Welll...

I don't like to accept either end of the GM argument, and you, Ms Marohasy, represent the far right of the spectrum. I realise that we derive large benefits from genetic modifications of a range of items, not just foodstuffs. I also realise that the actual modifications are quite minor as the DNA across different organisms is remarkably similar.

However, my concerns about GM technologies revolve around the issues of patents and intellectual property rights. You see, once you leap on the GM bandwagon you also tie yourself to either one or a limited range of suppliers. In terms of cotton or of canola, you no longer retain some of your harvest for replanting, you are required either by signed agreement or by the nature of the genetic manipulation, to buy your seed at "enhanced" prices from your licenced supplier. The premium is meant to cover the cost of the research, but I suspect that most of the premium goes to certain big investors - do you know many researchers who are fabulously wealthy ;-)

The rabid green side of the debate is guilty of overstating the concerns with GM food; but they are right to question unbridled capitalism that is behind Ms Marohasy's article (then again, it was published in The Australian, that bastion of unbridled capitalism and right-wing conservative political agenda so beloved by its owner - hello Rupert).

Jennifer,
For years there have been two types of eggs, "Farm fresh eggs" and "Free Range eggs."
In the shops how do you tell the difference?
You have to rely on the honesty of the wholesaler to label them correctly.
Who can you trust these days? You can't trust nobody, not even with laws to prevent things happening. People break laws so some GM products are obviously going to appear in the Organic market.

I agree with jimoctec. It is the control the chemical companies have over the use of the GM technology through patents etc that really scare me. Not that I particularly want to consume GM products but given the use of chemicals in agriculture already, GM products are not likely to do more harm than we are already unknowingly exposed to. But the power of a few large drug companies to exercise control over what seeds and chemicals a farmer can use, and even take contol over crops which just happen to become contaminated because some other farmer has used GM products, is something to worry about. We will finish up with just a few varieties of canola, corn, grain etc and lose the diversity of crops currently grown around the world.

I don't know the figures, but some Australian producers over apply insecticides by a factor of 3-5 times the regulatory restrictions. Another checkmark in favour of organically-grown produce.

"I don't know the figures, but some Australian producers over apply insecticides by a factor of 3-5 times the regulatory restrictions."

Another unsubstantiated,inflammatory greenie lie, and it only took 4 comments into the thread for it to crop up! They're so cute, those greenies. Trying to have a debate with them is like repeatedly bashing your head into a brick wall.

In North America, Chuck Benbrook is seen for what he has been for most of the past 15 years at least – a consultant to the organic industry. He currently holds some sort of position with the Organic Centre, a body devoted to “proving” the benefits of organic agriculture. As the organic industry has taken an ideological position against GM crops and is actively using the controversy to lure people to organic agriculture, of course Benbrook was going to say GM crops were bad.

Did you know that hand pulling of weeds has been banned in California, except for the organic industry and certain small scale vegetable seed crops. Hand pulling of weeds is well known to cause musculoskeletal damage to humans yet the organic industry fought tooth and nail to retain this practice. Devotees of the organic industry are quite happy to make all sorts of unfounded claims about the safety of more conventional agriculture, but more people would be damaged by hand weeding in California than by pesticides in the whole of the US.

Being anti capitalist and an anti-Achiever is certainly not in the interest of anyone, if the Product is bad or flawed, then market forces will dictate its failure, not propaganda and envy advocates.
Some how I can remember in a period of time when such advocates destroyed a Nation and confined it to a long period of suffering -misery mentality but less the elite psychopaths who flourished. Reward success and advance technology, if the value of productive effort is destroyed, then your basic fabric of society are destroyed. Look at Africa then argue otherwise.
I can not imagine Mark Latham as an example, being of such "designed intelligent" to invent a product to enhance production or aid manufacture; People of that design intelligent invent more ways to take that achievement and destroy it or confiscate in some way from the Intelligent designer. Note the use of wording- Ever perpetual backward steps and a shear product of designed ignorance and envy, and a contributing factor to the degradation of honest intellectual standing and can only lead to the inevitable destruction of our society in the very worst case, .Dr Jenn is of intelligent design and objective- such a stand be applauded - and be commended for her efforts.
If it was left to the designed Intelligent, then you would still be using Whisky as an anesthesia. Now why would that be?

Misinformation from the pro-GM camp has the potential to cause significant economic loss to the agricultural industry.

Jennifer Marahosey is paid to campaign for GM crops and to attack those expressing concerns http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I)

Higher costs, no yield advantage and market loss does not equate to an advantage for farmers.
Broadacre Australia is not suited to soybeans, cotton or corn which is the major GM crops. GM cotton is only grown on a small area (about 20 times the area of our farm) and is mostly irrigated.
The debate in Australia is about GM canola.
What do we get? The GM process gives us resistance to chemicals - just the same as non-GM chemical resistant canola. Roundup Ready canola gives resistance to glyphosate which should not be difficult to achieve in non-GM plant breeding as our weeds are resistant to glyphosate without us wanting them to be. Enterprising drug barons have bred non-GM glyphosate resistant marijuana in response to an aerial glyphosate spraying campaign.
Bayer Cropscience has bred an easier-to-produce hybrid with resistance to glufosinate ammonium which is not effective on radish which is our worst weed in canola. We have non-GM hybrids with more vigour than GM hybrids.

Farmers can't make an informed decision to support GM canola if the costs have not been publicly released.
We are non-GM farmers that object to being expected to market on the GM market when consumers and markets are rejecting it. Contamination will occur and market loss will occur but the non-GM farmers should not be expected to try to keep GM out of our produce. The GM industry should be responsible for ensuring their product does not cause economic loss to others.
You can't expect non-GM farmers to compensate the GM industry.

Who's creating misinformation?
Jennifers article http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html is ridiculous and promotes a letter sent to the WA premier to try to halt food testing by IHER. Why is the pro-GM industry so frightened of independent health testing on GM foods?

Jennifer Marahosey is a paid PR consultant with a role to attack opponents of GM http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I) . She is promoting a letter from overseas pro-GM scientists known for their pro-GM activism. They attack a reputable scientist because she was invited to talk at the same time as a scientist known for anti-GM activism and they claim she is not trained in animal feeding studies when she did her PhD in this field.

The letter is signed by a who's who of pro-GM activist scientists:
Individuals such as Prakash (author of Agbioworld) are known for misleading pro-GM statements
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=106&page=P

or Rick Rousch http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=112&page=R

Companies these people represent are also known as paid PR promotions for GM.

Hudson Institute http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=59&page=H
How much are they being paid by the GM companies?

The allergic problem with the CSIRO GM pea was due to glycosylation of the protein.

GM companies believe it is the protein that the GM plant is designed to make that is the only thing that could cause health problems but the protein used in experiments doesn't even come from the GM plants. The GM companies genetically modify a bacteria to make the protein but bacteria cannot glycosylate proteins when plants can. These companies feed the unglycosylated protein from the bacteria to the animals used in these experiments.

However, consumers would be eating the glycosylated protein from the GM plant, not a constructed protein from bacteria.

Regulatory bodies do not consider that GM plants may produce a different protein than expected (eg with a a different glycosylation pattern) or that no other, unexpected, adverse substances will be produced by the GM plant.

If a GM plant is being produced, eg GM corn, then the GM corn should be fed to animals in long term feeding studies. Consumers should not be the first to be the guinea pigs in an unmonitored experiment.

Julie Newman
In your comments about glycosylated bacterial proteins which particular proteins are you referring to? proteins in general, or particular ones. Secreted proteins or non-secreted proteins? Cytoplasm proteins?

Also, you claim to be stating what the companies and regulatory authorities assume about glycosylated proteins and their safety. Could you please give the evidence that they hold the views you say they have? That is where can we check your version of their opinion is correct?

TO me it doesnt seem likely your version fits with what they might assume. In other words, lets read their version, rather than your version of their story.

For the record my training and expertise is in science, not PR. I have a BSc and PhD from the University of Queensland. I research and write on environmental issues of national significance -always taking an evidence based approach.

I am not sure what expertise Julie Newman/Non-GM-Farmer has, but attention to detail would appear not to be a strength in so much as she can't ever seem to get the spelling of my name correct. I am Jennifer Marohasy.

One of the unfortunate aspects of discussions of GM foods is that they are often made while ignoring the huge relevant background context of well established mainstream knowledge about the topic. One example is Dr Mae Wan Ho's (ISIS) well known book discussing genetics of gene movement between species. It are written as if most mainstream genetics of bacteria developed during the 1950s-1970s did not occur or was not known by the author.

