Bugsy, While I agree Bush goddess is ahead of science, you in your last para speculate in the same manner?
"Victoria is to review the moratorium on GM" was our starting point.
I personally see nothing wrong with the science in GM. Wild cross pollination has been around for a while and is happening all the time.
As bush goddess says there the consideration should not end.
An old mistake was the redesign of cropping in Indonesia, native rice was replaced by another breed of rice supplied by a good intentioned US after WW2. Planting strategies were also changed. The latter removed the "native strip between rows" critters ate the rice to the ground, the native without human intervention had invented a resistance to the critters. Indonesia's rice crops declined instead of increasing, genetics in the native rice were lost, a disaster leaving people at least hungry if not starving.
I think a lesson in strategy.

Victoria has no pressing need to introduce GM, demonstrated even in your posts, with respect.
There are other "no risk" strategies for increasing crop yields, as you agreed.
The US spin doctors are trying to sell us a bunny, I hope we stay aware to them.
fluff

At least we are getting somewhere. Well, if a strategy is "no risk", then I am certain farmers and businesses would go for them. I am actually a rather large fan of polyculture farming techniques and certainly see them as good basis for future farming. But as bush goddess correctly points out, each technology needs to be considered on a case by case basis (as there are many different flavours of GM). Some GM technologies may not be suitable for us, some probably will, but they need to be tested and evaluated in a real world market. Wholesale change from non-GM to GM crops is not what is being sold here. GM is just another string to our bow, so to speak, a diversification of pest management methods and cropping systems will likely make our food supply more resilient and is not totally incompatible with permaculture or polyculture. And to date there have been no findings that GM makes biodiversity decrease, or that there are any public health hazards. In fact, it has already been shown to decrease reliance on chemical treatments.

Bugsy your last post is most conciliatory, but

are you promoting monsanto?
fluff

Mr Rheese

Perhaps you'd like to take a toxic tour of the "magical silver bullets" scientists have given us in the past. They include, but are not limited to the following:

Dioxins and furans, PCB's, toxaphene, deildrin, lindane, aldrin, heptachlor, chlordane etc.

"Marvellous break through", says the peer reviewed scientists.

Unfortunately, they were correct about the killing spree of these chemicals since they have devastated all life forms on this planet.

The effects are bioaccumulative and insidious. You can rarely hear them, smell them or see them and they have invaded the entire food chain.

One need only obtain graphics of the physically deformed children in Vietnam, to witness the proven results of the hideous dioxins - even 42 years after the spraying has occurred.

Then you currently have Monsanto determined to promote their bovine growth hormone now shown to increase the risks of breast and colon cancer. They have arrogantly filed a formal complaint against those ethical companies labelling their products as "BGH free."

I see that you are operating under the umbrella of the "Australian Environment Foundation." May I suggest you are writing under false pretences?

Neither you or Jennifer have been capable of scientifically supporting your claims with your enthusiasm to further pollute our already fragile environment, heavily contaminated by your buddies in the pollutant industries.

Perhaps you should haved perused a copy of the "Precautionary Principle," prior to your promotion for GM crops. You can find the contents in most EPA Acts around Australia.

Thought I'd just throw a quick thought into the hat as this forum seems to actually be debating the science pretty reasonably...

I'm a big proponent of inhibiting certain genes in crops. Particularly genes that express chemicals like cyanide (in plants like sorghum etc). My theory is that by reducing cyanide levels in plants you remove the danger to humans, remove the need to process the plants to get rid of the cyanide and you're probably making the plant less fit (I.e. less able to survive outside the farm).

This would be probably be accomplished by either removing the section of DNA containing the cyanide gene or removing the gene's promoter (a regulatory region).

I also think this type of crop would be widely supported especially as several species (like almonds) have strains that have already lost the ability to produce cyanide naturally.

fluff, I am not in the business of endorsing corporations but I am pro-science and pro-biotechnology. I certainly am not pro-Monsanto, however I am not necessarily anti-Monsanto either. But the question shows where many people's heads are at: "Monsanto bad, don't let them do anything". Which is of course utter crap. Corporations are amoral entities that do good and bad things in the name of business and profit, it's up to us to keep that in check, but we also benefit from them and we make no progress if we refuse certain technologies point blank without reviewing them because of irrational fear. If they are to be refused at least let be because of founded and rational fears and concerns.

The precautuionary principle(from Wikipedia):" a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."

Which is sensible, that is why we had the moratoria and are having reviews of the science now that the moratoria are ending. What the science is saying of course, is that on the whole most GM technologies are quite harmless and do not pose a public health or environmental threat. But GM is of course a mixed bag and no technologies are exactly the same, depending on the genes targeted and their effects, which is why they should be decided on in a case by case basis. We will not be without defences if the moratorium on GM is lifted, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is still in full force and has considerable powers in dealing with these technologies. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/

What is this argument really about? Not trusting corporations, the government or the science? The way the world grows its food has to change, chemical dependence is unsustainable in the long term for a number of reasons and biotechnology can be complementary with other methods.