My "agenda" is not political... it is simply that I do not want non-GM farmers adversely impacted by a product we do not want and do not need.
And as you have amply demonstrated, you debate by twisting what your opposition says rather than debating the topic at hand. You can find the Canadian yields quite easily from the USDA figures and there is certainly no evidence of the 30-40% yield advantage that has been promoted with GM.
Judy Carman may be known by some agricultural people in her role as the person who headed up the team to decide if rabbit calicivirus needed to be recalled. I'm sure she would not have that role if she was not considered qualified. As a consumer, I would trust Judy Carmans results. If she comes up with a conclusion that GM is safe to consume, I would trust her advise. What is the point of having someone that consumers have no trust in?
You were the one who asked for an opinion on Judy Carman and yes I did expect you to be critical because it is your style to attack the opposition personally.
Are you a West Australian, if not, you should have no concerns about how the West Australian government spends their money. As a West Australian myself, I am proud that they understand the issue well enough to allocate funding to independent health studies.
I am sure you are Bill Crabtree as you have the same writing style, debate and attitude but I can understand why you would not want the public to know who you are.

Short on facts and long on critizism seems to be your forte Agronomist and I don't care if you are Bill Crabtree or whoever you are as I don't trust you. You've accused and abused non-GM farmer because she did not hide who she was. Are you frightened to have the same treatment you've given her? Obviously so.

Show us the facts of your so called wonderful figures that you think are what you are quoting as I have not seen them at all. All I've seen is some Governments subsidizing GM or making it so they can cover the additional costs that GM companies want to pay. Then you have governments like Argentina that refused to allow Monsanto to charge these fees. I'm not a farmer but I think this is a raw deal if Australian farmers are expected to pay those additional costs and the Australian Government is not going to pay them anything extra to pay these costs.

P.S. I still think that GM is a biohazard.

Firstly, I didn’t ask for an opinion on Judy Carman, I asked for evidence. If I want an opinion, I can just as easily go to the store and ask the girl on the checkout.

Secondly, it was I in the first place who was challenged for my opinion on whether I would support Carman doing feeding trials. My response was “Yes, provided she has the appropriate qualifications and experience”. In the same way that I would not ask the barber to fix a problem with my teeth, you need people with appropriate experience to run scientific trials correctly.

Thirdly, as I am not a resident of Western Australia, it is no concern of mine how the Government decides to spend its funds. The fact that the Government has apparently made a decision to give money to an Institute with no track record, no appropriate publications and without public tender does raise the issue of whether corrupt practices are occurring. If the Government were to do the same to an independent, but well known supporter of GM technology, you would be the first to cry foul.

Fourthly, your much vaunted statement that only Monsanto and Bayer have done feeding trials is clearly wrong: http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html.

As for the facts and figures to substantiate some of my comments about potential benefits of GM crops, perhaps you should read the following documents. They are all independent of the agrochemical industry.

http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/biotech-us.php

http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo_toc.htm

http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/consultancy_support_gm_crops.htm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/

I suggest you ask Judy Carman for the info you want in order to put your mind at rest.
Yes, I agree, the reference http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/ is very interesting and the US Department of Agriculture is a reliable source.
I know this report and it is quite specific. GM soy is the main crop grown in US and it has been analysed.
Who is the main beneficiary of GM soy in US? Answer = the seed companies then the GM companies.
What is the farmer benefit? Farmers are supposedly better off because there has been an increase in off farm income to support their farming costs.
The GM crops in US are soy, corn and cotton which is important when you take into account that the top US subsidies (rating first, second and third and accounting for almost 80% of the total US subsidies) are soy, corn and cotton.
Not much benefit in growing GM is there?
But of course there is a benefit for the seed companies, the GM companies and the researchers... but not the farmer or the consumer.

I had a look at the independent feeding trials you quoted, especially the details. Its confirmation that there are inadequate health testing if that is the best available.

Due to time constraints I looked at only one of the sites that you quoted:- http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/consultancy_support_gm_crops.htm

Amongst the quotes throughout this large and full report are “Zero impact for GM IR maize in Argentina is due to the negligible (historic) use of insecticides on the Argentinian maize crops.

The impact of GM HT traits has, however contributed to increased reliance on a limited range of herbicides and this poses questions about the possible future increased development of weed resistance to these herbicides. Some degree of reduced effectiveness of glyphosate (and glufosinate) against certain weeds may take place. To the extent to which this may occur, this will increase the necessity to include low dose rates applications of other herbicides in weed control programmes (commonly used in conventional production systems) and hence may marginally reduce the level of net environmental and economic gains derived from the current use of the GM technology”.

The bend on these reports is pro-GM because Brookes and Barfoot's clientelle is the GM companies such as Monsanto and Dupont. (See Peter Barfoots CV

Glad you believe the USDA is a reliable source, I have a lot of friends working there. You might read their information more carefully. The figures in the report about distribution of benefits are for the World, not the US. The major beneficiary from adoption of herbicide tolerant cotton are consumers. For herbicide tolerant soybeans, 20% of all benefits have gone to farmers. While it might be nice for 100% of benefits to go to farmers, that is unrealistic as someone must sell them the seed. Of the total benefit of $310 million in 1997, $60 million was being pocketed by farmers. That is $60 million they would not otherwise have.

The benefits of GM canola in Canada are of a similar type to GM soybean in the US (http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo_toc.htm). Not only that Canadian farmers who grow GM are $10 per acre better off than those who do not.

Yes Peter Barfoot has consulted to DuPont and other chemical companies. He has also consulted to the Irish Potato Board and the UK Government. Does that preclude him from offering independent analysis of potatoes and government agricultural policies? His major customer has been the various branches of the UK Government; they would not keep hiring him if his analyses were tainted. As a consultant I know you need to offer the best possible advice regardless of your purchaser’s position otherwise you don’t get hired again.