I had a similar impression about the earlier comments by Julie Newman on glycosylated proteins in transgenic plants. There is indeed a lot of relevant context to include as a start to the discussion to ensure people are not misled. I have collected some relevant commentary by biochemistry experts on my weblog:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/glycosylation-sugar-addition-onto.html

The basic message from this commentary is that proteins that do not go through the cell's endoplasmic reticulum/ Golgi system in general (if ever) do not get glycosylated (i.e. have sugar residues added). It's really worth reading Maartin Chrispeels' comments(follow link above). So lets get it straight about what doesn't get sugars added. Quite clearly several categories of plant protein never get sugars added. It also untrue to say bacterial proteins don't get sugars added, as Julie has stated (see Glycobiology review in link).

Maartin's book chapter also states glycosylated plant proteins are frequently highly immunogenic. Quite clearly, therefore, the CSIRO pea amylase inhibitor, being glycosylated, was always regarded as having "risky" immunological attributes from the beginning of the project. The adverse recent CSIRO finding are not therefore surprising in the scientific sense.

GMO Pundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com

Of course Jennifer's last lines sum up the whole problem with the GM debate....

"Misinformation from anti-GM campaigning comes at a significant economic and environmental cost."

What about misinformation from the corporate side, couldn't that have significant economic and environmental costs also?

Misinformation from either side is wrong... OOps!

The statement "Benbrook and the organics industry may be unintentionally playing an expensive game with Australian agriculture." is also flawed.

They also may be saving it! Does using the word "MAY" suggest you don't really know for sure? Why didn't you use the more definitive word "ARE"? Words are very important in this debate ....

It's fine if you don't know, I don't know either so I am approaching the subject in a very precautionary way. Tis better to be safe than sorry...

I was (unfotunately) in the audience at the meeting in Melbourne when Mae Wan Ho , the Director of ISIS, gave her version of the intricate 'Dance of the Genomes'.

I have since that time not much respect left for the scientiific credentials of Dr Ho nor for the information posted on the ISIS website.

She, as rightly pointed out by GMO Pundit, rejected the knowledge about DNA and heredity that has been built up since Watson and Crick's seminal finding of the structure of DNA.

She also rejected Darwin and spoke in favour of Lamarck who has been largely rejected by latter day scientist.

Instead she promoted her own fuzzy wuzzy 'learnings' about genetics and claimed that genomes are in a flux and not stable.

It was unfortunate that Judy Carmen was speaking following Mae Wan. In doing so she gave the impression that Australian mainstream geneticists actually are doubting 50 years of scientific findings.

I would like to ask Judy Carmen if she was comfortable with all that Mae Wan Ho said during the meeting. It would be illuminating to get a response from Dr Carmen specially since her credentials has been questioned.

My qualifications Jennifer? I’m a farmer and that is why I debate the farming issues. The other angles are just a side interest and I enjoy learning more. Believe-it-or-not, you don’t need a degree to have a casual chat on an online forum.

Oh Rebel, you certainly rely on the persistant “Greenpeace" tactic don't you. I am continually answering the same questions but you don't like my truthful answers. You are being deliberately misleading. I am no more linked to Greenpeace than I am linked to Bayer Cropscience. Why not say the same about my links with Bayer Cropscience because I have had numerous communications with them and they even funded a flight? Exactly... it would be silly, and it is just as silly to continue saying I am linked to Greenpeace when you know full well I am not.

The teleconferences just involved farmers giving farming information to others. Actually I was very impressed with the intense research Greenpeace did on these issues and the questions they asked (considering they were not farmers) and the conferences finished when they understood the farming issues. But really who (other than you) cares about who we talk to and for how long and what about? How can you possibly claim I have given you a lack of answers? I would have responded to your question more times than I had the teleconferences.

Contrary to misleading claims: I made it clear that I was repeating (for the first time) what I was told about Crabtree and I did so on this casual forum because I figured I would be immediately corrected if I was wrong. When you are told by someone that did the same course, you presume their information is reasonably accurate. Perhaps the agronomist meant that Crabtree needed to resit exams, I don't know but I will clarify that when I see him next. My correction was immediate and genuine.

While it helps to know who is funded by the GM industry (eg. Jennifer Marohasey and Paula Fitzgerald) I am more interested in the issues

Whoops, the above post was meant for the very active GM forum on http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3864

Don't like exposure Jennifer? Are you saying that these claims from GM Watch http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259&page=I are wrong?

"With Monsanto amongst its funders, the IPA has a specific focus on 'biotechnology', saying it wants to 'combat the misinformation put out by radical groups' who oppose genetic engineering."

..."In 2001 IPA launched what it claimed was 'an international first' when it 'started publishing a monthly corporate newsletter, by subscription only, dedicated to watching activist NGOs' [Non-Governmental Organisations]. These were, it warned, 'targeting business' and other 'organisations as never before'. This new corporate newsletter was NGO Watch Digest"

"With regard to its own funding, the IPA claims it maintains its independence because, 'Our annual budget - of about $1 million - is obtained from more than 2,000 individuals, corporations and foundations'. However, according to Sharon Bedder , 'Almost one third of IPA's $1.5 million annual budget comes from mining and manufacturing companies.' "

Jennifer you talk of misinformation yet you claim I am not a farmer and that I am a competitor to Monsanto http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3864. We farm over 10,000ha near Newdegate and while we do sell a bit of clover seed for farmers we don't sell canola seed and Monsanto is no competitor threat but is a threat to us as non-GM farmers.

Yobbo said, "Another unsubstantiated,inflammatory greenie lie, and it only took 4 comments into the thread for it to crop up! They're so cute, those greenies. Trying to have a debate with them is like repeatedly bashing your head into a brick wall."

How do you know it's a lie?
A: It's not.

Why is it inflammatory?
A: Oh, it's the truth. I forgot. The truth is inflammatory. Silly me.

How do you know I'm a greenie?
A: You don't.

There are no figures period. It's grassroot information.

Tip: Banging your head on a brick wall does not make you right

The resistance to GM is because consumers like myself have the know-how to question what you are doing to our food and say "hang on, we want to know if it's safe before you force us to eat this GM food out of no choice due to contamination". The anti-GM campaign has made us aware that you are going to bring in potentially hazardous food under our noses. We want to know that what we eat is safe and the tests done on animals are not appropriate for the diverse range of foods humans eat.

Rick Roush is being mentioned:
I know personally Professors McKenzie, Batterham Pittard and Millis at U Melb. all hold him in high regard scientifically:Here's why:
A small sample of his scientific output that is being suppressed by several contributers.
ZhaoJZ...RoushRT.
Concurrent use of transgenic plants expressing a single and two Bacillus
thuringiensis genes speeds insect adaptation to pyramided plants.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jun 14;102(24):8426-30.

BatesSL...RoushRT.
Insect resistance management in GM crops: past, present and future.
Nat Biotechnol. 2005 Jan;23(1):57-62.
Why doesnt Julie newman mention this and do her sorces have similar impressive achievments

PittendrighBR...RoushRT.
"Active" refuges can inhibit the evolution of resistance in insects towards
transgenic insect-resistant plants.
J Theor Biol. 2004 Dec 21;231(4):461-74.

ChassyB...RoushR.
UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions.
Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Dec;21(12):1429-30.

ZhaoJZ...RoushRT.
Transgenic plants expressing two Bacillus thuringiensis toxins delay insect
resistance evolution.
Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Dec;21(12):1493-7. Epub 2003 Nov 9.

TabashnikBE...RoushRT.
Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and
field.
J Econ Entomol. 2003 Aug;96(4):1031-8.

SheltonAMRoushRT.
Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of
bt transgenic plants.
Annu Rev Entomol. 2002;47:845-81. Review.

ZhaoJZ...Roush RT.
Development and characterization of diamondback moth resistance to transgenic
broccoli expressing high levels of Cry1C.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Sep;66(9):3784-9.

SheltonAMRoush RT.
Field tests on managing resistance to Bt-engineered plants.
Nat Biotechnol. 2000 Mar;18(3):339-42.

TabashnikBE...RoushRT.
Resistance to Bt toxins.
Science. 2000 Jan 7;287(5450):42.

RoushRT.
Occurrence, genetics and management of insecticide resistance.
Parasitol Today. 1993 May;9(5):174-9

Why dont Julie Newman's sources mention this highly relevant science?
Do her sources come anywhere near it?

It's simple d(David Tribe), I debate the farming issues (not the science issues) and to put it basically:
1. Consumers are rejecting GM foods.
2. Many supply chains are claiming a consumer preferred "GM-free" policy for goods.
3. There is market resistance to GM.
4. Because segregation of GM and non-GM is too expensive and too difficult to achieve, all farmers are expected to market as GM.
5. There is inadequate legal recourse to protect non-GM farmers.

