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