There are a lot of errors in this piece ... in fact it is full of misinformation. Let's start with two:

1. Susan Hawhtorne suggests the dairy industry is currently GM free ... but the Loyd report, commissioned by the Victorian government a few years ago, explained that the Victorian dairy industry already feeds its animals GM soy. So its already using GM. The only difference is that if we lift the bans here, it will be able to source locally grown GM.

2. Susan Hawthorne suggests we will lose potential markets in Japan. But Japan already buys GM canola from Canada.

Now, Jennifer, from the Monsanto-sponsored IPA, would of course make smear assertions that this article is "full of misinformation", and then trot out the only two points the IPA can dredge up (and they've been published everywhere) in support of GM here.

Jennifer, these two shaky points by no means undermine Hawthorne's very sound arguments. The first amounts to a very small minority of the dairy industry, which is largely GM-free.

Canada lost a large chunk of its Canola market to Australia when it changed to GM. The US lost an estimated $12 billion when it introduced GM, according to the UK's Soil Association.

Jennifer has reportedly claimed that Victoria's GM canola industry will be "killed" if we don't adopt GM. But we are set to enjoy the largest canola yields on record. Who is spinning misinformation here?

There is no market demand for GM food, so the palm-greased lobbyists will resort to any spin to try and impose it on unwitting markets.

In all polls taken to date, the vast majority of farmers and shoppers don't want GM. Come on, Jennifer. You're a free-market lobbyist. Why aren't you listening to the market?

Thanks, Susan, for a brilliant and timely article.

Don't you just love that word "contamination"? It conjures up all sorts of nasty images....

But the truth about patenting and licensing is revealed when one looks at some of the science behind GM crops such as Bt corn or soy. If farmers are allowed without to plant that stuff willy nilly without proper training or signing license agreements to use it properly and with a well developed pest management strategy in place, the risk of developing resistance in those pests is significantly increased and the benefits of that technology is nullified. So, what you would get is GM everywhere but no net benefit to farmers or consumers or the environment.

The argument about "contamination" of the dairy industry is not particularly convincing either. Perhaps consumers would prefer a net increase in pesticide "contamination" in their milk and dairy products? The truth is that the GM technologies being used in crops do not leave residues and are not found in the animal food chain. If that is what is being proposed, I would like to see the papers on it.

The potential loss of dairy markets is a falsehood, if they test for GM contamination in the milk, I wonder what they would find? Nothing out of the ordinary, biology doesn't work like that. GM technologies are not the same as chemical farming tactics and all the arguments that may work for the latter will not work for the former.

There is much evidence to refute these claims, Bugsy.

In last week's Scientific American:

"Now a new review of 42 field experiments indicates that fields planted with Bt crops have more insects and other critters than those treated with broad-spectrum insecticides. But it also exposes holes in the available research, such as the impact of genetically modified crops on neighboring ecosystems." (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=072FC97F-E7F2-99DF-342124D9F184A873&chanID=sa003 )

With regard to contamination in milk, I quote Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology, Guy’s Hospital, London:

"A product derived from a GE organism can be devoid of genetic material, but can still unexpectedly contain potentially harmful alterations to a GE product, a novel toxin or elevated levels of a known hazardous substance.

We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something that is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe.”

Bugsey it's me again!
You could end this dispute fairly easily, list the advantages of growing GM crops? This will allow me to identify the reasons for not growing more easily.
fluff

Katherine,

Please be polite and let's try and stick to the facts. :-)

Adding to the list of facts I started in my previous comment:

3. There is a growing market for GM canola...

Interesting, Canadian farmers are now growing a new GM canola variety that not only has superior agronomic qualities, but is also low in trans fat.

The new- second generation GM variety should be available to Australian farmers particularly given that fast food giant McDonald has said they will stop using conventional Australian canola because they have committed to using low trans fat oils.

In fact Australian farmers may soon be unable to sell their conventionally-grown canola in part because it is so high in trans fats.

And our farmers once prided themselves on being technologically advanced!

Jennifer why is it better to buy your seeds from a multinational for every crop you sow just because your neighbour planted GM crop that jumped the fence and rendered your seed infertile.

Personally I favour biodiversity over a few narrow strains that can be very vulnerable to being wiped out by a virus like the potato blight that attacked the Irish potato crop in the 1850s leaving the population dying from starvation. And Monsanto cares as deeply for Australians as the English landowners cared about their Irish tenants,

Katherine, did you even read that article? In it is some very interesting stuff. To quote (from the same article):

""What the study really tells us is that conventional insecticides kill nontarget insects," says entomologist Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona, who was not involved in the study."