And to top it off, we are being offered GM canola which is only a chemical resistant canola (similar to our non-GM chemical resistant canolas).
Bayers Invigor canola does not yield more than non-GM hybrids and the chemical it is resistant to does not kill our worst weed in canola, radish.
Monsantos Roundup Ready: no costs or contracts have been revealed so how can a farmer make an informed decision to grow it?

There is little advantage but there is huge risk to our industry.

We, as non-GM farmers want risk management to ensure we are not adversely impacted and to ensure consumers maintain a choice to avoid GM foods until adequate independent health testing allays their fears.

I don't understand why Jennifer Marohasy is so defensive when people question the benefits of GM produce.

GM food is a multinational product with all the built-in controls that the big corporations demand. There is only one motive and that is profit. No wonder people are sceptical.

Genuine, viable and economic competition comes from a diverse and large number of small to medium size businesses. Non GM and bio dynamic farming can do extremely well here and should be encouraged.

This type of competition gives the consumer something that is being eroded by the multis: CHOICE.

As a previous poster stated: always check the agenda; and Jennifer, yours is showing.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/2fa168xwtp1twh2v9xaw/contributions/g/h/x/u/ghxuxv4u7vkckj60.pdf
Julie,
I accept the first three points you make. To be constructive I agree it would be helpful to avoid the science (which is bedevilled by errors when non-professionals try it) and talk about the farming (but you do yourself raise lots of shaky science issues).

But I'm not convinced that your take on the the following issues 4 and 5. is right.

"4. Because segregation of GM and non-GM is too expensive and too difficult to achieve, all farmers are expected to market as GM."
##I think it is possible for non GM farmers to work with GM neighbors with realistic tolerance levels. I've followed the ACCC comments and don't believe your quotes of them are used accurately. Their remarks related to claims about chickens being fed GM and the situation there are no GM chickens on the market

"5. There is inadequate legal recourse to protect non-GM farmers."
##Not convinced this is true, and not convinced that your demands are just.

"GM canola which is only a chemical resistant canola (similar to our non-GM chemical resistant canolas)"
##BUT glyphosate is vastly superior to atrazine.

"Bayers Invigor canola does not yield more than non-GM hybrids"
##then why do GM hybrids dominate the Canadian market and non GM hybrids have such a trivial Canadian share, a fact you omitted in your previous response to the hybrid issue (I've previously posted citations at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com )

Hello d-DavidTribe
The forum is ideal to try to get both sides of the debate to understand their issues, of course a scientist is going to know more about the science than a farmer and vice versa but the idea is to communicate to clarify misunderstandings.

I have had written and verbal confirmation from ACCC. If you call them you will verify that to label a product as GM-free or non-GM, it must not contain or be derived from GM crops. FSANZ was involved in successfully prosecuting a NZ sausage manufacturer for having 0.0088% GM contamination in a labelled "non-GM" soy sausage. Tolerance levels is not something that neighbours work out, it is what is demanded by law and market demand. It is absolutely no point in accepting tolerance levels if they do not comply with law or market demand. If they are accepted, someone other than non-GM farmers that don't want to accept contamination, should pay for the economic loss caused by it.

The Canberra "Meeting of the Minds" presentation from lawyers very convincingly supported what I was saying... there is little chance of legal recourse for non-GM farmers. I have contacted numerous lawyers and they confirm there is a problem with the reverse onus of liability falling on non-GM farmers who must sign contracts to guarantee there is no GM in our produce and to indemnify others (to comply with market demand).

As mentioned, it is possible to produce even glyphosate resistant crops by non-GM means. The issue is that the hype of GM is not true. eg.GM canola will not reduce chemical use, it will increase it due to the control of unwanted volunteers. Non-GM hybrids don't usually have chemical resistance but Non-GM hybrids with chemical resistance claiming almost a 40% yield increase will soon be released commercially in Australia.

The debate in Australia is regarding GM canola, not GM soy, cotton or corn and we need to look beyond the bulldust hype to see what we are really getting. We need costs and independent performance trials.

Around 70% of Canadian farmers grow GM but all farmers are expected to market as GM or face huge costs to market as non-GM. Non-GM seed is harder to find as new varieties are not released without the added Roundup Ready gene which makes it GM.

Canada has more suitable conditions to favour the post emergent benefit of GM canola but has not had an increase in yields (based on ha and production statistics) from adopting GM canola http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2530

Even based on a 10.7% increase in yield http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm , the cost savings calculated (excluding the cost of technology) are C$39/ha and the cost of technology is C$44.03/ha. That equates to a loss of C$5.03/ha despite a 10.7% increase in yields which doesn't accurately reflect statistical reality.

Canada has also lost their US$32.68/tonne consistent premium over Australian canola (ABARE 1990-2000) and now sell for US$30/tonne less than Australian canola (Graincorp).

In reality, GM canola has cost Canadian farmers dearly.

Australian farmers are trying to avoid economic loss and should not be denied fair risk management.

To add to my skeptical comments about liabilty I post Prof Kershen's remarks

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/legal-issues-related-to-coexistence-of.html

Coexistence
Three Themes

* Good Husbandry: good agricultural practices that are practical and inexpensive
* Neighborly Cooperation: communication, working together, neighborly attitude
* Farmer choice: allowing farmers to choose the agricultural production the individual farmer desires as best for the farmer’s operation, be it conventional, organic, or transgenic

Coexistence
“The evidence to date shows that GM crops, which now account for the majority (60%) of total soybean, corn and canola grown in North America (because of the farm level benefits obtained such as yield gains, cost savings and greater convenience/flexibility), have co-existed with conventional and organic crops without significant economic or commercial problems.” Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops?, PG Economics Ltd. (Dorchester, UK 7 June 2004)
Contractual Obligations
“Where non-GM crop growers voluntarily choose to impose additional or stricter requirements on their productions systems over and above the legal minimum, in order to gain market or price advantage, then non-GM crop growers are responsible for ensuring those requirements are met and for meeting their associated costs, if any.” Report of the Working Group, DAF-Ireland (Sept. 2005) at p. 119
Depending upon the voluntarily accepted contract specifications, adventitious presence can affect premiums and market access.
Zero tolerance as a contract standard is not achievable without a ban on transgenic agriculture.

(GMO Pundit)

d you have just confirmed what non-GM-farmer is saying. Why should the non-GM farmer have to try to keep GM out of their crop rather than the GM farmer keeping their crop contained? All the GM crops are potential fuel (oil) crops. With oil being short, is this a plot of multinationals to gain patents over any potential fuel source?

I agree with you Scout as if GM does come into Australia, there will be no choice for us consumers due to contamination of produce on the farm. The wind blows pollen and seed into neighbours and their neighbours and the seed can get mixed up wherever GM and non-GM come close or even by animals. The next year it reproduces and goes further just like the cane toad. Australia is windy and a dust storm at the right moment would contaminate a huge area making farmers unaware that they are contaminated until it is too late. I want a choice and I know that other consumers do too. But this is all about the big bucks. If the big GM companies only spent half of what they spent on marketing GM into this country in producing a better, cheaper and safer weed killer, that is better for the environment, then surely it would be a better choice. The farmers do not receive any benefit from farming GM but have been conned to plant it. I think that’s wrong. The consumers don’t know exactly what GM involves and what lack of testing is done, and this is extremely wrong. I want to eat something I know has been tested on humans or thoroughly on animals that show that GM is not a potential biohazard but they have not shown me this. The tests listed are on insects, moths and rats and I’m not one. I believe that GM is extremely dangerous in the long term and no test that they have done has shown me differently.
Hope you all have a healthy non-GM Christmas.

There is a lot of recent science showing that natural biological evolution in plants generates novel DNA changes randomly in plant chromosomes that pose the same worries about safety that lab GMOs pose.

Two of the common natural processes that pose these risks in nature are
(i) repair of damaged DNA such as broken DNA strands (ds breaks) (occurs a lot due to radiation exposure)
(ii) and the movement of randomly chosen DNA to randomly chosen new locations in chromosomes carried natural mobile genes, particularly ones called Helitrons that are present in maize and rice.
There is abundant evidence that natural plants such as maize and rice have large numbers of these natural novel genetic engineering events in them and that they are occurring constantly in nature. They are part of natural biodiversity.

These following links:

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/natural-gmos-part-8-helitrons-upclose.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/natural-gmos-part-7-nanobot-genetic.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/breaking-cone-of-silence-about-genetic.html

provide a summary of this science.

