Non-GM Farmer. You must be mistaken. I have never heard that the GM success rate is 1 in a million. In fact, I can’t think of anyone who would make a million transgenic plants for the purposes of selecting one. Where would they put them all? I recently saw some transgenic drought tolerant wheat plants. The number of transformations they had conducted was in the tens (and for two different constructs as well). Out of that, they had a number of events of which they were taking 6 forward for further testing. What I do know is that a lot of successful transformants are not pursued to commercialization because each event needs to separately regulated. The cost of regulation is so high that only the best events go forward.

Non-GM Farmer – you neglect to answer my questions. I thought we had already established that it didn’t matter whether you or I had travel support from Bayer? If it doesn’t matter, why do you want to know? You full disclosure argument doesn’t wash. You could run the same argument to demand that I tell you what color underwear I have on. So, until you can tell me why it matters whether I have had travel support from Bayer and why those reasons do not apply to you, I don’t see that it is necessary to answer your question.

Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), I'm not in the slightest bit interested in what colour underwear you have on.

Why not be transparent about funding when you have demanded it of me? Considering the constant drilling I had about funding sources etc earlier in this thread, I think it only fair that you answer my questions regarding your funding. Is the reason why you refuse to reveal the answer that you receive a significant amount of funding and don't want it made public?

The difference is that due to demands, I have disclosed any funding or assistance I have received and you have not. Bayer paid only my flight to attend a meeting in Canberra that they arranged but I paid for my time, my accommodation, for driving to Perth (880km round trip), airport parking fees etc which came to far more than the flight. They arranged a meeting with the Harvesters Association prior to this and then came out in the media saying that the Harvesters Assn problems had been resolved which was not true. That is why we insisted on a joint press communique on the completion of our meeting.

Again, you presume I "must be mistaken" when Ms Foley from CSIRO said this at a meeting in Lake Grace which you arranged while taking your Canadian mate Mr Day on a pro-GM tour (the same tour that claimed that non-GM Clearfield was GM). She was mainly referring to how many genes were isolated and how many actually resulted in a final product. The technique is very hit and miss with the hope that at least one in a million of the genes would stick to the DNA and actually work without producing deformities. You are only talking about mutations after the major achievement of getting the gene construct into the DNA.

d, (David Tribe) Your own quote counters your claim that our crops will not suffer a detrimental effect from GURTS.
"In crops that spread pollen over wide areas this TPS is not suitable, since the spread of activated TPS pollen would be detrimental to neighboring crops."

and for Rick Roush re organics:
In the latest Agnet from Leon Graves, President, Green Mountain Federation of Dairy Farm Cooperatives

"The USDA National Organic Standards clearly state that if organic growers follow the "organic process" for growing crops, the crops are considered organic. In fact, organic growers are not required to test their produce to prove that they meet the organic standards mandated by USDA."

The system required is a rigorous identity preservation system and closed loop marketing system that is already present in organic production.

The conventional farmer (not organic) that wants to continue to market unhindered and without GM contamination does not want to go to this expense. It should not be up to the non-GM grower to keep GM out of our produce, it should be up to the GM industry to keep it contained and compensate us if their lack of containment causes us economic loss.

Agronomist, I don't want to know what colour your underwear is either, but I do want to know if you have or are being funded by Bayer Cropscience or Monsanto.

Concerning damning evidence against the safety of GM food and feed:

*Pregnant female rats fed GM soya gave birth to severely stunted progeny and others in the litters that died within three weeks

*GM-soya affected cells in the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice

*Rats fed a Monsanto GM maize developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities

*Villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto GM maize hybrid came into flower; antibodies to the Bt protein in the GM maize were found in the villagers, and there have been five unexplained deaths

*Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues found young rats fed GM potatoes damaged in every organ system including an increase in thickness of the stomach lining to twice that in controls

*Scientists in Egypt found similar effects in mice fed another GM potato

*The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach

*Chickens fed Aventis' glufosinate-tolerant GM maize were twice as likely to die compared with controls

*New research demonstrated that a harmless protein in bean when transferred to pea caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked reactions to other proteins in the diet ("Transgenic pea that made mice ill"...)

This is why I am concerned that GM is unsafe and I still believe that it is a biohazard.

Bill, you constantly appear to not want to know the truth and when you hear it you twist it around to suit yourself while claiming I am lying. That of course is what was recommended by the "how to deal with activists" PR person that you earlier denied any involvement in. I was told you attended the WA meeting.

On 27.11.05 David Tribe re "...who funds each of our research." said "However, I think it is proper that those who attempt silence others using this argument should be transparent themselves."
An excellent comment David and very relevent now as Bill and particularly Rebel (Ian Edwards) have been most insistent regarding details of any funding I have had but have not been transparent themselves.

Agronomist (Bill Crabtree) 1.12.05 falsely claimed that I knew I had a website created by Greenpeace which was absolute fiction and then tried to imply I was changing my story. Bill finished "Are you, or were you, trying to conceal something?"

Bill even accused me of bullying when I revealed Jennifer Marohasy was funded by the GM industry to counter NGO anti-GM sentiment which is true. Why so frightened of revealing funding links, are you trying to conceal something Bill?

I have been truthful about my funding (or lack of funding) and pro-GM activists have managed to blow a minute involvement of Greenpeace (handling a cheque in and out only) into a major funding issue when it appears the major supporters of GM have a potential for real lucrative funding.

Rebel (Ian Edwards) has a huge vested interest in GM and has a real problem not accepting that I am not funded by Greenpeace demanding more specific details constantly. He seemed fixated on ignoring how George Kailis paid for my website with a $3,500 "keep the change" cheque via Greenpeace. He accused me of hiding information when the time lag between when I knew to when I answered the media was less than two minutes and he has not stopped the accusations. Rebel has disappeared since I guessed his identity.

NonGMFarmer. Indeed you are mistaken. To my knowledge, I have never met a Ms. Foley of CSIRO. I have also never been to Lake Grace. If your 1 in a million is a reference to the number of cells in the explants that are treated, it is laughable. There is no intention to make every cell transgenic, you only need one (It is like accusing a man who gets his wife pregnant on the first encounter of inefficiency because he used a million sperm for the job). As selection is imposed, the cells that do not pick up the DNA are killed, hence your deformed cells.

I do know Scott Day, he is a farmer in south-western Manitoba. The last time I heard from Scott he was telling me that over 85% of canola in Manitoba is either Roundup Ready or Liberty Link. You must forgive Scott the confusion over the status of Clearfield canola. In Canada, Clearfield is considered a plant with a novel trait and regulated in the same way as Roundup Ready crops are. To a farmer, they all look the same. By the way, Scott also mentioned that despite growing GM canola, he grows and sells wheat into a premium EU market.

Funding. I have looked back through the posts and I have made only one comment about NCF funding (December 1st). I did not claim that the NCF website was created by Greenpeace as I had read your two posts about how the website had come about. It was clear Greenpeace was involved, if only as a broker. Instead I asked why you felt you needed to change your story about the assistance the NCF had from Greenpeace in the matter of your website. You did not answer me.

You have still not said why it is important for you to know whether I have had travel funding support from Bayer. Indeed, I am trying to conceal something, my identity. So far on this forum you have made widely inaccurate statements about Bill Crabtree and Rick Roush. I don’t want to be the next.