"If broad-spectrum insecticides are commonly used and Bt crops reduce such use, then Bt crops could have positive impacts, If insecticides are rarely used, then Bt crops do not bring advantages, and it is still unclear whether they may bring significant disadvantages." says U.A. entomologist Yves Carrière, who was also not involved in the study. In other words, no disadvantages have yet been found and the biodiversity in GM crops is higher than in chemically treated ones.

And I guess you are also quoting the Dr Dr Michael Antoniou who an advisor for the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional
Therapy? Again, while some of the examples he has used refer to bacteria and pharmaceutical products, not crops, he is not necessarily a disinterested voice in this.

I do not see Canada's canola market collapsing from loss of markets, in fact the worldwide demand for oil crops seems to be increasing largely driven by the biofuel industries according to Canadian Canola Industry website: http://www.canola-council.org/industry_stats.html

The advantages of GM crops are mainly:
-Potential for increased yields, depending on where, when and how they are grown.
-Potential for decreased pesticide and herbicide use.
-Potential for increased biodiversity in farming areas (especially when compared to chemically treated areas), which increases the potential for Integrated Pest Management systems (eg integrated biological control, cultural controls and polyculture methods) to be more effective.
-Crop specific advantages, such as synchronised flowering (eg pineapples) to allow mechanical harvesting or tighter windows of harvesting (reducing farmer risk) for certain crops.
-other traits can be utilised that are more environment specific: Drought resistance, or reduced heavy metal uptake, salt tolerance or increased nitrogen fixation in the roots.

These all possible and there are many more biotech companies than Monsanto, but nobody complains about them. I guess Monsanto is an easy target.

That the Bracks government is even thinking about lifting its bans on GM food is undemocratic. In polls taken by AC Neilson, Roy Morgan, Millward Brown, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, Swinburne University and Choice magazine, a very large majority of Australians do not want to eat GM foods. No public poll taken to date has shown a mainstream market acceptance of biotech food in Australia or overseas.

In the 2001 Eurobarometer study 70% of Europeans do not want GM foods. The UK’s Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics [1] reported that of 2,568 consumers surveyed, only 2% said they would eat GM breakfast cereals.

According to a report [2] by the UK's soil association, "GM soya, maize and oilseed rape could have cost the US economy $12 billion since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders and product recalls. Farmers are not achieving the higher profits promised by the biotechnology companies as markets for GM food collapse."

The European Union is also currently discussing the official withdrawal by the biotech industry of five GM foods and crops that have been market failures.[3]

Why, then, does the Bracks government think the customer is wrong? Why won't these freemarket lobbyists listen to the market, instead of risking all Australia's health, environment and economic welfare?

______________
[1] (Vol 6 No 3 article 6)

[2] see http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/GMO12092002.html

[3] maize Bt176 (Syngenta); oilseed rape Ms1xRf1 (Bayer); oilseed rape(canola) Ms1xRf2 (Bayer); oilseed rape (canola) Topas 19/2 (Bayer); and maize GA21xMON810 (Monsanto). See: http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2007/March20_HH_withdrawal_GM_crops.htm

Katherine,
Farmers have to manage daily a large number of specialised decisions. These include marketing, weed control, contract and legal obligations and ecology and future viability of their farms.

Modern farmers are thus a well informed group on these many issues and the majority have voted at all representive farmer organisations for the gm moratoriums to be lifted.

This is because most farmers know that the issues you raise will not impact on marketing and technical solutions are available and used by farmers to negate the other issues.

The false claims and imputations of health risks for approved gm food are the most serious problem farmers face.

I was dissapointed that the author did not post Percy Schmeiser's url.
Here it is.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

I think the whole idea of GM crops should be put on hold until the
legallities are sorted out. Then a discussion could take place on
whether it is technically a good thing or not.

Before anyone makes further comment they should read a farmers
experience with the patent owners first.

Just before I comment I'll point out that I'm a supporter (in general) of GM crops.

The frustrating thing about this article is that the author claims GM crop contamination of traditional crops is unstoppable. This isn't necessarily true (as has been pointed out in the comments sections of another GM article: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5922 ). Terminator technology which prevents plants from being viable in the second generation and stopping their spread to other crops.

I'd also like to acknowledge that like several posters mentioned above some GM crops may inhibit our export potential. That said, just because it might not be a good idea to grow GM canola doesn't mean it's not a good idea to grow GM wheat or cotton etc. Each modification needs to be tested and debated on its merits.