My questions to "Is it really safe" is:

How do we humans survive these widespread natural DNA dangers in our food?
;
Is it a good idea to put all new plant varieties containing these natural hazards (which are extremely common) on hold till we prove them safe?;
and
If he advocates a different regulatory (precautionary) treatment of these risks than for lab GMOs, why?
I emphasise these natural changes constantly produce untested novel DNA structures in our food.

regarding the objectivity of Jennifer Marohasy ,she is affiliated with the Institute of public affairs,who according to the Oxfam site "The Institute of Public Affairs is financially backed by a business lobby and headed by former Victorian Treasurer Alan Stockdale.Ironically, the Institute of Public Affairs’ own record in transparency and accountability is poor. Its Board members are not democratically elected and the Institute fails to publicly disclose sources of its corporate funding."
This article in the age gives more information on the Institute
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/thinkers-of-influence/2005/12/09/1134086810518.html
I also found this information about the institute
The Institute of Public Affairs is one of Australia's oldest think-tanks.

It aims to promote the deregulation of the economy and labour market, privatisation, and 'small government'.

While it started with a purely economic philosophy, it has also branched into social issues, including a report criticising Aboriginal self-determination policies.

Although the IPA does not make a list of its donors public, it is known that past donors include Western Mining, BHP Billiton, Clough Engineering, and Telstra. Around a third of their $1.5 million annual budget comes from mining companies.
Given this background , I really cannot take Ms Marohasy's comments seriously as her objectivity may be suspect due to her links to industry , the same objections that she makes regarding green commentators equally apply to her , right wing fundamentalism is equally as dangerous as any other ideology and as soon as it enters into scientific debate we are treading on dangerous ground.
As for GM crops, I have doubts as to its dangers to humans, but I am fearful of how it will lead to lack of genetic diversity,as well as its problems with cross contamination of non Gm crops, but above all the almost total corporate control of crops that will follow its widespread introduction.Its issues like these that the likes of MS Marohasy chose to ignore , preferring to spin their own line and to muddy the waters for the rest of us .

Quote from author;
“Incredibly, in Australia we have banned GM varieties that could help us reduce our ecological footprint, through the use of more environmentally friendly herbicides in the case of soybeans and canola.”

This statement does reflect naivety about the subject.
The herbicide she is talking about will have a resistance problem if the product is over used. The industry is already taking steps to combat the arrival of resistance, and this technique is not usable in a GM crop situation.
Using a production system that will greatly increase the incidence to resistance to that herbicide will increase the “footprint” she talks about.

Another reason for the rapid adoption of GM crops is that the regulation surrounding the introduction of GM technology is such that a non GM grower is required to keep OUT the GM gene. (this is a reverse of the present “status quo”. I.e. you are responsible to contain your genetics) With cross pollination common among crops, this means that if your neighbor grows a GM crop, you have no choice but to plant GM seed the following as your non GM seed will contain the GM gene, opening your self to prosecution from the GM corporations.

Adopting agronomy that greatly increases resistance risk to the world’s most important and widely used herbicide does not sound like good practice.
Forcing farmers to grow GM crops, or risk being sued does not sound fair either.

Dunart,

Rather than simply believe some of the stuff put around by the anti-Gm movement, I suggest you look at Canadian canola growing. Canadian farmers have been using RoundupReady canola for 10 years now and there is not a single instance of a glyphosate-resistant weed in the country. It can be done and done successfully. At the same time, Canadian farmers have reduced their use of diesel for tillage, reduced their use of soil-incorporated herbicides and made extra income into the bargain.

There is no rule in farming that says farmers need to keep your genetics in. Conventional crops cross pollinate all the time and nobody cares.

Likewise, there is nothing that forces farmers in Canada to grow GM crops. They choose to do so and some have grown GM canola in the past and now grow Clearfield canola. Farmers in Canada are not sued if their is a small amount of unintended GM material in their crop. In fact, Monsanto will come out to your farm and pull up any Roundup Ready canola for you if you ask them to. Percy Schmeiser got sued because he planted more than 1000 acres of Roundup Ready seed without paying for it. The vast majority of Canadian farmers would like not to have to pay a technology fee, but do so because they realise it is the only way to get access to enhanced genetics.

What a load of rubbish Agronomist, GM chemical resistant canola doesn't change tillage practise when compared with non-GM chemical resistant canola. Most of Australian canola is non-GM chemical resistant triazine tolerant canola but Canada does not use it because they have many weeds resistant to triazines. We don't have that problem and have been carefully managing resistance for some time. We were the first in the world to have weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) so we will have a major problem if we overuse glyphosate.

You are quite wrong about getting Monsanto to come out to your farm to pull RR plants out. Firstly,Australians GTGC "management plans" expect the farmer to notify Monsanto/Bayer Cropscience and they advise control methods and they monitor our performance. Secondly, the process is not for removing Roundup Ready canola from a canola paddock as there is no way that they can be visually identified. Arbitration is time-consuming and involves proving economic loss (eg. can't control Roundup Ready canola in a commercial lawn company that relies on Roundup as weed control).
Percy Schmeiser is certainly not the only Canadian canola grower that has been sued. There has been hundreds of cases where Monsanto has prosecuted farmers and far more where Monsanto just sends the technology user bill to the farmers who pay rather than undergo the expensive legal defence process.
GM is about losing our right to replant our own seed and losing the right to avoid buying new seed. Monsanto happens to own most canola seed companies now which will restrict choice. Monopolies don't give more choice, they give less.
There is a law that prevents farmers selling our produce as GM-free if we have GM contamination and there is market demand for us to sign to guarantee we accept liability for any GM contamination recall.
You are however right when you said "Conventional crops cross pollinate all the time and nobody cares." Thats because markets are only sensitive to GM. Non-GM has no market restriction in the food, feed or fuel industry.

The only GM "enhanced genetics" is simply resistance to glyphosate, the enhanced genetics are in the non-GM form.
Our weeds develop resistance to glyphosate without us wanting them to so this trait would not be difficult to do using non-GM methods.

It seems that those pushing GM rely on pushing lies to promote GM and deal with opposition by claiming they are lying to muddy the waters. With all the research that GM companies are spreading saying that there are no possible side effects of GM, the individual when looking at their research with a fine tooth comb find that their research is flawed.

When this is revealed, they lie or don't respond or bluff their way out of it by attacking the person that has revealed their flaw. To me GM is a biohazard and the research I have done on GM health issues has brought to my attention more alarming facts. If you wish to find out more, log onto http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3864 and go through the many items revealed and see for yourself.

NonGMFarmer, you are arrogant as well as ignorant. I said nothing about what may or may not happen in Australia only what was actually happening in Canada.

We established elsewhere that you have never been to Canada, yet you insist on demanding that your version of Canadian agriculture, which bears almost no relation to reality, is accepted.

Your statement that Canada does not use Atrazine resistant canola because they have many weeds resistant to atrazine is an outright lie. You should peruse the following website. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UniqueCountry.asp?lstCountryID=7&FmCountry=Go. It shows no atrazine resistant weeds in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia – three of the 4 biggest canola growing provinces. There is one site with metribuzin resistant mustard in Manitoba (the other big canola growing province), but in an area where canola is not normally grown. All the atrazine resistant weeds are in the corn growing areas of Ontario and Quebec, where very little canola is grown.

The main reason the Atrazine resistant canola is no longer grown is because it was also known as being yield resistant.

Secondly, I call on you here now to name the “hundreds” of Canadian farmers who have been prosecuted by Monsanto. They simply do not exist. There have been a small number of cases in Canada, most of which have been settled in favour of Monsanto.

Hi all,

Well agronomy did not do much more than make statements that he would have trouble backing up.
As for glyphosate resistance, agronomist must be behind in his reading.
With a very high adoption of no-till in Western Australia,(plus 90%) the industry has been adopting the “double knock” knock-down method, so as to greatly reduce the chance of developing resistance.
I ask is the industry wasting its time and money, even though we have some recorded resistance already.

Agronomuist says there is no rule that we have to keep our genetics in, so why do we need regulations with “GM” genetics introduction that makes it the fault of the receiver of the cross pollination.
If GM genetics does cross boundaries, the receiver grower should be able to continue with the age old practise of replanting the saved seed, even with the GM genetics.
If the owner of the genetics does not wish for this to happen, the they are at liberty to buy him uncontaminated seed to plant, not sue him.

You spoke about Percy Schmeiser.
I ask; did he go and buy GM seed or did he plant it as a result of cross pollination?
The answer is “NO” http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/12/schmeiser.html 0

How many prosecutions?
QUOTE from Agronomist;
Secondly, I call on you here now to name the “hundreds” of Canadian farmers who have been prosecuted by Monsanto. They simply do not exist. There have been a small number of cases in Canada, most of which have been settled in favor of Monsanto.

