GM canola does not allow farmers to sow earlier than existing varieties. Why would it?
#GMO Pundit:Page 9 of Robert Norton’s Conservation farming 2003 report-during pre-seed weed control, waiting for weed emergence.

"Yields and drought?"

#GMO Pundit: Chris Preston discusses this NCF argument fully at
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2441

“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."

#GMO Pundit: This statement is actually about yield losses "because transgenic seeds are smuggled into Brazil from Argentina and are not intended for the local climate, so have proved less resistant to the water shortage. The conventional varieties, developed by national Brazilian agencies, certified and adapted to the region, had better results. The differences in crop loss varied according to the conditions of each field, reaching "a maximum of 25 percent" for non-GM soy, he said." Therefore, rather than a 25% yield reduction on account of the soybeans being GM we have a problem with less well adapted varieties being smuggled into Brazil and the yield loss is mostly less than 25%. As all farmers would realise, less well-adapted varieties are likely to have lower yields. The farmers growing these varieties would have decided to grow GM soy for the other advantages they provide.

"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?"

#GMO Pundit: Preston (see above link)argument starts with Charles Benbrook citing Eliason and Jones at the Midwest Soybean Conference in 2004, but Bedbrook simply ignores another paper at the same conference that contadicts Bedbrook claims.
(J.E. Sprecht. Is
soybean yield improvement stagnating? Perception and perspectives.
http://wwwiasoybeans.com/whatnew/msc04/proceed.html and click on the
link) examined the same problem. Sprecht showed that yield improvements, with no significant reduction in rate of improvement, had occurred in irrigated soybeans. It is clear from Sprecht's analysis and other data presented at the same conference that weather conditions rather than Roundup Ready are responsible for the apparent lack of yiel

GM Dave you didn't comment on the main point I made from the Choice article. Perhaps it slipped your notice.

It was the bit about the application to increase residual levels of roundup by up to 200 times in Soy Beans. It hit me fair and square in the eye.

Seeing you are a scientist of some note ... was that bit true or even partially true?

And just so we get to the crux of the problem with the science behind Genetically Modified foods perhaps we should discuss who funds each of our research.

Let me start... I am just a Joe off the street. I am not a member of any political parties, any environmental groups nothing. I am boringly independent. I am a true swinging voter, I look at the issue and decide whether I believe what I am being fed.

I hope you are too.

Not to be rude but after you have answered the Roundup residual in the soybean question can you answer these questions.

1. Have you ever received any funding or benefits whatsoever from GM food industry corporations or GM food organisations of any type?

2. Do you have any further applications for funding or benefits from GM food industry corporations or GM food organisations of any type?

3. Have you ever received any funding or benefits whatsoever from Anti GM organisations?

4. Do you have any further applications for funding or benefits from Anti GM organisations?

I hope you aren't offended by these questions because absolutely no offence is meant in any way whatsoever but for the benefits of all the answers would be nice to know. It may help us gain perspective.

nonGMfarmer:
"no evidence that GM crops increase yields ...single gene technology"

#####The link shows that GM exploits hybrid vigour, and that this is a multi-gene phenomenon. Thus nonGMfarmer is wrong about two things in the one statement, crop-yield and single-genes.http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-hybrids-and-hybrid-vigour-came.html

"Monsanto negotiates lucrative deals with seed companies to prevent the better varieties being released without the Monsanto GM trait."

####Oh yes? Surely ACCC and the competitive trade practices act gives us sufficient protection from this.

Opinionated2
"residual levels of roundup by up to 200 times in Soy Beans. "

#####I think on balance the move to Glyphosate crop tolerance is a good health and environment outcome. Its much less toxic than other herbicides and I am aware of no health issues with glyphosate itself.
see
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2004/august/9487.htm
http://www.agric.usyd.edu.au/research/p/RR%20cotton%20snapshot.pdf

"crux of the problem...who funds each of our research."

####I don't accept that you've described the crux of a problem accurately. There is also the issue of improper ad hominem attacks on individual scientists and imputations of impropriety as a means of silencing reasoned comment. I have seen this in action for long enough to make sure that I cannot be silenced by this tactic, so I suggest that you are wasting time and space here. However, I think it is proper that those who attempt silence others using this argument should be transparent themselves.

Which leads me to ask you to lift the view of anonymity from you post so that at least we can gain "perspective" on your statements using your own criteria. Graeme O'Neil and I have had financial questions about Genetics-ACF funding unanswered for years -fundamental questions about European sources of funds, connections to funding by Berri fruits and Mr Doug Shears in Australia, and for example Greenpeace funding of the visits to Australia by overseas "experts" such as Charles Bedbrook should all be answered by an organisation that discounts other comments on the basis of funding sources.
I don't do such discounting. I dont "research" food crops, and my infectious disease work has been government funded. The opinions I express are totally independant.

