Excellent Dunart, thank you.
Agronomist (Bill Crabtree), your normal "lie" response is ridiculously predictable.
Your own reference (corrected) http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=4 confirms that triazine/atrazine resistant weeds are in Canada - 12 resistant weeds actually and among them is mustard, the top of Canadian Canola councils list of worst weeds in canola. Farmers avoid including more rotations of a chemical when there is resistance already developing.
This is the problem with GM glyphosate resistant canola, farmers already use glyphosate as a key knockdown chemical.
Chemical resistance in weeds is a major problem but this accidental resistance also reveals just how easy it would be to produce non-GM chemical resistant crop varieties. We don't need GM techniques to do it.
Clearield canola and triazine tolerant canola are both non-GM chemical resistant canola's. Plant breeding has improved to remove the yield penalty originally associated with TT varieties which is why Bayer Cropscience's GM hybrids aren't able to outperform these new varieties. This is probably why these companies are refusing to participate in independent performance trials that would compare apples with apples.

To add to the US/Canadian figures given by Dunart, one referenced report on suings in US :
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1931
Quotes: "To date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers. The lawsuits involve 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies, and have been directed at farmers residing in half of the states in the U.S. The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers."
"Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating them."
"The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the 90 lawsuits CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements."
"Farmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone else’s genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted, or “volunteered,” in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they never signed Monsanto’s technology agreement but still planted the patented crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use was unwitting or a contract was never signed."

The GM industry should be liable for containing their product and liable for paying the non-GM farmer when containment fails, not expect non-GM farmers to pay them and for any economic loss caused.

Once again Agronomist is squealing saying others are lying to try to deflect attention away from his misleading comments.

The debate is about consumers not wanting GM food and how farmers want to grow what consumers want but can't.

I don't care how much you squeal Agronomist, I want to retain my choice and I am sure farmers want to as well. Thank you to our state governments for stopping the GM industry getting their way to contaminate our food.

I still think it's a biohazard and am just waiting for it to be proved. Funny how the pro GM lobby groups are against independent health testing by Judy Carman. I'm looking forward to her results but obviously the pro-GM'ers are frightened of them. What do they know that they've hidden so far?

NonGMFarmer. You seem to be illiterate as well.

Let me review. You made a claim to the effect that Atrazine-resistant canola is no longer grown in Canada because of atrazine-resistant weeds. This statement is untrue, because there are no atrazine resistant weeds in the canola growing regions of Canada. All the atrazine resistant weeds are restricted to corn growing areas in Ontario and Quebec. Would it be right to say that Western Australian farmers have had to give up use of glyphosate, because of glyphosate resistance in NSW? Of course not, but that is the sort of statement that you are making.

By the way Dunart, I am familiar with the Roundup resistance situation in Australia. I have met Bill Crabtree on a couple of occasions. I don’t know whether Roundup Ready canola would make things better or not in Australia, that probably remains to be seen. I can say that despite 10 years use of GM crops in Canada, there are no weeds resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate in Canadian canola fields (volunteer canola excepted). Taking your line, perhaps the solution to Roundup resistance in Australia might be to ban other uses of glyphosate, not just Roundup Ready canola?

As for Percy Schmeiser, perhaps it would be instructive to read the court documents. The Judge’s findings are at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.shtml. Schmeiser initially claimed cross pollination as the source of the plants on his farm. However, when it was pointed out that the nearest Roundup Ready crop to his farm was more than 5 miles away and that cross pollination would never account for 90% purity of his Roundup Ready seed, Schmeiser changed his tune, saying the seed fell off passing trucks. Even then, such an event could not account for 1000 acres of Roundup Ready canola that Schmeiser grew. The best take on the evidence provided to the court seems to be that Schmeiser deliberately selected Roundup Ready plants to save for the next years sowing (see para 102). The only other possible explanation is that Schmeiser bought the seed illegally from another farmer. However, Schmeiser denies doing this.

Schmeiser’s claims of having bred his own canola seed for 50 years are ludicrous. Canola was invented by University of Manitoba scientists and released in the 1970s. Schmeiser would have to be growing rapeseed unsuitable for human consumption. Lastly, the court evidence is that Schmeiser bought new canola seed in 1993.

All the figures you give relate to farmers in North America that Monsanto has initiated action against. Despite the views of the rest of the world, Canada is not yet the 51st state of the US. There are only a small number of cases where Monsanto has prosecuted through the courts in Canada. A search of the Canadian Federal Court records finds only the Schmeiser case has gone to that court. You still can’t name another farmer in Canada who Monsanto has prosecuted, let alone hundreds.

Is it really safe? I have looked through the threads here and can’t find a single statement that I have made on Judy Carmen. There is good reason for this, I doubt I would have met the woman; I know nothing about her qualifications or her expertise. If Judy Carmen has the appropriate expertise, I see nothing against her doing some testing. Perhaps you could help me out by providing me with some background information on Judy Carmen’s expertise and a list of her relevant publications so I can familiarise myself with the situation. Health testing is not my forte.

Back to basics for Agronomist (Bill Crabtree),
Triazine is used in Australia because it is very effective against our worst weeds, ryegrass and radish, therefore Australia uses triazine tolerant canola's so we can spray triazines on the canola crop.
Canada does not have a ryegrass or radish problem.
Canada mainly has a problem with mustard which can be controlled with glufosinate ammonium (used on Bayer Cropsciences GM invigor canola). but... glufosinate ammonium does not kill radish and there is no other post-planting option for farmers to control radish in the crop. Hence, GM Invigor canola will not be a benefit for farmers with a radish problem. Markets don't accept high levels of radish in canola.
The glufosinate ammonium or Liberty chemical is estimated to be a massive $18/litre or $72/ha compared to $28/ha or less for triazines and the seed is a whopping $16/kg compared to either replanting our own canola or up to $4.30/kg for non-GM seed. Why pay more for less?

Schmeisers crime was not stealing, he did however deliberately select the RR trait to challenge the law. As a farmer he opposed the logic that Monsanto owned all Roundup Ready plants and all of their progeny, no matter where the unwanted GM contamination went.
While Percy lost part of the claim relating to deliberate selection, he had a victory for all farmers because he proved that Monsanto did not own the plant, they only owned the trait of roundup resistance and if the farmer did not use that trait (by spraying the plant with glyphosate), they did not have to pay Monsanto for the use of it.
Monsanto is not planning to sue farmers in Australia as they are planning to take an end-point royalty payment from our seed if their GM product is detected. Australian farmers will have to sue Monsanto to get our money back. When asked for risk protection to avoid this happening, we are told to trust Monsanto!