Scare campaigns are justified when -
1. GM done in the controls of a laboratory are not recognised in the wiles of nature
2. there is very little independant scientifically-controlled testing (and how can it be controlled outside the lab?)of these GE organisms.
3. Where would the GE pea, under development by CSIRO which was withdrawn after affecting mice, be now if left in the hands companies of the likes of Monsanto?
Put food production back in the hands of local farmers. There are enough old varieties of naturally-selected food plants in the world to feed the population. Leave well enough alone (and watch the documentary 'The Food Of The Future')

So, Louise, the genetic material was merely left behind from the previous crop. It did not, as the author has allowed people to assume, jump from the corn crop to contaminate the genetic material of the Soybeans. So the GM Corn was only a "contaminant" of the Soybean crop in the sense that weeds contaminate my lawn or any other crop.

The term 'contaminate a crop' has been used to imply that the corn matured and was harvested with the soybeans and then sold within the beans. But this is pure bull$hit as the two crops grow at different rates and it would need two entirely different harvesters. In fact, the few corn stems would, at best, provide a free feed for birds if they hadn't already been pushed over during the tending of the soybean crop.

But even if corn did make it into the soybean silo, it would only be classed as a "contaminant" in the sense that dust, grit or leaf material could be classed as a contaminant prior to it being rinsed before cooking. Well, I have news for you. All your vegies are "contaminated" in this way, even organic ones. That is why we wash them before using them.

Once again the anti-GM zealots have been exposed for grossly exagerated spin from an entirely benign initial fact.

Perseus, the corn did contaminate the soybean harvest. As a result, 500,000 bushels (175,000 cubic meters) of soybeans had to be destroyed and 55 acres (63 hectares) of corn surrounding the site had to be burned.

I would hardly call the presence of GE pharma corn in a food crop benign. The corn was genetically engineered to produce a pig vaccine and was not intended for human consumption.

Even GE advocates, such as CropGen and the Grocery Manufacturers of America, condemned the incident.

I can’t believe the simplistic crud being spouted here. CSIRO field peas were stopped because alpha-amylase inhibitor-1 caused an antigen mediated immune response.

OK from this why don’t we ban all foods that cause an antigen mediated immune response (allergy). Lets see, peanuts, tomatoes, seafood etc. etc.

The mice that were used at JCSMR were bred to be allergic to amylase inhibitors, guess what they were.

Six performance trials were conducted under field conditions between 1996 and 2001. Results showed the alpha-amylase inhibitor GM peas provided 99.5 per cent protection against the pea weevil.

Peas are self pollinating and it is unlikely gene flow would occur between GM and non-GM peas. However CSIRO conducted gene flow studies to test this assumption. The results of the work showed that gene flow did not occur between GM and non-GM field peas.

The reason the research was stopped was because CSIRO could not show improved yields using this specific pea. The technology is still in use today.

Come on give me some facts, and I don’t mean dud spud research or failed pea research. The fact is that most Australians eat GM soy products everyday (soy meal in processed foods).

Farmers make an economic decision about what crop to sew and where to source the seed given the expected return for the crop. The anti-GM lobby led by Greenpeace has led to the fall in profits for US growers to the advantage of Australian growers but this has nothing to do with the safety of the foods. Greenpeace is manipulating the world market.

Still waiting for an answer to my rhetorical question about Canola, I know the answer, just trying to find out if anyone else does.

GM cotton in Australia. The crop has been a phenomenal success with 90% of cotton growers planting the stuff and pesticide application rates down an average 88%. Cotton has been exempt from the bans on GM food crops on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre. Never mind that 35% of the vegetable oil we eat in Australia is from cotton seed

How strange people are - gleefully eating GM food and claiming it to be safe. Do you GM gourmands realise there has NEVER been a human trial of GM food, and its safety or otherwise proven, that has been published for the general public to debate? You wouldn't take a new drug unless approved by the TGA - you would wait for it to be declared "safe". So why do you declare GM food is safe when there is no scientific proof to state that it IS? If you have had the good fortune to read some clarifying research on the safety of human consumption of GM food - then please, alert me to it for me to peruse. It would be grand to KNOW just how "safe" GM really is. I can't help being a trifle suspicious as to why there are no debatable articles in the public domain.

The problem that I see with GM is that I am allergic to cucumber. Now if the GM company decided to put in the cucumber gene into wheat or canola or something else to make it look shiny or the shape of the cucumber, then how do I know to avoid it. It does not look different than any other grain and grain is imbedded into just about everything on the supermarket shelves. If there is no labelling on the food that says "This product may contain traces of the gene cucumber in it" then how the heck am I meant to know to avoid it? You think being allergic to something is easy? What a load of rubbish. If I even eat a tiny bit (like someone using the same knife that they cut cucumber with as the tomato I am eating) then I go into anaphyletic shock and end up comatose in a hospital.

You GM'ers have to get real and understand the implications of what you are putting into our food.