use in the US or Canada (or anywhere else, including Argentina), facts which remain unchallenged on this site, or anywhere else.

I agree that Ausbiotech is pro-GM. Ms Newman has still avoided answering the question as to whether she would ever grow GM (a simple “yes” or “no” would suffice!), but has made many anti-GM claims, and cites Greenpeace and Gene Watch extensively, so we can safely assume that she is anti-GM.

Ms Newman has confirmed here that she did receive a letter from the Dept of Ag, which works for Minister Chance. The letter was also clearly about information that might be seen as politically sensitive, and Ms Newman is obviously politically active. I served as Director of the Weeds CRC for 5 years, and know for a fact that we were prohibited from making media releases in any state, even on the most benign things (eg. successful release of a biocontrol agent) in the run up to an election. What Ms Newman has described seems clearly to have violated those rules, errors of fact or not.

Comparing historical yields is bound to be confounded by seasonal weather. The trials need to be replicated and side by side. GM trials almost always do well in such circumstances provided there is reasonable weed or insect pressure.

Rick, you can't possibly be that naive to think that politicians must be silenced in the leadup to elections!

I'm afraid I got the dates wrong and referred to a different letter. In Feb 2005, Minister Chance was only dealing with election issues and I asked for clarity on the Labour party policy on GM after hearing the coalition was going to review the moratorium.

The Minister referred to "concerns" of environmental, consumer and farmer groups and "possible" adverse effects.

He spoke of how "many Western Australian farmers are yet to be convinced of the agricultural and economic benefits of growing GM crops. They have concerns about loss of local and overseas markets if GM crops are introduced, and are worried about legal issues associated with contamination of their crops by GM crops."

and "In 2003 - following the recommendations of an all party committee of the Western Australian Parliament Committee which identified a full range of health environmental, marketing and legal issues associated with GM crops - the Gallop Government’s Genetically Modified Free Areas Act 2003 was passed by the Western Australian Parliament with the full support of all parties including the Opposition.

Most importantly, he explained that "None of the issues identified by the Parliamentary Committee has been resolved to date..."

Since then, Mr Chance has followed his election promise and is arranging the health testing needed to address consumer concerns and has called for a balanced advisory committee.

Yet the pro-GM industry is opposed to this progression to start resolving the issues! Why?

Is it because they prefer to rely on false hype and bullying tactics and ignoring risk management?

Why should we trust scientists such as Ian Edwards from AusBiotech when they lie so vehemently? He has no evidence that the Network of Concerned Farmers "is guided and in part funded by Greenpeace" yet he put out a press release saying this and deliberately misinterpreted the Ministers letter concerned.

Scientists need to open their eyes, they are losing credibility fast by not telling the truth and for an over-reliance on attacking opposition.

The question regarding "would I grow GM?" is obviously upsetting Rick.
On a case by case basis, evaluating GM canola for benefits, alternatives, risks and risk management, I would not grow GM canola.
How can farmers even consider growing something when they don't know the costs or the contractual obligations?
Why should farmers grow something that has little benefit and it is obvious that any benefit to the farmer will be absorbed by the GM company? We have better alternatives.
Why should farmers grow something that markets are rejecting and will prohibitively increase all farmers costs to segregate?
At the moment, there are few benefits and there are alternatives that offer better options, the risks are very high and the risk management is totally inadequate.

I also think GM is not significantly different enough to be registered as a patent rather than the normal plant breeder rights. A patent is not designed for self replicating plants.

I would like to see scientists know alot more about the DNA and the implications of forcing a gene in a place that may interrupt the current association between genes. Techniques should be alot more precise than presently available (so that multiple genes, bits of genes etc are not added) and should not rely on active virus' and invasive bacteria (such as e-coli) to transmit the genes. Techniques should be affordable for scientists and should not require scientists to "do deals" with companies like Monsanto in order to use the patented intellectual property for research. Ethics should be taken into consideration to prevent varieties such as the rice in Japan using human liver genes to provide multiple chemical resistance.
Thorough, independent health testing should be done to allay consumer concerns and ensure we are not releasing something that needs to be recalled.

One of the reasons that safety concerns exist about GM is that mis-information is not corrected, and omissions of relevant data not fixed. Agronomist raised tryptophan ealier as an NCF website error, but Julie Newman did not respond (that I detected). The scientific evidence is now very strong that EMS sickness is not caused by impurities created by GM. This is discussed fully at:

A heretofore undisclosed crux of Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome [EMS] : compromised histamine degradation.
M. J. Smith and R. H. Garrett Inflammation Research 54 (2005) 435–450

and
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/big-shift-in-diagnosis-of-gm.html
Its important get the message that false information itself can cause harm by obscuring important safety precautions to be taken. In this case false information about tryptophan can cause deaths so there a very strong ethical reasons for website errors and omissions to be corrected promptly.

From Scott Day Canadian farmer (http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=12149&start=1&control=218&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1).

Country Times

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Grain growers have little to fear from genetically-modified crops, according to Canadian farmer and agronomist, Scott Day.

With almost 20 years experience in growing GM crops, Scott believes the technology is vital to the success of his farming enterprise, particularly his ability to farm without tillage.

Scott is one of three keynote speakers from the US and Canada at this year's ABB Grain 8th Annual SANTFA No-Till Conference.

"GM canola and the firm moist seed bed of a no-till field is a perfect match", Scott said.

"We can seed earlier with GM canola, we don't have to wait for a germination of weeds prior to seeding, we can plant GM canola on our dirtiest land, and clean up problems from previous years or on land we are just starting to farm."

Growers look to use less herbicide in the crop preceding a GM canola crop because they know they will be able to keep the canola clean the following year, and when they plant a crop of wheat or barley into GM canola stubble they are often able to use less herbicide because they know the paddock will be clean, he says.