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.