ISAAA is a not-for profit organisation but who really invests in the Company? Who actually pays the Company to run? Not-for-profit means that they have to spend all their money and not invest it anywhere and should not be taken out of context.

We should not be looking at what Mr Bush is doing or saying as he has alternative agendas which are to bombard poor nations with US technology sold by Monsanto into these poorer countries to near on nothing and at a later date make them pay. This is outright insanity, but if the poorer countries have this subsidised seed, then they will plant them and we know that. In doing so, they will contaminate the crops that are non-GM.

Australia should not be looking at what US is doing as they have interest in contaminating the world’s food supply so they can sell their own crops. The US has their own religion of money and we should be aware of this. We should be doing our own independent research away from all profitable ventures. Then we will know the truth and we would have a distinct advantage if anything shows up (which seems to be coming to the surface now) that shows how GM is a biohazard”

WEEKLY TIMES

GM a mystery to Government

April 26, 2006

Tragically, Victorian Agriculture Minister Bob Cameron has again demonstrated his rather alarming lack of understanding of genetic modification technology with his ill-informed comments (WT, April 19).

Mr Cameron is quoted as saying that Antarctic hairgrass is not in the canola family.

He therefore infers that the recent breakthrough discovery of frost-resistant genetic material in this plant will not be affected by the Victorian Government ban on GM crop trials.

However, Mr Cameron fails to understand even the basics of GM technology.

Scientists will seek to relocate the frost-resistant genetic material from the Antarctic hairgrass into productive crops like canola, wheat, barley and oats.

Therefore, any trials would involve commonly grown crop plants like canola.

But such trials are banned by the government legislation.

GM technology has a lot to offer Victorian farmers, our environment and the world, which is looking for more high quality food.

Is it any wonder the State Government makes completely unscientific and irrational decisions about GM technology when Mr Cameron clearly shows he simply does not understand the basics of these scientific advances?

Denis Napthine, Opposition spokesman on Agriculture, Forestry and Water

NonGMFarmer, looks like your knowledge is pretty similar if you think that antarctic hair grass can be crossed to wheat through conventional breeding. They are in different tribes of the Poaceae.

Denis Napthine has no idea what the moratoria entails. State moratoria will not prevent trials as this is a Federal mandate and the decision over trials prior to OGTR approval is under the OGTR and the Federal Gene Tech Act with a directive to assess health and the environment. The State only has a mandate to assess economics and markets after the OGTR approves the variety. Of course, the GM companies are not being cooperative in allowing the independent performance trials and giving details of costs or contracts to enable states to assess economics.

We do indeed need to look at why farmers plant GM crops. In US these farmers get subsidised to the hilt and in Canada they are increasing subsidies. In Argentina and Brazil they can dodge the royalties. In Australia, we are expected to pay the royalties but not expected to get subsidised. Thats why we need to assess economics carefully but the companies are not being cooperative.

I attended an excellent lecture at Grains Week in Brisbane last year by a Professor who explained how frost tolerance can be introduced by crossing an arctic grass with wheat and the pro's and con's of both GM and non-GM methods. I'm sure the professor knew what he was talking about.

"Not-for-profit" means ISAAA are being paid for the results. I know Monsanto funds around 25% of ISAAA because Mark Buckingham from Monsanto admitted it.

“…in Canada they are increasing subsidies”

This is news to me and also to the Canadian farmers I know. Perhaps you might enlighten us? Which crops are being subsidised in Canada? How are the subsidies provided? Are they price supports, like the subsidies US, or rebates on inputs like Australia? Or is this something else you have made up?

“I attended an excellent lecture at Grains Week in Brisbane last year by a Professor who explained how frost tolerance can be introduced by crossing an arctic grass with wheat and the pro's and con's of both GM and non-GM methods. I'm sure the professor knew what he was talking about.”

Which Professor? What was he a Professor of?

Either the Professor was wrong or you have misinterpreted what was said. Your track record on this forum suggests the latter is the correct interpretation.

A non-GM solution for moving the gene from Antarctic hair grass to most crop species is impossible.

Wheat is a member of the Triticeae Tribe of the Poaceae Family. Wheat can be crossed, often with some difficulty, to other members of the Triticeae Tribe, such as other Triticum spp. (such as Durums and Triticum tauchii), Aegilops cylindrica (goatgrass), Secale cereale (Rye), Agropyron spp. (quackgrass), and one or two others, but not outside the Triticeae. Antarctic hair grass (Deschampsia antarctica) is a member of the Aveneae Tribe. It is related to the oats and wild oats, not wheat.

In addition, the chromosome number of wheat is 42. Southern hemisphere Deschampsia species have a chromosome number of 26. A successful cross between the two is virtually impossible. A cross with barley (also in the Triticeae) is equally impossible. So is a cross to canola and a host of other plants.

A typical rude misleading "attack and discredit" response from Agronomist!

The Canadian increase in subsidies is not something "made up" and just because you have not taken the time to do the research does not mean it is not true.

You can see the government press release on http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=n&s2=2005&page=n50329a

"Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Andy Mitchell today announced $1 billion in immediate federal assistance for cash-strapped Canadian farmers facing record low farm incomes as the first step in an aggressive all-out effort to restructure the national agriculture and agri-food industry and bring profitability back to one of Canada's most important sectors...
The Farm Income Payment Program will begin delivering the money in April as part of a two-part plan to ease immediate financial pressures on farmers and allow for a transformation of the industry that addresses the root causes of declining farm income."

I'll need to check my old notes when I have time but Tim Reeves was one of the speakers in the block that was discussing GM/non-GM alternatives. Canola itself was considered an "impossibility" by many but thanks to the researcher that developed it, they were proven wrong. Even triticale is apparently a cross that couldn't apparently happen.

When our markets do not want GM wheat, why would we want to grow GM wheat? It does not matter how well it grows, we need to grow crops that our markets want.

I'm certainly not saying any plant breeding for frost tolerance would be easy and quick. Hopefully by the time frost tolerant crops are developed, there will be a global shortage of food because if it is released with our current global glut of food, areas like Ukraine will be consistently producing massive amounts of grain on their very rich topsoils. Will Australia be able to compete?

p.s. As you yourself have explained, the specific arctic grass (hair grass) is of the oats family, therefore it would be possible to cross oats with this grass to get a conventional non-GM frost tolerant oat.
If an arctic grass was of the Triticeae family (same as wheat), it would be possible to cross that grass with wheat.
The gene identification would fastrack conventional plant breeding by around 5-7 years using marker assisted plant breeding.