You’ve missed the point Agronomist, there are no benefits but additional costs for non-GM farmers.
Rebel, I am opposed to someones choice adversely impacting on others without fair legal recourse. There is no way I and other farmers will "stand aside" and let that happen no matter how much you bully and coerce.
Almost all farm lobby groups have some clause in their policy to ensure non-GM farmers are not adversely impacted.
I am also involved in WAFarmers Federation and we have just set our annual policy. I am pleased that more farmers understand the issues now and part of that policy is to ensure there is adequate liability redress for non-GM farmers. One of my amendments was approved to encourage trials up to 10ha in order to assess agronomics. The president explained that he doubted if the companies would do that as they are concerned their varieties would not be able to outperform the varieties we have. Pretty obvious that we will not be left behind!
I was asked about Crabtree (Agronomist) and I responded. I could repeat far worse comments but refrained and will save the explanation from the agronomist concerned if media ever ask for it. I'm well aware I have few friends in the pro-GM activist camps but this is because I am refusing to accept bulldust and liability responsibility.
The Canadian Farmers Union will verify the initial attempts to segregate. While GM farmers may have decided not to segregate, the non-GM farmers did not. Canola sold to EU is sold for fuel. Non-GM farmers will not benefit by introducing higher costs or selling as GM

NonGMFarmer. I am assuming you have never seen GM canola crops growing in the field or talked to farmers that grow these crops. Have you ever been to Canada and seen these crops and talked to the farmers that grow them? Or is your knowledge solely the result of believing people like Percy Schmeiser that Greenpeace chooses to bring to Australia? And this makes you an expert on GM canola? Let us be clear, the vast majority of canola growers in Canada benefit financially from growing GM canola. Go over to Canada and have one of the agronomists introduce you to their farmers and find out. With the vast amount of money you are making from premiums on your non-GM canola, you should be able to afford it. Like every endeavour, there are some Luddites who refuse to accept progress. These get trotted out while the vast majority of Canadian farmers go about their normal business.

I assume you mean the National Farmer’s Union? They are an organisation that represents a small number of farms, mostly smaller farmers. They have rather left-wing views. They want an increase in subsidies paid to farmers by the Government, compulsory set aside of farm land to inflate produce prices, compulsory marketing of produce through commodity monopolies, banning corporate ownership of land and livestock and a reduction in Canadian commodity exports. The National Farmer’s Union has made some noise recently about segregation of non-GM canola, mostly because they have an anti-corporate agenda. The NFU is not a commodity group and didn’t have the ability to provide segregation. There was never any real attempt made to segregate GM from non-GM canola in the early days simply because there was not a sufficiently large market to make it worthwhile.

When are people going to understand how dangerous GM food is? In Norway, Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromsso's Institute of Genetic Ecology, just published a study in European Food Research Technology (Jan 2006, p. 185) demonstrating an element of the genetic structures used to modify a plant, catalyst 35S CaMV, canprovoke gene expression in cultured human cells. Now, according to GMO promoters, that catalyst normally only operates that way in plants." The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells

It's long been known that the CaMV promoter, which is used in virtually all varietes of GE plants, has a tendency to combine its DNA with that of infecting viruses so as to generate new viruses that in some cases have been observed to be more virulent and less species specific than the original viruses. This risk is recognised by Monsanto and by the US Department of Agriculture.

Research at John Innes Resarch Institue discovered that the CaMV promoter used in GE crops contains a "recombination hotspot" that considerably enhances the risk of generation of new viruses (1). "It has been noted in experiments involving CaMV, that the frequency of recombination is much higher than for other viruses (2). While recombinant CCMV was recovered from 3% of transgenic N. benthamiana containing CCMV sequences, recombinant CaMV was recovered from 36% of transgenic N. bigelovii. " (3).

In addition, the CaMV Promoter is of such a nature that there is a risk for recombination with many different plant viruses (3). A wide range of recombination possibilities adds considerably to the risk for new viruses to occur in GE crops.

The gigantic numbers of CaMV promoters now released on American fields, makes it justified to regard the US GE crop as a huge "experimental ground" for generation of new viruses with unpredictable and potentially hazardous outcomes.

The question is therefore most probably not if, but when, a new virus will be discovered that is clearly derived from CaMV promoter recombination in GE crops. It cannot yet be excluded that the Maize Necrotic Streak Virus is one

Is it safe.
The problem of your comments about genetics is that you seem to be completely out of touch with what actually goes on in nature. You seem unaware that the fears you have apply even more so with natural events.Why you dont worry about cabbage loaded with natral plant CaMV is beyond me. Your worries could cause you to starve by avoiding all genetic novelty.

For instance
http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~lal/Heredity.pdf
NON_PUNDIT

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/natural-gmos-part-11-ground-control-to.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/natural-gmos-part-7-nanobot-genetic.html

Gene duplication and exon shuffling by helitron-like transposons generate intraspecies diversity in maize.

We report a whole-genome comparison of gene content in allelic BAC contigs from two maize inbred lines. Genic content polymorphisms involve as many as 10,000 sequences and are mainly generated by DNA insertions. The termini of eight of the nine genic insertions that we analyzed shared the structural hallmarks of helitron rolling-circle transposons. DNA segments defined by helitron termini contained multiple gene-derived fragments and had a structure typical of nonautonomous helitron-like transposons. Closely related insertions were found in multiple genomic locations. Some of these produced transcripts containing segments of different genes, supporting the idea that these transposition events have a role in exon shuffling and the evolution of new proteins. We identified putative autonomous helitron elements and found evidence for their transcription. Helitrons in maize seem to continually produce new nonautonomous elements responsible for the duplicative insertion of gene segments into new locations and for the unprecedented genic diversity. The maize genome is in constant flux, as transposable elements continue to change both the genic and nongenic fractions of the genome, profoundly affecting genetic diversity.

Nat Genet. 2005 Sep;37(9):997-1002.
Morgante M, Brunner S, Pea G, Fengler K, Zuccolo A, Rafalski A.
NON_PUNDIT
I know you don't want to go to the GMO Pundit site for some reason, so I include non Pundit refs just for you.

It is no wonder that scientists like yourself have no success in allaying consumer fears. Firstly you need to talk plain English so we know what you are talking about and it’s got to be related to the subject we are talking about. It appears neither have applied here.

My previous post was because non-GM farmer was concerned about mutating and using live viruses such as 35S CaMV and this was denied by agronomist and yet it appears to be true. This should be thoroughly tested as we the consumer, have a right to know if what we are eating will cause adverse effects to our health.

Any scientific test should not be denied being tested because of the bullying of GM supporters and corporations. All scientists should be allowed to give their findings to the world. Are you denying this? Are the GM companies so worried that their scientific experiment of GM may be flawed and really is a biohazard that they will do anything including defaming a scientist, to keep the truth from the consumer?

Is it safe:
I'll spell it out.

We face the same hazards every day as the ones that worry you.
The sources you rely on are people who do not understand modern genetics and who are misleading you. In everyday terms they are nutters.

DNA itself is a minuscule food risk. Most of our existing food DNA offers the same risks you worry about but at a much high intensity because there is buckets of it. Non food DNA risks such as viruses and bacteria that invade the body are a much greater risk too than the hazards you worry about, but it's still trivial. These various tiny DNA risks have been around though for billions of years.

There are much more important risks - like death from poverty in Africa- to worry about that those that you are preoccupied about, and GM technology helps address those.

Your worries seem very self-indulgent to me. I wonder why don't you get real and start dealing with more important problems?