Is it really safe? Your list of harms comes from a collection made by GMWatch. They will place anything on their website, regardless of accuracy, provided it is critical of GM products. The collection you listed comprises items that are mainly accurate, but of little or no consequences, items that have been taken out of context, items that have been debunked and internet hoaxes. In 350 words, I can't deal with all of them so I will just pick two to demonstrate how a bit of checking can sort the chaff from the grain.

Villagers in the Philippines and mystery illness on Bt. This was first exposed by Terge Traavik at a conference organised by an anti-GM organisation 2 years ago. A group of international scientists wrote Traavik an open letter requesting he post or publish his data given the severity of the event. Traavik refused to post his data and in the two years has not published it. Traavik has also not made his data available to regulatory authorities. The conclusion that scientists that I know are drawing from this is: that the data Traavik has is not strong enough to support the conclusions he has drawn.

Pregnant rats and GM soy. This was first exposed by Irina Ermakova at a conference organised by an anti-GM organisation last October. Stephen Strauss has written about this and you should read his comment http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20060203.html. Strauss makes the telling point that if this research were correct, then it should have been noticed among the vast number of animals being fed GM soy worldwide. Ermakova’s explanation is that some sort of giant conspiracy orchestrated by Monsanto has been occurring. A conspiracy involving millions of farmers in North America, South America, Australia, Asia and Europe? This is clearly a hoax.

Previous reported miscommunication of your pro GM reporter (Stephen Strauss) his June 7, 2002 report “The privilege would allow farmers to collect and use seeds harvested from patented plants and to breed patented animals – for their own use only”. However, specifically states that, under the proposed amendments to the Act, the patent holder would still have the right to license their inventions and the terms of the licence could preclude a farmer from exercising this privilege. Accordingly, patent holders would restrict the use of their products through contractual agreement, not legislation. Current law does not restrict “farmers’ privilege” our report recommends that it not be proscribed in future legislation, either. Arnold Naimark (Chairman, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee).

I refuse to accept this report from a pro GM supporter. I want the facts and I am not going to take into account this person saying that a scientist that used to be a brain surgeon possibly became interested in the effects of GM and did a research on the possible harmful effects, found that there were major flaws in GM. This was a major problem but she had run out of money for her research. He is not even remotely looking at her submission of a larger study and final project that would be given to peer reviewed publications by saying “it is the worst of all scientific results and a bogus one”. She was concerned obviously of potential biohazard of GM and wanted the world to know. What is your problem with that?

Bt cotton in the Phillipines, the person was concerned about his safety as two thugs on motorbikes with no number plates came searching for him in his village. Are you bullying so many scientists out of giving their true results with your tactics that they are afraid to speak out? This has to stop. As consumers, we have the right to know what you are trying to force feed us and we definitely do not want to be the guinea pigs of your very costly experiment with human life just so you can make a buck.

Dear Julie NonGM Newman:

I noticed an announcement today for the Joint International GM Opposition Day and note that you are quoted as “Julie Newman, of the Australian Network of Concerned Farmers”. The implication is that you and the Network of Concerned Farmers have joined the JIGMOD and allied yourselves with others who are quoted, such as Brian Tokar of the US-based Institute for Social Ecology. Is that right? Has your Network agreed to this? Was there a vote of the members or something like that?

I also note that from the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/16/1140064205088.html)
a story entitled

“Call for ban on GM crops to end”

“A FULL-SCALE review of Australian farm policies has called on Victoria and other states to end their ban on production of genetically modified crops, warning that Australia is being left behind by new technologies used overseas.”

A taskforce of 11 farm and food industry leaders was involved, chaired by National Farmers Federation president Peter Corish.

“in a world of expanding competition from lower-cost countries, the only way Australian agriculture can remain competitive is by increasing useof new technology and research and development.”

“Mr Corish said the most important recommendation of the study was that states should lift their bans on commercial use of gene technology, so that Australian farmers could catch up with the rest of the world, where genetically engineered crops are spreading rapidly.

“The report points out that while Australia, Argentina, Canada and the US all began using gene technology in 1996, Australia has now fallen far behind because Queensland is the only state allowing commercial use.”

“Argentina now has 65 times as much land producing genetically modified crops as Australia has. Canada has 21 times as much, the US almost 200 times as much, and even Brazil, which only started in 2003, now has 20 times as much GM crop land as Australia.”

Isn’t it time to stand aside and let all farmers the freedom to farm as they see fit? Or are you opposed to choice for the majority of farmers, represented by elected representatives from a known membership?

Non-GM farmer has said before that Australia is not falling behind in the race for technology. She is rather looking at what the technology is. I think you need to read her posts on the following dates to understand why. 26/1, 24/1 18/1 3/2 & 2/2 and more

Again you pro-GM activists are deliberately ignoring the questions that matter and are sticking to the line of claiming I am misleading simply to cover your misleading comments.
Agronomist (BillCrabtree), I repeated what I was told about you Bill which you could have immediately corrected. Would you really like a public explanation of more detail on that issue? Rick just deliberately misinterpreted my comment as he linked himself with my comments about others.
Your comment "I can see co-existence working just fine" is typical of the pro-GM activists who choose to ignore the problem.
Non GM growers do not want to be adversely impacted yet our choices will be limited:
1. We market as GM and accept the associated market losses or
2. We go through a stringent identity preservation system estimated to cost around $35/tonne.
Neither is suitable to non-GM growers and therefore coexistence will not work "just fine" under this arrangement. It can only work when a plan is in place to ensure the non-GM farmers will not be adversely impacted.
Contrary to your comments, segregation was attempted in Canada but failed. We can learn by their mistakes and integrate a workable coexistence plan.
NCF has always debated GM and its impact on non-GM farmers at an international level. We represent the non-GM farmers, others represent other specialist angles of the debate.

NonGMFarmer. Where do you get your information about the Canadian canola industry from? It is frequently wrong. The Canadian canola industry decided from day 1 that it would not try to segregate GM canola from non-GM canola as there was no financial incentive to do so. Subsequently there was, and is, some segregation for some specialty oil products. Canola seed sales to Europe were 7,600 tonnes in 2003/2004 that all had to be segregated.

You have been talking about significant premiums for Australian non-GM canola on this forum. If such premiums are real, you should not worry about the introduction of GM canola into Australia as the premiums will only get better and you as a non-GM farmer will stand to benefit. As the market for non-GM canola contracts, the price will go up and it will be well worth while segregating to capture the higher prices. If the premiums are not there, you are diddling yourselves of the agronomic benefits of these crops. Either way you are losing by opposing the introduction of GM canola into Australia.

Do you always publicly repeat malicious gossip you hear about people without checking it out first? If so, how many friends do you have?