My drive is that I have always hated farmers being lied to. I know it upsets the pro-GM activists that farmers are funding ourselves (not Greenpeace funded) but you just have to get over it, you will never find a secret funding link because there is none. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1139
The latest cost I paid was $660 for a CSIRO gene technology workshop because I was the only farmer that was refused funding assistance by Agrifood Awareness (chiefly funded by Avcare, the lobby organisation for major chemical companies such as Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto). It was mentioned that CSIRO negotiates "deals" with Monsanto to allow them to use their GM intellectual property in the lab but I could not find out what deals.
Farmers are lobbied heavily by the GM industry with little or no avenue to correct the statements. eg. Grains Week question time - I was attending in the role of WAFarmers Federation Grains vice-president, and was the only person who responded. I was told "Not you Julie, anybody but Julie Newman can ask a question." What are they scared of, accountability for false and misleading statements?
Charles Benbrook's Australian tour is not funded by Greenpeace. It must be difficult for the pro-GM activists to try to counter the credibility of someone that has such credible history (eg. chief advisor to the White House.)
The references you use are opinions, not factual data. The "I've been there and GM is wonderful" statement does not counter the 3 year scientific studies by the Ag Depts mentioned that came up with the findings and scientific reasons why GM crops are performing worse in drought.
GM does not make a hybrid, the GM process just makes it easier to prevent self fertilisation in a hybrid. It is a breeding tool, not a process to increase yields. Bayer confirms this in the explanation to the OGTR "It is important to note that the hybrid vigour displayed in F1 RF x MS hybrids is not a function of the genetic modification but is a result of the breeding of the two genetically distinct parents."

I am very stunned at the claim from NonGMFarmer (so that is you Julie Newman) that “atrazine has just undertaken a stringent 8 year APVMA regulatory review and it is not toxic.” All pesticides, by definition are toxic, and Julie’s one-eyed claims on this obviously testable fact should raise questions about all of her other claims. Even the US EPA has concluded that atrazine is a health risk (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/atrazine.html ). EPA has found atrazine to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above 3 parts per billion for relatively short periods of time: congestion of heart, lungs and kidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands. Long-term, atrazine has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above 3 ppb: weight loss, cardiovascular damage, retinal and some muscle degeneration; and cancer.

All that an APVMA regulatory review means is that the risks were considered manageable. Seven EU countries in the European Union ("EU") have banned atrazine: France, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Austria and Italy (http://www.thecre.com/atrazine/intactions.htm). You could grow crops without atrazine if GM canola and legumes were allowed in Australia, and even with other herbicides.

By the way, Benbrook has been funded by Greenpeace in the recent past for a study on Argentina (it's in the acknowledgements of his report) that he will surely cite while visiting Australia. Thus, while it may be technically true that Greenpeace is not funding Benbrook’s visit (and I would still like to see the books on that), Greenpeace has surely funded him.

I would like to add that Julie Newman claimed as recently as April 2004 that Greenpeace had nothing to do with her organization, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF). However, The Weekly Times revealed in April 2004 an apparent contradiction, that NCF had been having regular teleconferences with Greenpeace and Greenpeace had developed (and funded) the NCF website. I so hate it when farmers and the public are misled

In defense of Tribe, there have been so many false and misleading claims made in this exchange that it is hard to know where to start.

Potential hazards associated with transgenic crop technology have been studied by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS repeatedly has concluded that biotechnology is no more likely to produce unintended effects than conventional technology—indeed the greater precision and more defined nature of the changes introduced may actually be safer (NAS 2004). Mutagenesis methods that have a long history of safe use in conventional breeding are likely to produce a greater number of unintended changes than any other method of plant breeding. European Union scientists concluded that transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their regular counterparts, and likely more so, given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/index.html). GM crops help to protect farm worker health and the environment. After 10 years of safe use, it is fair to conclude that the inherent safety of the technology and the pre-market case-by-case safety assessments conducted by regulatory agencies around the world have ensured that foods from transgenic crops are as safe to eat as any food.

GM crops are heavily assessed for food safety. In fact, if peanuts or kiwi fruits had to go through the same assessment as is applied to GM crops, such as for the recent GM peas, they would not be approved, because both peanuts or kiwis cause allergic reactions. In fact, the multi-million dollar costs of safety assessment, and opposition from anti-GM activists, are key reasons as to why other kinds of GM crops have not yet been developed.

Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries (http://www.isaaa.org/), representing more than half of the world’s population. More than 7 million of these farmers are small-holders in developing countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries.