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.