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