The outcome of this report is not unlike an outsider trying to glean information from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) about applicants and their 'research' findings which are deemed 'Commercial in Confidence'.

Regarding the IHER's alleged incapacity to conduct long-term animal studies, as I understand so far, no precedent has been set for such an activity as none - anywhwere in the world- have actually been carried out! However, there continues to be claims of 'absolute safety' about genetically engineered food products as they are 'virtually the same as the existing gene-stock'.

Only two weeks ago, a report was presented to the Federal Minister for 'Health' with the alarming facts that more children are being dfiagnosed with food sensitivies and allergies. When.... oh when.... will the penny drop as to the links between the quality of food we eat and the subsequent illnesses! The more food is messed around with, the more likely the chances of allergic reactions.......

The levels of 'health' are declining every year with the budget being increased annually to deal with the growing litany of diseases and preventable illnesses. The Departments ought to be re-named the Departments of Illness and Accident as that is what they actually deal with. A state of health is an absence of disease, not a set of compromised definitions.

We are what we eat and the more simple the foods we consume, the less likely we are to develop reactions to them. Stuffing around with our foods is already creating multi-million dollar opportunities for pharmaceutical companies..... when will the links between them, agrichemical companies, the orthodox medical model and complicit and unwitting governments be recognised?

Thank you Kim Chance for having the courage to take another path on this important issue and perhaps a move to WA may be on the books so I can live in a state which is a leader in preventing yet more 'civilised' diseases!

Yours in simple, unadulterated and proper foods,

bush goddess

I am a geneticist and have read the Gene Technology Act 2000. I serve on an Institutional Biosafety Committee that regulates activities according to the Act. Unfortunatetly, the following statement is misleading:

"Australia has one of the most rigorous and transparent gene technology regulation Acts in the world, and is achieving its objective in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment."

A major problem with the Act that the government is not interested in addressing (probably due to pressure from the GM industry) is that farmers not wishing to grow GM crops (and hence reap the financial benefits of selling their crops at a premium as "GM-fee") are not protected. The GM crops available are able to cross-contaminate non GM crops by cross-pollination or seed dispersal. When GM crops are introduced to an area, all the farmers must, effectively, go GM due to this contamination and because their area will no longer be recognised as GM-free. It is a takeover of the industry by stealth by the GM companies and we will wind up with a few large multinationals controlling our food supply.

Since the current interpretation of the Act does not regard non-GM farms as part of the "environment" they are not protected under the current regulatory regime. The WA government may be trying to protect these farmers using food regulations instead.

I wonder what $92000 buys you? As already admitted, pretty much stuff all, except maybe a preliminary project that doesn't answer anything. A technician (not a PhD scientist) costs more than $60,000 for 1 year, without lab equipment or supplies. Where will they publish? I guess we will have to wait and see, I for one would love to see what they've come up with.

And bush goddess, Your post sounds more like a rant against potato chips and red cordial than GM. In fact they have far more additives and chemical adulterations and are in fact res[ponsible for more health problems than any GM food. There is NO data on allergies (or sensitivities) and GM, that's just wishful thinking.

Michael, if you are indeed a geneticist, then you would understand why there is no actual public health threat from GM crops. The argument that farmers may no be able to exact a premium can be worked out by them, but I haven't seen this in the marketplace. Organic farmers can claim premiums, sure, but area-wide non-certification has not been mentioned in any industry meetings that I have heard of. There was a time when certification for separation of cereal grains was worried about because it would add more cost to the bulk handling of such grains. There are other crops, other markets and the same genotypes that existed previously will still be there. farmers can save seed and grow what they want, if that gets them better premiums, then all power to them. If it doesn't, then why would that be the case? The idea that biotech companies will control our food supply is ridiculous and you should know better.

The issues raised by Ian Edwards are valid. Similar issues are to be found across the board. For instance in fields as diverse as nuclear technology; ante-natal testing for genetic or congenital abnormality; therapeutic cloning and stem cell research; so-called organic farming; the scary scenarios advanced by climate change believers.

In all these examples with perhaps the partial exception of climate change we find a discrepancy between the opinion of scientific bodies and the views of otherwise reputable scientists, against that of advocacy groups.

By reputable I mean those who have published papers over many years in peer reviewed, and prestigious journals. Another definition of reputable would be those holding senior positions in universities, industry or government. Individual who have been selected over and over again by competitive job criteria, for numerous junior and middle level posts, before attaining seniority. In other words one only obtains a reputation in science by dint of hard work and dedication to a scientific discipline.