Maybe this will answer, and remember the winning side is often the one with funds.
In fact if you do read about this case on the net, it appears many flaws in the conviction process.
QUOTE; (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/12/schmeiser.html 0
Monsanto's Side
Monsanto representatives have acknowledged that they have launched somewhere between 100 and 525 technology infringement cases against farmers in the United States and Canada. Most have been settled out of court. Only Schmeiser's has reached trial.

With a law that says if Monsanto can go and plant some seed all over the country, cross-pollinating the non GM crop, and as a result they have the right to take you to court for using their “genetics”, that they (Monsanto) allowed to escape seems rather biased in favor of the multi-national.

QUOTE;

"Many organic farmers have just stopped growing canola," says Marina Buchan of the Peace River Organic Producers Association in Alberta, Canada. "They say it's not worth it, it's too risky. It's affecting growers' livelihoods."
Does this seem fair?

my thoughts for the morning

Excellent Dunart, thank you.
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), your normal "lie" response is ridiculously predictable.
Your own reference (corrected) http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=4 confirms that triazine/atrazine resistant weeds are in Canada - 12 resistant weeds actually and among them is mustard, the top of Canadian Canola councils list of worst weeds in canola. Farmers avoid including more rotations of a chemical when there is resistance already developing.
This is the problem with GM glyphosate resistant canola, farmers already use glyphosate as a key knockdown chemical.
Chemical resistance in weeds is a major problem but this accidental resistance also reveals just how easy it would be to produce non-GM chemical resistant crop varieties. We don't need GM techniques to do it.
Clearield canola and triazine tolerant canola are both non-GM chemical resistant canola's. Plant breeding has improved to remove the yield penalty originally associated with TT varieties which is why Bayer Cropscience's GM hybrids aren't able to outperform these new varieties. This is probably why these companies are refusing to participate in independent performance trials that would compare apples with apples.

To add to the US/Canadian figures given by Dunart, one referenced report on suings in US :
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1931
Quotes: "To date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers. The lawsuits involve 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies, and have been directed at farmers residing in half of the states in the U.S. The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."
"Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating them."
"The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the 90 lawsuits CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements."
"Farmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone else’s genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted, or “volunteered,” in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they never signed Monsanto’s technology agreement but still planted the patented crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use was unwitting or a contract was never signed."

The GM industry should be liable for containing their product and liable for paying the non-GM farmer when containment fails, not expect non-GM farmers to pay them and for any economic loss caused.

Once again Agronomist is squealing saying others are lying to try to deflect attention away from his misleading comments.

The debate is about consumers not wanting GM food and how farmers want to grow what consumers want but can't.

I don't care how much you squeal Agronomist, I want to retain my choice and I am sure farmers want to as well. Thank you to our state governments for stopping the GM industry getting their way to contaminate our food.

I still think it's a biohazard and am just waiting for it to be proved. Funny how the pro GM lobby groups are against independent health testing by Judy Carman. I'm looking forward to her results but obviously the pro-GM'ers are frightened of them. What do they know that they've hidden so far?

NonGMFarmer. You seem to be illiterate as well.

Let me review. You made a claim to the effect that Atrazine-resistant canola is no longer grown in Canada because of atrazine-resistant weeds. This statement is untrue, because there are no atrazine resistant weeds in the canola growing regions of Canada. All the atrazine resistant weeds are restricted to corn growing areas in Ontario and Quebec. Would it be right to say that Western Australian farmers have had to give up use of glyphosate, because of glyphosate resistance in NSW? Of course not, but that is the sort of statement that you are making.

By the way Dunart, I am familiar with the Roundup resistance situation in Australia. I have met Bill Crabtree on a couple of occasions. I don’t know whether Roundup Ready canola would make things better or not in Australia, that probably remains to be seen. I can say that despite 10 years use of GM crops in Canada, there are no weeds resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate in Canadian canola fields (volunteer canola excepted). Taking your line, perhaps the solution to Roundup resistance in Australia might be to ban other uses of glyphosate, not just Roundup Ready canola?

As for Percy Schmeiser, perhaps it would be instructive to read the court documents. The Judge’s findings are at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.shtml. Schmeiser initially claimed cross pollination as the source of the plants on his farm. However, when it was pointed out that the nearest Roundup Ready crop to his farm was more than 5 miles away and that cross pollination would never account for 90% purity of his Roundup Ready seed, Schmeiser changed his tune, saying the seed fell off passing trucks. Even then, such an event could not account for 1000 acres of Roundup Ready canola that Schmeiser grew. The best take on the evidence provided to the court seems to be that Schmeiser deliberately selected Roundup Ready plants to save for the next years sowing (see para 102). The only other possible explanation is that Schmeiser bought the seed illegally from another farmer. However, Schmeiser denies doing this.

Schmeiser’s claims of having bred his own canola seed for 50 years are ludicrous. Canola was invented by University of Manitoba scientists and released in the 1970s. Schmeiser would have to be growing rapeseed unsuitable for human consumption. Lastly, the court evidence is that Schmeiser bought new canola seed in 1993.

All the figures you give relate to farmers in North America that Monsanto has initiated action against. Despite the views of the rest of the world, Canada is not yet the 51st state of the US. There are only a small number of cases where Monsanto has prosecuted through the courts in Canada. A search of the Canadian Federal Court records finds only the Schmeiser case has gone to that court. You still can’t name another farmer in Canada who Monsanto has prosecuted, let alone hundreds.

Is it really safe? I have looked through the threads here and can’t find a single statement that I have made on Judy Carmen. There is good reason for this, I doubt I would have met the woman; I know nothing about her qualifications or her expertise. If Judy Carmen has the appropriate expertise, I see nothing against her doing some testing. Perhaps you could help me out by providing me with some background information on Judy Carmen’s expertise and a list of her relevant publications so I can familiarise myself with the situation. Health testing is not my forte.

Back to basics for Agronomist (Bill Crabtree),
Triazine is used in Australia because it is very effective against our worst weeds, ryegrass and radish, therefore Australia uses triazine tolerant canola's so we can spray triazines on the canola crop.
Canada does not have a ryegrass or radish problem.
Canada mainly has a problem with mustard which can be controlled with glufosinate ammonium (used on Bayer Cropsciences GM invigor canola). but... glufosinate ammonium does not kill radish and there is no other post-planting option for farmers to control radish in the crop. Hence, GM Invigor canola will not be a benefit for farmers with a radish problem. Markets don't accept high levels of radish in canola.
The glufosinate ammonium or Liberty chemical is estimated to be a massive $18/litre or $72/ha compared to $28/ha or less for triazines and the seed is a whopping $16/kg compared to either replanting our own canola or up to $4.30/kg for non-GM seed. Why pay more for less?

Schmeisers crime was not stealing, he did however deliberately select the RR trait to challenge the law. As a farmer he opposed the logic that Monsanto owned all Roundup Ready plants and all of their progeny, no matter where the unwanted GM contamination went.
While Percy lost part of the claim relating to deliberate selection, he had a victory for all farmers because he proved that Monsanto did not own the plant, they only owned the trait of roundup resistance and if the farmer did not use that trait (by spraying the plant with glyphosate), they did not have to pay Monsanto for the use of it.
Monsanto is not planning to sue farmers in Australia as they are planning to take an end-point royalty payment from our seed if their GM product is detected. Australian farmers will have to sue Monsanto to get our money back. When asked for risk protection to avoid this happening, we are told to trust Monsanto!

NonGMFarmer, If Monsanto is not going to sue farmers in Australia if they accidently grow GM canola, why are you and others making such a song and dance about the patent on the plant? Why make such a song and dance about Percy Schmeiser if his experience is totally irrelevant?

So Percy didn't "steal" the seed, because he took it to make a point. Isn't this a bit like stealing from a store to demonstrate how lax their security is? If Schymeiser was trying to make a point, why did he first claim that his crop was contaminated by pollen, when he knew this was not true?

Canada does not use Atrazine-tolerant canola, because they have better tools available. Canada has green foxtail, wild oats and other weeds that can be difficult to control. I have seen on the WAHRI website that more than 74% of wild radish in Western Australia are developing resistant to atrazine. What are your farmers going to do now?