Australian canola growers are a thorn in the side of GM canola growers, as they have created an uneven playing field, where they have control over the market with no constraints such as contracts,buffer zones,segregation and contamination issues,dwindling markets and returns.Of course the GM companies will do anything to even the field, and then they will have total control of the global canola industry for we all know that non GM canola growers would not last very long, as the GM system is fiercely stacked in favour of the GM growers with the non GM farmers paying heavily via additional tests,haulage,etc and uncertain markets due to contamination.When Australia is anticipating a bumper harvest of non GM canola, where's the need to embrace GM?

This article was so silly, I am almost at a loss of where to start. perhaps with this quote: "Which mothers and fathers want their children drinking GM contaminated milk?" Perhaps the author would like to explain how this is simply not a scare quote? Dairy cows eat plant material and make milk. Not a single DNA molecule or protein from that plant material will end up in the milk.

Lets try this one: "Monsanto is known for prosecuting Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser whose farm was contaminated by Monsanto seed, and Monsanto then turned around and prosecuted Schmeiser for illegally growing patented plants." Unfortunately for Susan Hawthorne, the Canadian courts found the opposite: that Percy Schmeiser had deliberately and knowingly planted 1000 acres of his farm to canola seed that was 95% RoundupReady, without paying for the seed. http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html

And: "irrevocable loss of GM-free status and therefore of international markets such as Japan" Susan Hawthorne is not telling you that Canada last year sold 1.95 million tonnes of GM canola to Japan. This is 1.5 times the total average canola crop in Australia http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/cr_sept06/pdf/cr06.pdf

No don’t let facts get in the way of a good scare story.

Growing GM crops will be the latest in a long line of failed technology based solutions to help address the lack of profitability for Australian farmers.
Having an agricultural system based on the need for chemical control will only ever provide profits for the chemical companies in the long term.
Regenerative methods that utilise natural systems are the way of the future, and will negate our reliance on 'energy intensive' and land degrading methods promoted by the IPA & their ilk.

Monsanto - the same company that assured us that DDT was safe and was the only way to save US Agriculture from a possible locust plague.

Hi folks

I have followed the debate about GM crops and food on the other side of the pond for quite a few years now. I have written a series of articles that explain what is real and what is misinformation (of this there is a great deal). The Percy Schmeiser case is a good example. Please go to my website and read Goliath vs Goliath to understand why all three levels of the Canadian court system found him quilty. http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager Good luck down under.

Cheers

Rob

One more point. Farmers are some of the smartest people I know. It takes amazing skill to survive the economic realities of farming today. This is why over 30,000 farmers grow GM canola in Canada. It is simply a better product from many points of view. BTW canola is a 100% man-made crop. Cheers

Baz, Instead of looking at Percy Schmeiser who decided he wanted to plant his farm to GM canola without having to pay for the seed, you might like to consult the 650 western Canadian canola growers surveyed for this report. http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo2.htm#2.1 Their conclusion – the vast majority of canola growers adopt GM canola because it has improved yields, increases profits, reduces chemical use, reduces fuel use, provides better weed control and increases flexibility in cropping rotations.

Pheebs, there is a major problem with canola in Australia at present, because growers are restricted to using Atrazine-resistant canola, requiring the use of up to 2 kg per hectare of herbicides banned in Europe because of their poor environmental profile. The Canadians invented Atrazine-resistant canola, but stopped growing it in the mid 1990s because it was also yield-resistant. Australian canola yields have not increased since 1990, whereas Canadian canola yields have increased by almost 20% in that time. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/australian-canola-currently-has-price.html

As for Katherine Wilson’s claims about the largest ever canola crop in Australia, they are just silly. Parts of the grain belt are still in drought, particularly Western Australia, which grows half of Australia’s canola. The rest of the country is coming out of drought and many farmers will opt to plant wheat instead of canola. Canola industry estimates are that just on 1 million hectares will be planted http://www.australianoilseeds.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/2778/AOF_Crop_Report_May_07.pdf This is smaller than the 2004/2005 crop and about half of the 1999/2000 crop area.

You don’t want to let a few facts get in the way of a good scare campaign

Keep our country GM-free for marketing advantage for our crops. No GM crops - or trials, no imported GM animal feed.
Leeds University geneticist Professor Richard Lacey sums up the reason to do this: "The number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food."
Big agribusiness are the only ones to profit long term while the environment and human and animal health are at risk. Leave North America to be the guinea pigs and let us wait a few generations to see the outcomes. (Why are bees dying there?)

