Can you tell me what page this is meant to be on in the Canberra Times as I cannot find it? Is the date right? Who wrote it? Where did they get their information from? Was it a report from a pro-GM lobby group that the writer just happened to find or was it a direct quote from ABARE?

ABARE estimated Australia is missing out on GM crops by many millions of dollars and the main crop making up that sum was wheat. ABARE multiplied wheat by 5% to come up with a figure and ignored the AWB policy explaining that none of our pool customers want GM wheat.
GM wheat can not be a benefit if there is no market for it and it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate it!
ABARE is following the Federal government mandate to "provide a path to market for GM crops". It's disgusting that professionals are willing to put out such appalling economic reports to support the Federal mandate.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on the WTO findings. Out of the dozen or more complaints, only one complaint "undue delay" was considered an issue. It is highly unlikely that EU will be growing GM crops when almost every EUsupermarket chain has a GM-free policy and the majority of consumers do not want it.

Federal only has mandate over health and the environment, State governments have authority over economics.

GM canola does not reduce the need for pesticides and tillage! It is the same pesticide/tillage use as any other non-GM chemical resistant canola.

Why is the area of GM growing?
By far the majority of GM crops are grown in US and these GM crops account for 80% of the subsidies paid by the US government to farmers. Canadian farmers too are heavily subsidised. It is unlikely that GM farmers could remain viable without these subsidies. A report from Canada last years showed technology providers gain 144% of the benefits gained from adoption of the new technology. That means the technology user (the farmer) pays 44% more than the benefits gained.
Farmers in Argentina and Brazil are apparently not paying the royalties to Monsanto.
For Australian farmers that are expected to pay royalties but not expected to get government subsidies, it is unlikely that we can afford GM crops.

Arpad Pusztai to testing http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html#learnmore

"When food-crops are genetically modified, ("genetically modified" food is a misnomer!) one or more genes are incorporated into the crop's genome using a vector containing several other genes, including as a minimum, viral promoters, transcription terminators, antibiotic resistance marker genes and reporter genes. Data on safety of these are scarce even though they can affect the safety of the GM crop. For example:

DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract.3,4 Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids5 and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance.

Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, since some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crop's own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, which we cannot analyze for and seriously limiting the selection criteria".

Therefore you have tested on hamsters and rats/mice on this report you are holding close to your chest and saying “this is what matters” but in reality it does not show me that GM is safe in fact the report has so many holes in it that it could be used as a sieve. Where are the true testings outside of your GM corporations that are not paid for to pro GM scientists? This Russian report is not a true scientific paper because there is nowhere where the evidence has been fully reported. There are no data analysis and no answers to if this research was qualititive or quantitive? What method did they use? What facts were retested by other scientists? Where is the structure within the dissertation? Who where the independent research scientists that retested this theory or were they just given a report and told to “accept this”. This report as far as I am concerned just shows that the GM companies have a firm hold on the scientific industry and are paying scientists out as the detriment to the consumer

ABC NEWS

Opposition claims GM ban delaying anti-frost crops

The Victorian Opposition says the State Government's stance on genetically modified (GM) crops could prevent Victorian farmers
from using new anti-frost technology.

The Government has imposed a moratorium on the wide-scale trial and use of GM crops.

The Liberals' agriculture spokesman, Denis Napthine, says it is delaying the introduction of anti-frost crops in Victoria.

He says it is ridiculous that Victorian scientists are being forced to trial their scientific breakthroughs in Queensland.

"You've got to do the trials in Victoria, in the fields in Victoria, to test whether these crops are really effective, and that's important
that it's done by Victorian farmers, under Victorian scientific supervision," he said.
"And that is banned under the Bracks Government's bans of GM trials, and GM technology."

Your article shows how little the Libs know about GM and plant breeding in general.
Labour responded with a release "Liberal Party out of touch on GM canola moratorium".
Firstly, the moratorium is not about restricting research, only commercial release.
Secondly, the frost gene can be introduced to wheat by non-GM means and the identification of the gene has the ability to fastrack non-GM plant breeding by 5-7 years.
The difference between adopting GM and non-GM methods of introducing frost tolerance to wheat would be:
1. AWB has stated in their policy that none of the pool customers want GM wheat so we have a serious economic problem that will result in the GM wheat being restricted from commercial release by moratoria.
2. If for some reason, there is a radical shift in consumer opinions regarding GM and GM is accepted, GM wheat will probably be manipulated by GM means to require an application of chemicals to activate the trait. No doubt the additional cost of the seed, the user fee, the additional chemicals will exceed the value of the benefit gained.
3. Using non-GM means, the wheat can be introduced without restrictions and royalty fees can be recovered through end point royalties with the farmer having the ability to replant their own seeds.
Congratulations to Victoria for this research. I look forward to growing the non-GM frost tolerant wheat.

I am still waiting for the Canberra Times reference that you quoted as even the editing Department could not find it on the date that you mentioned. Please explain. I would be interested in your response.