Once again you missed the point Agronomist. If there is no risk management, farmers will be expected to pay the "user fee" from our grain payments if contamination is found. How much contamination will trigger it? Will 0.5% contamination cause a 100% deduction of the user fee? If we object to this fee being deducted from our payments, we will need to sue Monsanto to try to recover these fees. If this is permitted, Monsanto wins because they have a blank cheque from the farming sector as anywhere their contamination spreads becomes profitable for Monsanto and there is no limit to how much they can charge.
We are certainly not singing or dancing about Percy Schmeiser. It is a very serious issue that uncontrollable living plants can now be patented and Percy's case exposes just how serious these companies are taking their patents.
The experience was not irrevelant as Monsanto has now changed the rules for Australia so that they don't have to take farmers to court for the money. Farmers must somehow come up with the massive costs needed to take a multinational like Monsanto to court to recover money.
The Canadian/Australian scenario exposes why there is a difference and why GM canola is not suited to Australian conditions. We need to compare apples with apples.
GM Invigor canola would not help the radish resistance problem as glufosinate ammonium does not control it.
Managing chemical resistant weeds is a complex issue involving many alternatives and adopting GM herbicide tolerant canola is not the solution.

You can find out all about Judy Carmen's expertise on the website of IHER if you are that interested and don't know what qualifications she has which I doubt.

It seems that you have your figures wrong for atrazine resistance. And I quote from http://wahri.agric.uwa.edu.au/News%20&%20Views%20Articles/Autumn05/MWCUradishsurvey.htm

"Screening also identified that there were significant proportions of wild radish populations with resistance to atrazine Group C (6%) and 2,4-D amine Group I (5%) herbicides."

So therefore only 6% of radish is resistant to Atrazine not almost 100%

Is it really safe, Thank you for your tip. I am indeed interested in Judy Carmen’s qualifications and experience if she is going to be conducting feeding studies. I understand that these are not simple studies to do and you would want to have some confidence in the experimenter to get them right.

I had a bit of searching to do, as IHER is not a well-known organisation. I eventually found their website, but it was not very informative. While it seems the Institute has been around since at least 2004, they do not seem to publish an annual report. Their research output seems to be very limited as well, consisting of two review-type chapters from a book published in 2004 and a letter from 2000. IHER have apparently done no new research. I also could find no information about their facilities, staff or location of offices.

Unfortunately, the brief biography of Judy Carmen does not provide a cv. Nor does it list feeding studies as one of her areas or expertise. I also could not find any scientific publications. Perhaps you can help me out here?

BTW, on the website you posted, you should look at Table 1. This lists 68% of wild radish populations developing resistance to atrazine and 6% with full resistance. I add that up to 74% as developing or with resistance. Is that not what I originally said?

What a laugh! I'd trust Judy Carman far more than I would trust Monsanto or Bayer Cropscience and that is who is responsible for doing the food testing to date.
I find it amusing that already the pro-GM sector is trying to discredit Judy, I know she did her PhD in animal feeding studies so I am sure she knows enough to do feeding studies.
What are the pro-GM sector so frightened of with independent health testing anyway? Surely it would be beneficial to allow others with concerns to prove that GM is safe?
Many chemicals are "developing resistances" (eg. 2,4-D) but the real problem is where they actually have resistances.

As you have amply demonstrated, you espouse information based not on its veracity, but because it fits your political agenda. We might start with lower yields in Canada of GM canola, Canada being unable to sell their canola, atrazine-resistant weeds stopping Canadian growers from using Atrazine-resistant canola and many others. Therefore, your endorsement of Judy Carman does not fill me with confidence. I recognise that you support her, not because she has any particular expertise (although she may do so), or that you have looked at her credentials carefully and compared them with other scientists and found her far superior, but simply because she supports your political agenda.

Thanks for letting me know Judy has a Ph.D. in animal feeding studies. This is not apparent from her biography on the IHER website where her Ph.D. is described as being in Medicine involving nutritional biochemistry and metabolic regulation. As a Director of an Institute, I am sure she has an impressive publication record. But, I have been struggling to find her publications, perhaps you could help me? Monsanto and Bayer are responsible for doing food testing? Are you sure? You should read http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html. This is an impressive list of documents, many conducted by people at organisations other than Monsanto and Bayer.

P.S. My name is not and never has been Bill.

My "agenda" is not political... it is simply that I do not want non-GM farmers adversely impacted by a product we do not want and do not need.
And as you have amply demonstrated, you debate by twisting what your opposition says rather than debating the topic at hand. You can find the Canadian yields quite easily from the USDA figures and there is certainly no evidence of the 30-40% yield advantage that has been promoted with GM.
Judy Carman may be known by some agricultural people in her role as the person who headed up the team to decide if rabbit calicivirus needed to be recalled. I'm sure she would not have that role if she was not considered qualified. As a consumer, I would trust Judy Carmans results. If she comes up with a conclusion that GM is safe to consume, I would trust her advise. What is the point of having someone that consumers have no trust in?
You were the one who asked for an opinion on Judy Carman and yes I did expect you to be critical because it is your style to attack the opposition personally.
Are you a West Australian, if not, you should have no concerns about how the West Australian government spends their money. As a West Australian myself, I am proud that they understand the issue well enough to allocate funding to independent health studies.
I am sure you are Bill Crabtree as you have the same writing style, debate and attitude but I can understand why you would not want the public to know who you are.

Short on facts and long on critizism seems to be your forte Agronomist and I don't care if you are Bill Crabtree or whoever you are as I don't trust you. You've accused and abused non-GM farmer because she did not hide who she was. Are you frightened to have the same treatment you've given her? Obviously so.

Show us the facts of your so called wonderful figures that you think are what you are quoting as I have not seen them at all. All I've seen is some Governments subsidizing GM or making it so they can cover the additional costs that GM companies want to pay. Then you have governments like Argentina that refused to allow Monsanto to charge these fees. I'm not a farmer but I think this is a raw deal if Australian farmers are expected to pay those additional costs and the Australian Government is not going to pay them anything extra to pay these costs.

P.S. I still think that GM is a biohazard.

Firstly, I didn’t ask for an opinion on Judy Carman, I asked for evidence. If I want an opinion, I can just as easily go to the store and ask the girl on the checkout.

Secondly, it was I in the first place who was challenged for my opinion on whether I would support Carman doing feeding trials. My response was “Yes, provided she has the appropriate qualifications and experience”. In the same way that I would not ask the barber to fix a problem with my teeth, you need people with appropriate experience to run scientific trials correctly.

Thirdly, as I am not a resident of Western Australia, it is no concern of mine how the Government decides to spend its funds. The fact that the Government has apparently made a decision to give money to an Institute with no track record, no appropriate publications and without public tender does raise the issue of whether corrupt practices are occurring. If the Government were to do the same to an independent, but well known supporter of GM technology, you would be the first to cry foul.

Fourthly, your much vaunted statement that only Monsanto and Bayer have done feeding trials is clearly wrong: http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html.

As for the facts and figures to substantiate some of my comments about potential benefits of GM crops, perhaps you should read the following documents. They are all independent of the agrochemical industry.

http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/biotech-us.php

http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo_toc.htm

http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/consultancy_support_gm_crops.htm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/

I suggest you ask Judy Carman for the info you want in order to put your mind at rest.
Yes, I agree, the reference http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/ is very interesting and the US Department of Agriculture is a reliable source.
I know this report and it is quite specific. GM soy is the main crop grown in US and it has been analysed.
Who is the main beneficiary of GM soy in US? Answer = the seed companies then the GM companies.
What is the farmer benefit? Farmers are supposedly better off because there has been an increase in off farm income to support their farming costs.
The GM crops in US are soy, corn and cotton which is important when you take into account that the top US subsidies (rating first, second and third and accounting for almost 80% of the total US subsidies) are soy, corn and cotton.
Not much benefit in growing GM is there?
But of course there is a benefit for the seed companies, the GM companies and the researchers... but not the farmer or the consumer.

I had a look at the independent feeding trials you quoted, especially the details. Its confirmation that there are inadequate health testing if that is the best available.

Due to time constraints I looked at only one of the sites that you quoted:- http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/consultancy_support_gm_crops.htm

Amongst the quotes throughout this large and full report are “Zero impact for GM IR maize in Argentina is due to the negligible (historic) use of insecticides on the Argentinian maize crops.

The impact of GM HT traits has, however contributed to increased reliance on a limited range of herbicides and this poses questions about the possible future increased development of weed resistance to these herbicides. Some degree of reduced effectiveness of glyphosate (and glufosinate) against certain weeds may take place. To the extent to which this may occur, this will increase the necessity to include low dose rates applications of other herbicides in weed control programmes (commonly used in conventional production systems) and hence may marginally reduce the level of net environmental and economic gains derived from the current use of the GM technology”.