Jennifer,
The low trans-fat thing with canola is a furphy. With the exception of some animal fats, trans fats don't exist naturally in plant foods. Trans fats are created by artificial hydrogenation to make the oil more stable and able to withstand the high food processing temperatures common in industrialised food. That is, its man made. Bummer for industry though, its now proven to be bad for people.

So, how does industry respond to this (mand made) health epidemic? Well, in true short-term thinking, rather than erradicate hydgogenation all together, they decide to continue to use hydrogenated oils because the whole economic model upon which processed foods is based is underpinned by them. Rather than fix the real problem, they decide to use a GM plant to produce a 'healthier' oil which can still be hydrogenated but with fewer trans-fats. Its not healthier! Hydrogenated GM canola oil is now just a slightly less dangerous poison. Its basically the same argument that the tabacco industry used to convince people of the 'health' benefits of low-tar cigarettes.

Furthermore, ask yourself why there was a need to develop a 'new generation' GM canola? Could it be that the first-generation GM plants didn't perform to expectations? Isn't the fact that they need a new variety tantamount to an admission of failure?

Agronomist:

"As for Katherine Wilson’s claims about the largest ever canola crop in Australia... You don’t want to let a few facts get in the way of a good scare campaign"

And you don't want to let a few misquotes and misrepresentations get in the way of GM lobbying, either. I never made such claims. If you look at my comment above, I claimed for Victoria was set for record crops. This is based on the report in last week's Weekly Times.

(And let's not also forget the report of chemical/pest-management problems with Roundup-Ready GM crops.)

All this mosh-pitting has distracted from the main messages of Susan Hawthorne's very important article. They are: Based on empirical evidence, it is indisputable that adopting GM would pose a certain risk for our economy, our environment and our livelihoods. It is indisputable that the majority of surveyed farmers and shoppers, in poll after poll, by industry bodies and disinterested bodies, don't want it.

In a democracy, if the vast majority of people don't want something, then doesn't it make sense not to adopt it?

Further, when there exist smarter technologies that supersede GM (genomics, MAS, etc) isn't it smarter to look forward instead of flogging a dead horse?

Katherine Wilson, I should apologise for misreading your comment, but I must say it wasn’t entirely clear you were talking specifically about Victoria. Your statement is still not correct. The last industry estimates for Victoria were for 238,000 hectares of canola in 2007. According to ABARE statistics, http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/acs/acs_06/acs_06.pdf the Victorian plantings have been larger than this in 4 of the last 8 years and about the same size in 2 more. In recent years, only 2005 and 2006 have been smaller areas. Don’t believe everything you read in the Weekly Times.

I guess you want to live in a funny democracy, more a nanny state. The vast majority of people in Victoria don’t want to grow or buy organic food; perhaps you should ban that as well?

JudyC, the statement of Richard Leader is nonsense and given he is a former Professor of Microbiology he should know better; and I suspect he does. Just because all scientists are not convinced about something, does not make it wrong - think global warming. You might substitute almost any other food for “genetically-engineered food” in the quote and you will have a statement that is just as true. For OrganicGreg’s benefit, let’s put organic food in : “I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific organic food”. Perfectly true, I think you will find. Just shows what a silly statement it was in the first place.

By the way, so why are the bees dying in Europe?

Okay, Agronomist, since you didn't like those quotes from scientists, how about these:

This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.

—Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist,

“Where are the spectacular benefits of genetic modification we were promised? …the biotech crops that might really help feed the world’s hungry remain but a hazy future promise. Meanwhile, bold advances in conventional breeding mean that transgenic plants offer fewer advantages than we once thought. “
— New Scientist editorial

“Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. And the fact that the industry folks don’t deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous. If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you’re going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle. We’re in a crisis position…”—Emeritus Professor Richard Strohman, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley

“The real threat to the future is the irresponsible and premature releases of the first generation of GMOs that are full of unsound scientific assumptions, rife with careless science, and arrogantly dismissive of valid concerns. The technology is inadequately developed to ensure its safety.”
—Professor Patrick Brown, College of Agriculture & Environmental Science, University of California

“Many scientifically valid concerns are raised by independent scientists worldwide about the safety of these foods. GM foods were initially approved as safe as a result of political directive which overrode the warnings of the US Food and Drug Administration’s own experts.”
—Australian epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman

I have plenty more if you'd like more.

Jennifer

Perhaps I'm behind the times. You claim that Australia may not be able to sell its canola due to its high trans fat content.

