http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/testing112403.cfm shows why I have been saying that Monsanto manipulates results to suit their own needs. Proof by scientists that say this. Just one section of this report:-

"The protein Monsanto analysed was from E.coli, not from RoundUp
ready soybeans! Testing assumed the protein expressed in the
bio-engineered soybean has the same amino acid sequence as the soil
bacterium E coliform from which the genetically engineered gene was
extracted. This can only be verified when the soybean-produced
protein is isolated and the amino acid sequence is determined.
Exchanging genes between bacteria and a higher organism can
sometimes result in partial change of amino acid and/or
post-translational modification after expression. It was presumed
Monsanto had determined the amino acid sequence of the GE soybean
but it had not.

Monsanto sequenced only 15 amino acids from the protein that was
expressed in E. coliform. The rest of the sequence was an assumption
about the sequence of the bacterial DNA. They determined only 3.3%
of the expected total of 455 amino acids and the protein is not from
soybeans. The test described in the documents is the only method to
verify antigenic equivalence of proteins. But antigenic similarity
itself does not prove that the amino acid sequences are the same.
The real sequence of the GE protein in the soybean that we are
eating is still unknown".

Japan does not want GM rice or wheat as can be seen on http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Monsanto-Rice-Failed-Japan5dec02.htm because they have tested Monsanto's scientific evidence and found major flaws. 580,000 people signed the petition against it. I am not the only concerned consumer it seems.

"December 14, 2004
Agence France Presse
TOKYO - Masaharu Kawata, a Yokkaichi University lecturer..."

'safe, please do more research than a rehash of an article of a "paper" published on the internet by a uni lecturer who is associated with Greepeace-Japan.

There are many creditable sites most end with .gov or .ed

What site are you looking at? So, according to you, no evidence against GM is allowed in this debate because they may have links to Greenpeace. How idiotic. Masaharu Kawata of Nagoya University, Japan in his own right has no say because he gave his information to Greenpeace because he was concerned. He did his own qualitative and quantitative research and found errors within Monsanto's experiments and then you tell me that only government sites are allowed. Excuse me, I know that Government's are manipulated by Corporations. Have a look at the employer agreements if you think I am wrong. Kawata has shown that there is manipulation by Monsanto in their tests so you personally attack the scientist yet again. Anyone that speaks out (even me) gets attacked because you don't want us to find the truth and now we are seeing it.

Let's look at what the farmers of Australia are expecting. You sign an agreement which states:-
Cannot save and replant Monsanto's genetically engineered seed.
Must use Monsanto's proprietary chemicals.
Must comply with Monsanto's confidentiality statement.
Must pay Monsanto of technology fee of $15 per acre every year.
Must allow Monsanto to monitor the entire farm for three years after using patented seeds.

So, with an ordinary wheat belt farmer who plants about 3,000 acres of crop will have to up front pay $30,000 before they even plant the seed for "technology fees". Then they have to buy the seed (unknown cost and Monsanto is allowed to increase), buy only Monsanto's chemicals and get your farm monitored by Monsanto by the Monsanto police for three years and not allowed to tell anyone about how bad it is. Makes you think that the millions of dollars spent on manipulative advertising has worked don't you think?

By the way this is $30,000 American dollars

Is it really safe? Can I ask you some questions about your claims?

1) How many Australian farmers plant 3000 acres of canola?
2) Why do Australian farmers need to pay American dollars for the seed? What is wrong with Australian dollars?
3) I understand that Monsanto sells no herbicides in Australia, how can farmers be forced to buy their herbicides from Monsanto?
4) Why is Monsanto allowed to have a Police Force in Australia? Why does the Australian Government allow this?
5) How does Monsanto get away with telling Australian farmers when to plant their crops when they don't anywhere else in the world?

I think you answers might be illuminating.

Safe,

The contract terms you mention are often ones that are quite common in industry, eg for non-GM crops too, or do not really restrict the farmer. For instance:

Can’t save and replant: I defer to Agronomist’s expertise on this, but I believe many farmers of grain crops grow hybrids and buy new seed every year already. Other farmers buy new seed regularly to ensure they have the newest, most productive varieties. (Remember that before – and since – GM seeds were developed, companies such as Pioneer Hi-Bred, Novartis/Syngenta, Advanta, Garst etc made a living developing and selling seed – ie many farmers were buying rather than saving)

Also (this analogy is not perfect, but the principle is the same) – it’s like forbidding you from making copies of DVDs you’ve bought, and selling them; the seed purchase incorporates a technology licence, which allows you to sow the seed and sell the harvest – but not to continue to sow copies (the next generation seed) and sell the harvest for ever more. Software is similarly sold under licence, including terms that you can use but not make copies and sell them.

Must use Monsanto’s chemicals: That’s not true, actually; other companies' chemicals are authorised for use (it says this at least twice on the Tech Use contract). Monsanto does not guarantee success if you use other than Monsanto or authorised products – but that is reasonable; they have developed the technology to use with certain ones, and know it will work; they cannot know if it will work with others. Many companies have similar provisions – eg Holden radio ads recommend Holden parts, otherwise you may void your warranty. (Also, “tying” chemical purchases to the seed in this way could cause problems under the Trade Practices Act – Monsanto’s lawyers would advise against it if other chemicals would also work.)

Confidentiality statement: Standard (and sensible) for companies dealing in cutting-edge technologies when you want to stay ahead of your competitors! You’d have to sign one if eg taking a job in a medical research institute, as well!