Are you saying you are not Bill Crabtree Agronomist? Funny you have not denied this up until it gets too hot about the funding.

Re the 1/1,000,000, you would expect this in nature but it would be a big failure if you were using the more precise lab techniques. Why say GM is precise when its not?

You now state "I did not claim that the NCF website was created by Greenpeace."

Your comment on 1.12.05 "Before that all you knew you had was a website created by Greenpeace. How is this not support from Greenpeace?"

As I explained and as you no doubt know as you read the article I wrote, I did not at any time now or before presume "I had a website created by Greenpeace". Why would I, Greenpeace had nothing to do with the website, they only paid the account for George using Georges money.

But you ignored the truth and ranted on saying... "Now you tell a different story. Which are we to believe? Why does the story change all the time? Are you, or were you, trying to conceal something?"

Considering you were so demanding regarding funding, I think I have the right to ask you about your funding.

What widely inaccurate statements about Bill and Rick? I repeated what an agronomist had told me about you (or Bill if you claim you are not Bill) and I immediately apologised when I was corrected off forum. Rick was upset that he was on a list without a comment so quoted the comment for others. You sure hiding your identity is not more to do with not wanting the same treatment as I have received? I revealed my identity and funding as soon as I was asked, what are you so frightened of?

I would like to declare that I have never had funding from Bayer Cropscience or Monsanto or Greenpeace but if anyone would like to fund me, please feel free to do so.

Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

Oh, what a tangled web you weave! For someone who is so keen to claim that others are going after the man not the ball, you have a deep interest in the man or woman behind some posts. How about going back to the ideas and questions?

I am not Ian Edwards, whom I don’t know. I don’t have any GM funding, nor have I even touched a GM or herbicide tolerant plant in years. I have taken the last month off, during which I wasn’t demanding any details at all. It looks like we have a lot to catch up on, because even with all that time, you have still left a lot of my questions unanswered.

Hello Rebel, welcome back.
After all your persistent demands of such detail of funding, I think it totally unreasonable that you are objecting to simple demands of funding of others. Why is it that I am expected to comply with these demands and answer these questions when you don't?
I seemed to be non-stop answering your questions, what do you still have a problem with?
Why don't you answer the questions I have asked of you?
Lets deal with what my debate is centred on. Non-GM farmers should not be expected to try to keep GM out of our produce and should not be expected to market as GM. How do you see coexistence working? Saying something like "it just needs cooperation between neighbours" is just ignoring the problem. Do you expect us to market as GM and face the market penalties associated with this? Or do you expect us to go through an expensive identity preservation closed loop system that is worse than what an organic grower must go through? Why should we accept being adversely impacted?
Take your time as I will be away in Perth from tomorrow.

NonGM Farmer. As usual you take my words out of context. I don’t really care whether you did or didn’t have funding from Greenpeace and haven’t demanded that you tell me. It doesn’t make you more right or less wrong. What I did find interesting was the need you felt to change your story about who knew what when with regard to the role of Greenpeace in your website construction.

You reported wildly inaccurate hearsay about Bill Crabtree as fact without checking. You did the same by linking to GMWatch’s inaccurate profile of Rick Roush. He had to correct that. This seems to have become a habit of yours. You say things without checking their truth.

Why would it matter whether I am or am not Bill Crabtree? So you can have a target to go after?

I can see co-existence working just fine. It already does so in North America with specialty oil crops. It simply relies on those who want special conditions with their product being willing to pay for the identity preservation. When Canada introduced GM canola, nobody was that interested in paying extra for non-GM canola so segregation was not introduced. Now that they have some specialty oil markets in Europe, a small number of growers that access those make sure that GM presence is below 0.9%. Because there is a premium on specialty oils, they can easily afford the cost. If you find it too hard and don’t want to put in the effort, you just produce bulk commodities. What is so hard about that?

There is so much evidence from scientists that GM is hazardous so why are the hazards not taken into account and human studies performed correctly before GM is even allowed to be used for food?

This is unacceptable as the implications for disastrous side effects from GM is now becoming apparent and more so as more independent research is done. GM should be stopped at the gate of Australia until these researchers have thoroughly tested for long term effects on humans including offspring.

Why isn’t this being done? For example a series of laboratory tests on humans confirmed that the GM soybeans did provoke Brazil-nut allergy in humans. They could not feed the genetically modified soybeans to people for fear of killing them, but through scratch tests, they confirmed unequivocally that people allergic to Brazil nuts were allergic to the modified soybeans. In discussing their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers pointed out that tests on laboratory animals will not necessarily discover allergic reactions to genetically modified organisms. Only tests on humans will suffice.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only requires testing for allergic reactions if a gene is being taken from a source that is already known to cause allergic reactions in humans. Many genes are being taken now from bacteria and other life-forms whose allergenicity is entirely unknown, so federal regulations require no allergy testing in these cases. This reduces regulatory costs for the corporations, but leaves the public unprotected.

Crops are being genetically modified chiefly as a way to sell more pesticides. In some cases, the modified crops change the pesticides themselves, giving them new toxicity. The herbicide bromoxynil falls into this category.Bromoxynil is already recognized by U.S. EPA as a possible carcinogen and as a teratogen (i.e., it causes birth defects). Calgene (now owned by Monsanto) developed a strain of cotton plants that can withstand direct spraying with bromoxynil. Unfortunately, the bromoxynil-resistant gene in cotton modifies the bromoxynil, turning it into a chemical byproduct called DBHA, which is at as toxic as bromoxynil itself