On the other hand the advocacy groups are composed of individuals with “strong” convictions based on a medley of out dated ideas. In the biological field there are romantic concepts such as eighteenth century vitalism, magic and perhaps some theological reasoning. These arguments are dressed up in pseudo scientific jargon. There are in these groups, some with university degrees even up to PhD level. These individuals have, in my view forsaken science in order to pursue a particular obsession.

It is also interesting how the advocacy groups are able to call anything associated with industry and wealth production as somehow bad and dishonest. [Unfortunately, they can always find examples to support this view such as the tobacco industry]. However, the fact is that the vast majority of scientists and others working in industry are honest and conscientious workers. This to me is a given.

The problem is to how to counter the advocacy propaganda and “post modernism”? How to educate the public to the scientific way of thinking?

Mr, Chance like his boss Alan Carpenter is no help at all.

Gee, surprise surprise - someone who already had an opinion got appointed. Do we ever see anything other than that in Australian public life? Look at almost every enquiry into matters like nuclear technology (Ziggy Z), water fluoridation, and other potentially toxic technologies. 99% of the time Federal government, and often state governments appoint someone likely to give the outcome they want. It is the rule not the exception.

As a public health professional, the area I have most often seen these rigged reviews is water fluoridation. With European countries all quitting and even banning fluoridation, and alarming studies coming out of the US on fluoride & bone cancer, fluoride & other bone disease, fluoride & endocrine disruption, we still have enquiries into fluoridation here routinely headed up by avowedly pro-fluoridation spokespeople. And ho-hum ho-hum, guess what conclusions they come up with?

Actually it seems quite refreshing to hear of an enquiry headed by someone who might have a leaning toward the non-multinational position, and more inclined toward pubic safety.

Joel Salatin has long campaigned against industrialised agriculture and he articulates well the difficulties in argueing stats that can be manipulated to suit the corporate agenda.
My thought is that it is (GM) completely unnecessary and takes us as farmers and society in the wrong direction altogether.We need to biologically reinvigorate and regenerate our land and soil. As Joel says "We need agriculture that grows worms, not kills them".

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/April04_Salatin.pdf

I too am on the WA Ministerial GMO Reference Group and can tell an opposite story. As constantly mentioned to Ian at these meetings, the funding was approved by government well before this reference group was started so it has little to do with it.
Our reference group is involved in assessing economics and industry preparedness, not on health. However, economics explains the absolute fear of independent health testing. Plant breeders such as Ian Edwards plan to profit significantly by owning the GM patents and forming alliances with very financial corporate investors (eg Monsanto, Bayer Cropscience). These companies are investing in GM and plant breeding techniques and are setting up alliances because they ultimately want to profit well from the investments they have made. The drive is money.
The risk is to the farmers and consumers.
Farmers are expected to pay more for GM varieties and get paid less for GM or GM contaminated produce because consumers dont want GM.
Consumers are told GM is rigorously tested but it is not. Take GM canola... the canola oil (the bit consumers eat) is not tested at all. The meal was tested and after a few weeks of eating Roundup Ready canola meal, the test animals had an increased liver weight of around 16%... not what consumers want but considered "safe" because the animals did not die.
Judy Carman has concerns because she has many degrees in this field and is very professionally experienced to be able to make the judgement that there is genuine reason for concern.
Yes there is a vigorous slander campaign against Judy Carman but what are those with a vested interest so worried about? Judy Carman can not make results up as the tests will be rigorously scrutinised. Why so interested in wanting to know who is on the panel, are they to be interrogated and/or bribed as has been reported as regularly practised by the pro-GM sector?
Why the fear? Do they know something that Judy might find?

The following comment was posted on another discussion group and is equally applicable to the anti-GM mob writing here.

Mark Twain is alleged to have observed:

"A lie can race its way around the world while truth is still tying its shoes."

michael_in_adelaide, while you might serve on an IBC, allow me to suggest you know nothing about farming. ABARE have just published a report GM canola markets and found little evidence that consumers are paying more for non-GM canola. http://www.maff.gov.au/releases/03/03199wt.html Full report http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

At the same time your farmers are suffering from yield failure compared to Canada http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/australian-canola-currently-has-price.html

And at the same time Canadian farmers are happily selling their GM canola around the world. Even the EU has started to get in on the act. Soon the last trait in Canadian canola will be approved in the EU. Even now the EU gets around the problem by importing canola oil from Canada and from 3rd countries that crush Canadian canola.

If you want to believe conspiracy theories about corporations owning the food supply, do so, but understand you are flying the face of the Canadian experience. Canadian canola growers have choice. 50% choose Roundup Ready canola, 35% choose InVigor canola, none choose Atrazine resistant canola.

