"Australian farmers do not need to be sued by Monsanto, Monsanto has an end point royalty where a positive test (? as low as 0.5%)can trigger a 100% deduction of "user fees" from a farmers income and we are forced to accept 0.5% contamination in our seed we plant. Farmers will need to sue Monsanto to get our money back and we are told we must "trust Monsanto" when we want risk management to prevent this. We may not have a choice to buy non-GM seed as Monsanto negotiates lucrative deals with seed companies to prevent the better varieties being released without the Monsanto GM trait.
#GM Pundit: In my view, the agreed "unintended presence tolerance" now in place should provide a starting point for workable agreements, given willingness of all parties to try and provide all growers with acceptable choices.

"Provide a link to an approved Golden Rice trial and I am happy to be proven wrong."

http://www.goldenrice.org/index.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/progress-on-field-trials-on-golden.html

"I feel honoured that DR GM Dave spent time redefining the precautionary principle as a result of my posting."
#GMO Pundit: I am merely following a sound framework spelt out already by many others, including Calum Turvey:

http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/papers/Turvey_paper.pdf

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/unintended-adverse-consequences-of-19.html

Thanks GM Dave and the precautionary principle obviously can effect economic development but so can ignoring the precautionary principle by stealth or any other means especially if some of the predicted side effects become apparant. I hope the corporations are using the precautionary principle of economics and stockpiling non GM foods just in case. A disaster could effect their bottom lines if they don't.

By plunging the world into the great unknown - that being the long term effects on humans and plants and animals of GM foods - science obviscates it's responsibilities.

I recommend people should all read this article to avail themselves with an update to at least 2003 on GM foods in Australia. It seems we may be eating up to 200 times more residual Round Up with our Soy Beans and Soy Bean associated products in the not too distant future. Can the GM lobby come up with Chocolate flavoured Roundup soon just in case there are problems with the taste.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=100255&catId=100288&tid=100008&p=3

If people can't see what is wrong here then people just can't see.

The "agreed" tolerance level does not provide all growers with acceptable choices and was not agreed to by non-GM farmers as it is merely an arrangement by those wanting GM crops to remove our GM-free status and make farmers liable for costs and market loss. The tolerance level does not comply with law or market demand. The ACCC confirms non-GM or GM-free = no GM. The 0.9% level was misinterpreted, the EU legislation confirms that contamination will only be accepted if the contamination is not detected at stages throughout the system. If zero can not be guaranteed, an identity preservation system is needed for both EU and Japan (our biggest customer) to prove we have made every effort to avoid GM. This is estimated to cost farmers $35/tonne or 10-15% of the gross value of our product.
Despite being a condition of Bayer Cropscience's license, there is no workable testing regime to make the tolerance level workable. How can farmers state we only have 0.5% (seed) or 0.9% in our crop if there is no field test? Testing for that level of accuracy cost over $1000/test and will take weeks as there is only one accredited lab in Australia.
Of course, we are all meant to act very surprised when marketers finally make the statement that we are either to pay these exhorbitant fees or market as GM. And of course, if we are already marketing as GM it will be declared "too late" to protect our GM-free status and we are expected to be very complacent if the moratoriums are lifted to allow GM companies to contaminate our produce further.
This seed contamination was caused by Bayer Cropscience's Tasmanian trial breaches. Bayer Cropscience is continually breaching trial conditions but never held accountable (see OGTR reports) . Why should farmers be forced to pay for Bayer Cropscience contaminating our seed? We need a strict liability regime because non-GM farmers refuse to accept the liability for a product we do not want and do not need. It is logical that the GM company pay for the losses their uncontrollable product causes.

Thank you for the link confirming that Golden Rice had only completed development last year (4-5yrs to go) and the confirmation of the regulatory hurdle stumbling block "the inserted DNA fragment should not have undergone multiple integrations or rearrangements." As Golden Rice does involve multiple intergeneration rearrangements, it is obviously not going to meet this regulatory hurdle.
The "feed the world" statement has long since been proven wrong as there is no reason why GM crops would feed the world any more than non-GM crops. Starvation is caused when there is total drought where nothing lives and nor will a GM crop.There are numerous examples (and scientific explanations why) of GM crops performing worse in drought and even Australian farmers use an additional irrigation of water on GM cotton. India has had massive failures with GM Bt cotton and the parliament is so concerned they are calling for an enquiry. Australia has recently released a non-GM "drought tolerant" wheat variety but of course every living organism needs water and it is not drought-proof. Third world countries are banning GM crops because of economic risk and concern for health.
GM=less food, the next wave of GM products is replacing food crops with pharmaceutical and industrial crops. This will be a major problem as we can not segregate GM from non-GM totally and I doubt very much if consumers are going to be too happy about consuming drugs (eg. anticoagulants, anti-abortion pig vaccines) or industrials (eg plastics,fuel) in food. Farmers could actually lose our ability to market a food crop because we can not afford the liability involved to try to supply a contamination free product where failure can lead to total market rejection or serious health implications. Even if we don't grow food crops, it is doubtful if a pharmaceutical company will accept our crop if it is contaminated with another pharmaceutical or industrial product.
Unless we get the rules right, GM crops could be the biggest threat to food and agriculture we have ever faced!
Why then are we allowing the GM industry to make the rules?

