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.