Ah, Julie, nice to know you are back in these pages. You also serve on the reference committee do you? And you can tells us the opposite story? I suppose you are going to say that Minister Chance agreed to provide the protocol, that he provided the names and expertise of those who sit on the steering committee (you don’t happen to sit on it do you?) and the names of the eminent scientists from 8 countries that reviewed the proposal? Please do, I have been dying to find out what has happened to this study since you first mentioned it over 18 months ago.

By the way, I do hope you are getting rain. The Canadian canola area is up another 12.5% this year. It will be close to another record crop.

Yep and lies have led the pro GM debate.
I would like to dispute the claim that farmers want GM based on facts. As a previous senior vice president of WAFarmers Grains Council, I have seen farmers influenced by outrageous lies and I have worked hard to expose these lies and give balance. WAFarmers only recently changed their anti-GM stance to a pro-GM stance at a policy day held only weeks after I was sacked unconstitutionally for a supposed crime of warning farmers about the liabilities associated with pooling with AWB (evidence has since proven that I was very conservative). Lies, deception and bullyboy tactics have led to many policies that do not reflect the concerns or the issues that need addressing.
A fair detailed debate would counter the pro-GM push but this is avoided by the pro-GM sector.
What are the benefits? A=very little if any.
What are the alternatives? A=many
What are the risks? A= many
What is the risk management needed? A= Many but ignored.
Who benefits? The R&D sector, governments wanting to withdraw and even profit from funding R&D, GM sector, seed sector.
Who pays? The farmer... why does the above sectors think that farmers can afford to pay the extra when GM growing countries are either subsidised heavily or do not recognise the patent.
Who takes the risks? Consumers and farmers.
Ian, being a plant breeder with a vested interest in commercialising GM crops, does not make you an expert on health and because Greenpeace quoted an expert on health, does not mean that the expert on health can or should be discredited.

The difficulty with rat testing is that they require experienced laboratories and experienced analysts. An example of bad interpretation is a botch-up of rat test interpretation by Giles Seralini. The European Food safety authority has just issued reports showing how this Greenpeace sponsored French group has misused statistics and come to false conclusions

"At the request of the European Commission (EC), EFSA has examined a paper by Séralini et al. on the statistical evaluation of a 90-day feeding study in animals with genetically modified maize MON 863, to identify any consequences for EFSA’s risk assessment of the safety of MON 863. The paper presents an alternative statistical analysis of the 90-day rat study that was considered in the original risk assessment. Following a detailed statistical review and analysis by an EFSA Task Force, EFSA’s GMO Panel has concluded that this re-analysis of the data does not raise any new safety concerns."

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maize_Mon863.html

Similarly, rats like a good laboratory and the right food, and some strains of rats are not suited to such toxicology studies
If you look at papers in J. Toxicol. Sci., Vol. 30 Special Issue (2005) you can see good labs (J. Toxicol. Sci., Vol. 30 special issue: 97-116, J. Toxicol. Sci., Vol. 30 special issue: 59-78, 2005), and bad ones (J. Toxicol. Sci., Vol. 30 special
issue: 39-58 and 117-134, 2005). How do we know the Adelaide group has mastered all these pitfalls.

Dear Bush God Figure:

I am always amazed that anti-GM writers don’t look for the papers they say they want. GM food safety data are easy to find. These are not found in applications to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator only because they are the purview of the food safety authority, FSANZ.

However, papers on GM food safety assessment are still widely available.

No long-term studies? One recent paper is from the German Institutes of Animal Nutrition and Organic Farming and published in 2007 in Animal Feed Science and Technology (volume 133, pages 2-30). Summarised are 18 studies on cows, pigs, chickens and other animals, including a 10 generation experiment with quail and 4 generations on chickens. The German authors note that “In agreement with more than 100 animal studies to date, results show no significant differences” in GM and non-GM feeds.

The citations and many abstracts of more than 150 papers on GM food safety are provided for your convenience at Australia’s gmopundit. Just google that name and then look for “The Full Monty on Ethics, Safety”, and then spool down to “The Full Monty on animal feeding tests…”

You can find still more information by googling FSANZ, such as “FSANZ GM food”, and at Agrifood Awareness Australia ( www.afaa.com.au; use their search function on, say, “feeding trials”). Also check out http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm

You can also just google such things as “Roundup Ready Soy Food Safety” to find papers directly. My suggestion, though, is that you use “Google Scholar” so that you find scientific papers more readily, rather than having to dig through all the misleading and false rumours commonly picked up by regular Google.