RE Opinionated's 2003 Consumer Association comments
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=100255&catId=100288&tid=100008&p=
"Maximiser corn... resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin."

This statement is scientific nonsense, plants are not affected by ampicillin to start with
The target of ampicillin is peptidoglcan,
http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/prostruct/cw.html
and plants dont have it.
The Consumer association remarks about Cotton are misleading and out of date. For example, insect resistance to"Bt" hasnt emerged after at least 8 years of use
see
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=11534&start=1&control=217&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/43/15389
Delayed resistance to transgenic cotton in pink bollworm
Bruce E. Tabashnik *, Timothy J. Dennehy and Yves Carrièr
PNAS October 25, 2005 vol. 102 no. 43 15389-15393
"We monitored pink bollworm resistance to Bt toxin for 8 years with laboratory bioassays of strains derived annually from 10-17 cotton fields statewide. Bioassay results show no net increase from 1997 to 2004 in the mean frequency of pink bollworm resistance to Bt toxin. A synthesis of experimental and modeling results suggests that this delay in resistance can be explained by refuges of cotton without Bt toxin, recessive inheritance of resistance, incomplete resistance, and fitness costs associated with resistance."

A much better and more authoritative briefing document is
CAST Commentary QTA 2005-2 October 2005 Crop Biotechnology and the Future of Food A Scientific Assessment
http://www.cast-science.org/cast/src/cast_top.htm

nonGMfarmer "As Golden Rice does involve multiple intergeneration rearrangements"

You appear to have misread Professor Potrykus' slides and talks, and there is no evidence for your comments about supposed genetic instability of Golden Rice. In fact Potrykus (famously) reviews the numerous genetic rearangements in conventional rice breeds.YES, massive genetic rearrangements occur in natural breeds.

As far as several other misleading, contentious or innacurate comments you have made (about yield, drought, India), it's going to take several posts to sort them out. Post links to support your assertions please.
Lets start with GM canola and water efficiency. GM actually helps with more efficient water use.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/sow-and-grow-early-to-waste-less-water.html

As for the supposed Indian cotton disaster, India is having dramatic INCREASES in average crop yields these last two seasons and GM seed sales have jumped 131%
see
http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad/highlights/2005/10/india_18oct2005/index.htm
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Business&loid=8.0.206000816&par=0

Lets look at who is making "misleading, contentious or innacurate comments":

There are numerous scientific documents regarding losing the effect of antibiotics by using antibiotic resistant marker genes in food crops. The OGTR responded claiming these antibiotics are not used much anyway. The issue is that when antibiotics are used, they are expected to work.

Professor Potrykus happily discussed Golden Rice's numerous GM backcrosses. I asked a question publicly to clarify this in association to the regulatory restrictions and also discussed it at some length with Professor Potrykus (a factual honest man). Golden Rice is not ready to adopt because it is unlikely to pass the regulatory hurdles.

Your reference is incorrect, GM canola does not allow farmers to sow earlier than existing varieties. Why would it?

Yields and drought? http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253

India: "GM cotton performed so badly it has now been banned from the whole of South India, and the only other two varieties grown in the past 3 years have been banned from Andhra Pradesh".

3yr scientific study "Though costing nearly 400% more to buy, the average yield from the GM cotton was about 150kg per acre, 30% than from other non-GM varieties. The GM seeds also cost 12% more to cultivate in their need for manure and irrigation, and the reduction in pesticide use was negligible." "Non-GM farmers earned 60% more"

Brazil: "The president of the Rio Grande do Sul seed association sites 25% higher crop losses in GE soy crops as compared with conventional ones."

Indonesia: "the results were so disastrous, Monsanto had to pull its GM seed out of the country..."

US: 2004 Midwest Soybean Conference "Is Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene responsible for a flattening of U.S. soybean yields that has cost farmers an estimated $1.28 billion?"

Argentina: "RR soya crops also yield 5% to 10% less compared with the non-GM varieties grown under similar soil conditions, confirming findings in the United States." "the effects are exacerbated under strong drought conditions or in relatively infertile fields."

The reality of GM certainly does not live up to the hype.