I understood that the origins of trans fats were from the beef and dairy industry. Plants do not contain trans fats.

The only way canola would contain trans fat is by manufacturers hydrogenating the oil.

The natural canola plant prior to any interference should be trans fat free.

Please elaborate further on your claim that the conventionally grown canola plant in Australia contains trans fats.

There is a document that looks at the safety of GM crops and food. It is from the largest group of scientific organizations in the world. They represent over 150 scientific and academic organizations.
here is the link. They looked at over 50 review papers on the this topic. The conclusions truely represent the worlds scientific community on this issue.
http://www.icsu.org/2_resourcecentre/INIT_GMOrep_1.php4

Cheers

This argument is only partly a scientific one. It is mostly an economic one. Companies promoting GM foods want to make money from them. There is no demonstrable food shortage in this world, the problem is in growing or transporting it to places where it is needed. If there is a shortage, then why are US and EU farmers paid to NOT produce?
Until we solve the economics of food growth and distribution, there is no need for GM crops. Except to make money for someone. And, if they are sold to the poor countries in Africa, then that is less money that those countries have for other development.
And, if you wnat to tell me that GM crops will provide better yields or grow in poorer soil, then I suggest that you concentrate on restoring soil and weather patterns in those countries first - they used to be able to feed themselves, they could do it again. Aid is about self-help, not sale of seed from somewhere else. Local farmers have developed local races of their seed crops - the most effective way to help them is to assist them to grow these.

People seem to be arguing an either/or proposition for GM crops. Either they are good or they are bad.

As long proper safeguards and regulation is in place (as it is with GM cotton in Australia) then each modification should be debated on its individual merits.

Katherine Wilson, these are merely opinions. Where is the evidence to support them?

The fact of the matter is that the 12th year of GM canola has been planted in Canada. It has not led to the demise of the Canadian canola industry, nor to any serious loss of markets. It has not affected trade of any other commodity from Canada. Last year were record years for the export of canola seed and canola oil from Canada. There was also 246 thousand tonnes of Canadian GM canola oil bought by Europe. Where is the evidence that GM canola oil is unsafe?

Sparky is correct, GM crops should be examined on a case-by-case basis, but these crops have already been approved as safe to the environment and health by the Australian Government regulator, one of the toughest regulatory agencies in the World. I suggest it is about time to let Australian farmers take a look at them. If they are as bad as you say, the farmers won't want to use them and that will be the end of that.

And of course, you won't be dependent on Monsanto for your food as farmers will have choice. They could choose not to grow Monsanto's canola and grow Bayer's instead, or they could choose neither and use the old fashioned Atrazine-resistant stuff they grow now. Consumers can have choice too if they like. They could simply buy organic canola oil and avoid all the herbicide tolerant types altogether. Actually, introducing GM canola might be good for the organic industry by creating a market for a product that hardly has a market at all at the moment. But my guess is most consumers will vote with their wallets.

Reading the Susan Hawthorne article and Katherine Wilsons comments I appose their views on the grower implications of GM crops. In fact I wonder whether they have much to do with the practical side of agriculture at all. There are real economic issues facing broadacre agriculture. Farmers operate on extremely tight budgets and genetic advances are a major way growers can fight off the cost/price squeeze. Any advances in the efficiency that breeders can bring wanted traits into varieties (ie GM) will be supported by the farmers. All recent (last 12 months) surveys of broadacre growers in Western Australia show overwhelming support for GM crop research. By the shear volume of GM grain being produced by overseas growers you can see that at the grower level it is economic. They are out-competing other non GM countries in terms of yield and quality of grain and yes, they are still selling their grain to eager graintraders. GM growers are exposing the community to less pesticides in general and what pesticides they are using are often less toxic. That to me is an agriculture I want to be involved in.

I am sure that Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and Nufarm are likely to make significant revenues from GM technology, just like when Microsoft invaded the world with their new idea. Remember also that both companies invested significant funds to get their “new idea” off the ground. But rather than fearing that they will take over the world I see GM breeding companies as keeping agriculture alive from this point on.