The bend on these reports is pro-GM because Brookes and Barfoot's clientelle is the GM companies such as Monsanto and Dupont. (See Peter Barfoots CV

Glad you believe the USDA is a reliable source, I have a lot of friends working there. You might read their information more carefully. The figures in the report about distribution of benefits are for the World, not the US. The major beneficiary from adoption of herbicide tolerant cotton are consumers. For herbicide tolerant soybeans, 20% of all benefits have gone to farmers. While it might be nice for 100% of benefits to go to farmers, that is unrealistic as someone must sell them the seed. Of the total benefit of $310 million in 1997, $60 million was being pocketed by farmers. That is $60 million they would not otherwise have.

The benefits of GM canola in Canada are of a similar type to GM soybean in the US (http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo_toc.htm). Not only that Canadian farmers who grow GM are $10 per acre better off than those who do not.

Yes Peter Barfoot has consulted to DuPont and other chemical companies. He has also consulted to the Irish Potato Board and the UK Government. Does that preclude him from offering independent analysis of potatoes and government agricultural policies? His major customer has been the various branches of the UK Government; they would not keep hiring him if his analyses were tainted. As a consultant I know you need to offer the best possible advice regardless of your purchaser’s position otherwise you don’t get hired again.

Haven't you read the report? You have not taken into account the other issues when looking at the "benefit" to farmers. The benefits are net farm receipts and includes off-farm income and also includes subsidies. Keep in mind the top 3 crops subsidised are soy,corn and cotton (the GM crops) and account for 80% of the total US subsidies. The report explains quite clearly that the key benefit of GM soy to farmers is off-farm income. In other words, the benefit is that farmers leave their farms to work to prop up their farming enterprise that was previously self-supporting. At a cost of US $123.50/ha for GM soy seed, it is understandable why farmers have trouble breaking even.
Bringing that into an Australian perspective it is highly unlikely to have a net benefit. We are one of the lowest subsidised farmers in the world (with NZ) and it is unlikely that governments will pay subsidies when GM comes in. our subsidies are fuel rebates and research and development assistance (doesn't go to farmers, it goes to researchers and commercial arms who develop and sell innovative products). We live in far more isolated conditions and there is not even enough full time off-farm employment to employ the offspring of farmers never mind farmers ourselves.
Compare apples with apples. If GM canola was so good for Australia, the GM companies would not be so frightened to participate in independent performance trials. Why is that do you think? What have they got to hide?

NonGMFarmer, I am coming more and more to the opinion that you know next to nothing about farming in North America. Many farmers in the US and Canada have other businesses associated with the farm. These are varied and may include such things as contract harvesting, certified seed production, seed cleaning, consulting, feedlots, local trucking and so on. Don't Australian farmers do the same? I have met some that do.

Surely farmers should assess their time as one of their costs? If the use of new technology allows them to plant fewer acres, maintain their farm income and put extra time into their farm-associated businesses, is that not an economic benefit to the farmer?

My understanding was that the GM companies did want to run trials in NSW, but that the Network of Concerned Farmers was responsible for stopping that happening.

Agronomist, I am quite familiar with your tactics to accuse me of not knowing something when you are pulled up for misrepresenting one of your own references. The report stated quite clearly the increase on off-farm income and the main off-farm income was as a wage earner, not as operating an additional business. The report also stated quite clearly that this off farm income was the main contributing economic "benefit" for farmers growing GM crops. With the GM crops being the main subsidised crops, the additional income from taxpayers is also included. It is obvious however that Australia is not going to introduce subsidies and it there is not enough employment opportunities available in Australian rural areas except at seeding and harvest when we can not get enough labour. Subsidies and off-farm income may be a benefit for US farmers, but it will not be an applicable benefit for Australian farmers.

Your information re the trials in NSW is wrong. The NCF was not responsible for stopping performance trials as we have always encouraged small scale independent trials. Monsanto pulled out when States imposed moratoria and Bayer Cropscience refused to participate in NSW trials stating a concern for drought. Bayer Cropscience have refused to participate in independent performance trials since and we have been told by a number of people pushing GM that this would be considered unfair as their varieties would not be able to compete against our existing varieties at the moment.

Bayer Cropscience do however want large scale commercial release in the form of 5,000 ha trials in order to promote contamination before non-GM farmers have protective legislation in place.

Tell me where it says anything about farmers earning wages. I have copied out the relevant material from the article below to help you out.

“Adoption of HT soybeans is associated with increased household income.
Recent ERS research showed that adoption of HT soybeans was associated with a significant increase in off-farm household income for U.S. soybean farmers. On-farm household income is not significantly associated with adoption but total farm household income is significantly higher for adopters, suggesting that most managerial time saved by adopters is used in off-farm work (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2005).”

This says nothing about earning wages. Indeed, in places like Smith County, Kansas there is simply nowhere to go to earn wages. Some farmers may choose to do that if they can, but it is hard and ineffective to be a weekend farmer.

Farm subsidies in the US are equal for both GM and non-GM growers. If GM offered no financial benefits to farmers, they would simply grow non-GM and make the money anyway. There simply has to be a benefit for the farmers to grow these crops otherwise there would be no reason for the high levels of adoption. 90% of US soybean growers can’t be idiots.

I thought I had a copy of an advertisement from the NCF calling on Mr Carr to ban trials in NSW. I will see if I can find it and post the text for you

You've got it wrong again Agronomist, the NCF ad was to call a moratorium against commercial release (including the 5,000ha proposal) not to stop small scale performance trials.

There are quite a few USDA ERS reports that explain the added off-farm income that would be able to help you get more of an idea of US farm incomes. Perhaps where you are getting it wrong is that you have excluded the spouses so I would suggest the "Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report" http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/ "About 44% of all farm households were dual - career in 2003, with a spouse working off-farm and the principal operator engaged in farming (with or without off farm work)."

There are quite alot of differences between US and Australian farmers. One I find surprising is that most reasonable sized farmers rent land. That would explain why they do not own the machinery we own and rely on contractors to do the bulk of the work.

The key difference regarding GM crops is that Australians will not be subsidised and I found it very interesting that the top 3 crops that are subsidised (accounting for 80% of subsidies) just happen to be soy, corn and cotton - the GM crops. If they were as economically beneficial as we are led to believe, you would think that they would be able to at least pay their own way. At US $123.50/ha GM soy (the most popular GM crop) is an extremely expensive option. It appears the taxpayers are paying the multinationals for the high costs of using this technology. In Argentina on the other hand, the government is not recognising Monsanto's patent and the growers don't need to pay these high costs and don't lose the right to replant their own seed.

A good basic chart for you Agronomist:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/incomeinperspective.htm#income
Composition of Farm Household Income
"Off-farm wages and salaries is the dominant source of income for both the average farm and average U.S. household."

What part of this statement from the full report at website www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11c.pdf is not saying that the farmers are getting an increase in GM benefits because their spouses and themselves are working in salaried wages outside of their own farm?:-

"The lack of increased profitability for some farmers who adopted HT soybeans suggests that factors other than those included in traditional farm returns calculations may be driving adoption for these farmers. In particular, weed control may become simpler and require less management time, which allows growers of HT soybeans to control a wide range of weeds and makes harvest easier and faster. One important alternative use of management time is off-farm employment by farm operators and their spouses (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2002)."

"Adoption of HT soybeans is associated with increased household income Recent ERS research showed that adoption of HT soybeans was associated with a significant increase in off-farm household income for U.S. soybean farmers. On-farm household income is not significantly associated with adoption but total farm household income is significantly higher for adopters, suggesting that most managerial time saved by adopters is used in off-farm work (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2005)."

I think you need glasses Agronomist.

I have just one question agronomist;

If my grain is contaminated by cross pollination from a GM crop, can I expect to have the contaminated seed replaced at no cost to me?

Dunart, It is not an issue in North America. No-one, except a few mavericks who have other agendas, is worried about adventitious presence as it doesn't lose any money. There is nothing to compensate for.

The word used in the USDA text is employment. This means a lot of things including earning wages. It does not mean as NonGMfarmer wants to claim that growers have to get wage jobs off farm to earn money outside their farms to prop up their farming business because of GM crops. It also won’t explain adoption of GM crops in places like Smith County Kansas, Adams County Iowa and Nance County Nebraska where off farm work for wages is not readily available. If GM crops free up time so the farmer’s spouse can work off farm, is that a bad thing?

