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.