Agronomists are the people who growers go to for advice and the vast majority of agronomists that I know are in favour of GM technology. I read the comments of “Agronomist” and can’t help but to agree with his arguments. Maybe all agronomists have had the Monsanto chip inserted into their heads. Or maybe we truly understand the ramifications of the technology (first hand) for growers. Of all I have read I am skeptical of the scare campaign which envelops GM crops on the consumer side

For some conventional farmers trying to come to a decision,an important factor could be whether or not the contention that the initial benefit of herbicide tolerance is only temporary is true.If it is going to follow myxomatosis and penicillin into eventual impotence then it may not be worth making the change. It should not be too hard to ascertain the facts.After all, it's only arithmetic.
Ceres

At some point in this forum it was suggested there were no safety tests done on GM food. Well this link shoots that myth all to...
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html
Cheers

There has been a bit of fun and games on the food safety front Rob. In case you haven't caught it all, Greenpeace funded a study by a French research group to re-analyse data from feeding studies and prove the studies showed GM food was unsafe. The French "scientists" duly complied and published a paper to that tune. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/seralini_study_MON863

Greenpeace then insisted that the European Food Safety Authority investigate. EFSA then wasted countless hours and who knows how many thousands of dollars looking into this paper by the French researchers, only to conclude it was a load of hogwash.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/scientific_reports/mon863_ratfeeding.Par.0001.File.dat/sc_rep_efsa_stat_review.pdf

Needless to say, I doubt that Greenpeace will be offering an apology for their waste of taxpayer's money.

There is a nice discussion here: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/mr-chance-of-wa-needs-to-go-back-to.html

Jennifer (Marahosey), are you being deliberately misleading? The consumer based traits in canolaa that are meant to dominate the canola industry are NON-GM!
High oloeic, low linolinic canola is the benefit and the low linolinic trait is achieved by conventional breeding by backcrossing to varieties that are naturally low in linolinic. High oloeic is managed by mutagenisis. Both are non-GM traits.
The GM traits grown commercially after 12 years of false promises are:
68% Herbicide tolerant (Ht), 19% Bt (the plant produces its own insecticide in cotton and corn to kill bollworm and budworm) and 13% both.
By far the most popular trait is Roundup Ready which only gives you resistance to glyphosate and can easily be achieved by non-GM means (our weeds are resistant to glyphosate without us wanting them to be).
See the Forum link: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6042 for more debate on the agronomic/economics.
GM is a scam but a scam where the research and development plan on cashing in big time. The problem is that farmers are expected to pay for the economic loss this scam causes.
Non-GM farmers do not want to accept any economic loss for a crop we do not want and do not need. Why should we be forced to be adversely impacted?
There is no intention to segregate, all farmers are expected to market as GM and farmers and consumers are to be denied the choice.

There is no market demand for GM food, so the palm-greased lobbyists will resort to any spin to try and impose it on unwitting markets.
Posted by Katherine Wilson, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 10:47:47 AM

Here Katherine echoes her claims at New Matilda recently that all media commentators in the press who argue the merits of gene technology are doing it because of dollars that they gain from participation in public debate, rather than honestly believing that GM bans are environmentally harmful and not in the welfare interests of Australians.

So Katherine, did you check whether your blanket assertion on financial gains was accurate with the people that you were effectively labeling as greasy-palmed before publishing your recent New Matilda article?

Second, Genethics has a vested interested in creating fear in order to sustain income. Isn't this therefore a financial conflict of interest when searching for the truth, or do you exempt it from the financial strictures you repeatedly apply to others?

There is nothing on the safety of GM in this report that you quoted.

The 3 contributors for this "report" and what they are:-

Earth & Life - ecological monitoring of genetically modified crops - a workshop

Board on life sciences - validation of toxicogenomic technologies - a workshop

Board on Agriculture & natural resources - board only - a report to buy a paperback book done by a committee.

Although in the book that they are all advertising there is an interesting article:-

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=1

In this report, "genetic engineering refers only to recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) methods that allow a gene from any species to be inserted and subsequently expressed in a food crop or other food product. Although the process involving rDNA technology is not inherently hazardous, the products of this technology have the potential to be hazardous if inserted genes result in the production of hazardous substances".

There are no scientific research methods done at all so this is not scientific evidence that you are quoting. Give me a scientific paper on the research methods using qualititive and quantitive measures and maybe then I will think you are quoting something scientific.

I have just watched a programme on SBS on Monsanto and it scared me to death. If anyone wants to check out what Monsanto are really up to and what farmers in the US are doing to combat the effects of their chemicals and genetically modified seeds etc., check out Monsanto on the web. I can only hope and pray to God that our Government (who have promised to look out for ALL AUSTRALIANS), will completely ban all and any products that this corporation produces. We grow wonderful food here, great fruit and vegetables, some of the best beef in the world and our chickens are the best (at least the ones that are not bred in cages). Quality will always outweigh quantity and when it comes to GM, let's not use this method.