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!