NonGMFarmer also has the subsidy situation quite wrong. Subsidy payments have been decreasing in recent years. The total subsidy payout of about $12 billion in 2004 was the lowest than it had been since 1998. In contrast to the assertion made by NonGMFarmer, in 2004 crops with GM traits (soybeans, cotton, canola and corn) represented only 57% of all subsidy payouts. The biggest payout (37%) was for corn, where only modest adoption of GM varieties (45%). Soybean, with the highest adoption rate (85%) only got 7% of subsidies behind wheat (10%) and just ahead of rice (5%). Neither of the latter have any GM varieties. In 2003, with $16 billion in subsidy payments, soybeans received less subsidies than either wheat or rice. While it might be interesting that cotton and corn receive the most subsidy and are GM, this is simply a reflection that these are major crops in the US. As a percent of total subsidies, soybean subsidies are declining. Historically over the period 1995-2004 they were 9% of the total, from 2002-2004 they have been 7% of the total.

Agronomist, you did not answer my question.

• If I plant cross contaminated seed will I ever be prosecuted for doing so?
(This would mean I am planting the “GMO” genes.)
• If the cross contaminated seed ends up lower yielding, will I be able to claim loss of income?
• If I lose a sale, or have the price downgraded due to this contamination, will I be able to claim for the losses caused?
• Will the extra costs of killing the chemical resistance plants be able to be claimed from the GMO companies?

This involves a very short answer; in fact 4 words will be long enough.
Unless the answer is;

• No
• Yes
• Yes
• yes

It means the non GMO growers will be asked to subsidize the GMO industry and the large companies involved.

So what do you see as the answers?
I do not need a story about so called subsidies and farmers having to work of farm to survive.
I just need 4 words, a very simple reply.

Dunart, Experience from North America would dictate the following answers:

If I plant cross contaminated seed will I ever be prosecuted for doing so? Not if it was due to adventitious presence. If you did so deliberately, you could expect a request to explain. In the same way as if you deliberately decided to sell seed with plant breeders rights to your neighbor.

If the cross contaminated seed ends up lower yielding, will I be able to claim loss of income? Broadly, yes, but you would need to demonstrate economic loss. It hasn't happen yet. If you get adventitious presence of a lower yielding wheat in your premium wheat variety do you lose income? If so, who do you claim the loss from?

If I lose a sale, or have the price downgraded due to this contamination, will I be able to claim for the losses caused? Again you would need to be able to demonstrate economic loss. If you could sell it elsewhere for the same price, the answer would be no as there would be no economic loss. This has not yet been successfully tested in the courts.

Will the extra costs of killing the chemical resistance plants be able to be claimed from the GMO companies? No. If you get cross contamination from Clearfield wheat into your wheat, and then have to use clethodim in your Clearfield canola to kill the wheat volunteers, who do you claim the extra costs of control from?

Where do you get your information Agronomist? Check the dates of your subsidy information. Last year subsidies were increased (check the OECD website for information). And soy,corn and cotton made up 80% of the subsidies (this was clearly given in a presentation by USDA at Grains Week and all there heard the rather dithery response when I pointed this out during question time).

You are deliberately missing the point about contamination. We are promised coexistence when there is no intention to allow fair, practical coexistence plans. In order to sell as non-GM, we either guarantee there is no GM (will be impossible if GM is grown) or we have a rigorous identity preservation system claimed to costs 10-15% of the gross value of our product). Part of that I.P. is to plant uncontaminated seed - apparently not an intention of our seed industry.

All the GM industry is saying "no problem" but they expect us to wear all the costs and liabilities when there is.

I obtained my data from the Environmental Working Group. They are against agricultural subsidies because they believe subsidies only help the largest farmers. They may be right, but in any case, they have no particular reason to under-report subsidies. Importantly, nobody in the US is disputing their claims, which suggests they are near the mark..

The data I could find at the OECD only goes up to 2003 with provisional figures for 2004. This includes estimates of all types of producer price support from disaster payments to payments for commodity production, on-farm extension services, pesticide residue testing, animal health testing, income support and conservation reserve programs.
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,2340,en_2649_33775_35009718_1_1_1_1,00.html.

It is nowhere as easy to get through, as the commodities are all split up. The Producer support estimate (PSE) for 2004 for corn was 18% of the total and for soybeans 11%. Cotton and canola were not listed separately, but oilseeds (which would include both these and other crops like sunflowers) was 11%. Wheat was 7%. The total PSE for the US as a % of gross farm gate was 18%, for the EU, which grows very little GM crops it was almost double (33%) in 2004.

It is the commodity support figures you need Agronomist as the commodity support counters high costs and lower commodity prices.

It appears the Environment group are using out of date information. US tried cutting back subsidies but they have since increased them again (as you noticed on the OECD report). USDA also have figures on commodity based subsidies that confirm that subsidies have gone up.

The most up to date information was supplied at Grains Week, Canberra direct from USDA. They very very clearly showed a graph with the current allocation of commodity based subsidies and the top 3 crops account for a fraction under 80% of the total subsidies and just happen to be soy, corn and cotton (the GM crops). I confirmed this with the speaker directly after her presentation. I again had this confirmed during question time with the USDA person pushing GM. USDA is going to release their newest report in the next day or so.

US are the main consumers of GM foods and also the main importer of Canadian canola (processed plus unprocessed) and are fighting labelling desperately to prevent consumers in US knowing if a product is GM. They know the market rejection associated with GM food products.

US have increased subsidies and so have Canada. Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay are not paying royalties as their government does not recognise Monsanto's patent. Well that rules out the supposed success for the top GM growing countries doesn't it? If governments don't prop up farmers incomes or assist farmers to pay less, there is no profit for GM growers and the non-GM growers that are forced to market on a consumer rejected market.

New from CSIRO. Bt Cotton uses 10% less water than conventional cotton. So much for NonGMFarmer's allegation that GM cotton in Australia uses more water than non-GM.

http://www.pi.csiro.au/enewsletter/previousEditions/015story1.htm

Insect-resistant cotton also water efficient

Preliminary results from CSIRO research in Narrabri have shown that genetically modified insect-resistant cotton may also be more water efficient.

Two years of field experiments by CSIRO Plant Industry's Mr Dirk Richards and Mr Stephen Yeates, show that under normal full irrigation, Bollgard® II cotton used ten per cent less water than an equivalent conventional variety and had higher yields.

Bollgard® II makes up most of the Australian cotton crop and has reduced pesticide use by up to 80 per cent.

Research is now optimising agronomic management of Bollgard® II as it tends to produce bolls earlier than conventional cotton because insect damage does not delay early crop growth.

Bollgard® II and conventional cotton extract soil water at a similar rate, but Bollgard® II has a more compact growing season so uses less water overall for the same or higher yields.

Bollgard® II had lower yields only when it was moisture stressed from peak flowering to the end of flowering when boll filling started.

Soil moisture stress applied to conventional cotton at the same time did not affect yield as much, due to later flowering and a better ability to compensate later in the season.

This research is helping growers fine tune their water management strategies for Bollgard® II.

This research is supported by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation and the Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research Centre.

Bt corn success in the Philippines

RP can achieve corn sufficiency with expansion of hybrid, Bt corn areas

http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2006/09/04/BSNS2006090473441.html

By MELODY M. AGUIBA

The Philippines can achieve sufficiency in corn in one or two years if high-yielding hybrid corn including the genetically modified (GM) Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn can be intensively expanded on just an additional 200,000 hectares.

Jet G. Parma, Pioneer Hi-Bred Philippines Inc. (PHBP) country manager, told a press briefing the country needs to focus on propagating the use of hybrid corn that the country will no longer need to import corn.

"Hybrid corn area has stayed at 500,000 to 600,000 hectares over the past years. We only need five to six milllion tons of corn. If we can raise yield by five tons per hectare, we only need to expand hybrid corn on (an additional) 200,000 hectares to raise production by one million tons," he said.

…

The Philippines is expected to import at least 1.4 million MT of corn and corn substitute this year. Importation of corn is placed at more than 250,000 MT this year while corn substitute wheat’s importation may reach to 1.2 million MT, traders said.

…

The industry is also foreseeing an expansion in the corn borer-resistant Bt corn area by the end of 2006 to 70,000 hectares, up by 40 percent from abou 50,000 hectares in 2005, according to Benigno Peczon, Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines executive director.

At this expanded rate, Bt corn has a lot of room for growth with its more non-polluting impact on the environment along with the tremendous increase in income it brings to farmers, even despite higher Bt corn seed’s price compared to open pollinated varieties.

"Definitely (we have achieved a level of success in Bt corn propagation). We’re now at 80,000 hectares, and we’re getting positive feedback. It’s very encouraging," Parma said.

…

Peczon explained that if there was opposition on the use of Bt corn from environment-lobbying organizations like Greenpeace, this is not based on science.

"Opposition to Bt corn is ideologically-based and does not have a scientific basis," he said.