On the general subject of allergies, the common thinking among researchers is that they are increasing because our homes are too clean. http://sparkpeople.com/resource/wellness_articles.asp?id=852

Dear Bush Goddess:

Space limited my last response. Another inconvenient fact for your conspiracy that GM crops are implicated in allergies is that these claims have been made in both the UK and Australia where there is no or practically no GM foods for sale that have proteins, which are needed for an allergenic response.

Do you eat kiwi fruits? They cause allergies, but have not been tested or banned. Eat raw mushrooms? I wouldn’t. They have carcinogenic hydrazines. No safety assessment has been done, but some websites will rightly advise you not to eat them raw.

Of particular interest to food safety should be papers by Felicity Wu, Gary Munkvold, and others, which document that GM insect resistant Bt corn is safer for consumption than traditional corn. Because the Bt protects against insect feeding damage on which dangerous fungi grow, Bt corn tends to have lower levels of highly toxic and carcinogenic fumonisins, which is why I prefer to eat Bt corn.

Dear Bushrat:
If you really want “ agriculture that grows worms, not kills them", you would support herbicide tolerance because it reduces tillage. Tillage kills earthworms (think about a big iron knife ripping through and turning over your house). Reduced tillage reduces maintains soil carbon, reduces carbon emissions and reduces fuel use by an estimated 9 million kg of CO2 worldwide. Under field conditions, research in Adelaide shows that glyphosate (eg., Roundup) does not hurt earthworms (Paul Dalby et al. 1995, Soil Biol. Biochem. 27: 1661-1662). Because glyphosate replaces other more persistent herbicides, there is no overall increase in use.

Dear Julie:

Can you list the “many degrees in this field” held by Judy Carman, and more importantly, even one relevant peer reviewed scientific paper? Can you give the source of canola meal study you mentioned

Ian Edwards has hit the nail on the head. These people continually claim we just have to wait and all will be revealed. Thousands of tests and trillions of meals over 11 years and still not one adverse impact, but still they say "Wait, we have one person who will prove it from her laundry!" Initially we were told you would be infertile and waste away by eating GM food, but the Americans whose diet is almost exclusively GM have ~6 times the population increase to the EU who have only this year opened up completely to GM canola, and the Americans major health problem is obesity. Can 300 million people all be wrong?
I am about to plant my 12th GM cotton crop, and when I first started I was told by these same people that doom was all that lay ahead. Forests of resistant weeds, uncontrollable pests, and multi-nationals owning us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I no longer spray my cotton, the chemicals that are in the rivers are from my grain farming neighbours, and I know I have contributed to a better world.
The secrecacy they falsely claim is practiced by the real world is in fact taken to a new level by them. The ends do not justify the means, and this debate needs some truth.
Good on you Ian for calling a spade a spade.
But my question is, how long do we have to wait for the real world proof these people promise? I have been waiting for nearly 12 years now, and all I have seen is benefits to the environment, my family, my business, and my neighbours.
One "trial" by a Greenpeace activist will not sway me- I have lived the difference.

Has anyone read the news article published in Science about spreading resistance to glyphosate, “A growing threat down on the farm” (25 May 2007: Vol. 316: 1114 – 1117)? A quote:

“What's behind this blossoming of transgenics? Oddly enough, a herbicide called glyphosate. The compound is the world's bestselling herbicide by far, prized by farmers for its safety and effectiveness at wiping out hundreds of different kinds of weeds. That effectiveness has not only convinced farmers to make the switch but also prompted seed companies to engineer crops to be impervious to glyphosate's effects. That has allowed farmers to spray their growing crops to wipe out encroaching weeds without fear of wiping out their livelihood. The model has proven so successful that of the transgenic crops planted worldwide last year, approximately 80% were engineered to be glyphosate-resistant (GR). "The rate at which this technology has been adopted floors me," says Donald Weeks, a plant biochemist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

But this success has sown the seeds of its own potential demise. Much of modern agriculture is now dependent on a single chemical. "Glyphosate is as important to world agriculture as penicillin is to human health," says Stephen Powles, who directs the Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative in Perth. It's an apt comparison, because just as pathogens have grown resistant to penicillin and other antibiotics, weeds resistant to glyphosate have recently begun sprouting and spreading around the globe. For now, the scale of the outbreak remains small. But agricultural experts worry that herbicide-resistant weeds are poised for their own takeover. "There is going to be an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds," Powles says. "In 3 to 4 years, it will be a major problem." If farmers and seed companies lose their ability to rely on glyphosate, it could cost them billions of dollars in lost productivity. But the damage will likely be more than monetary, as it could also have a major environmental consequence as well…”

Any objective geneticist would tell you that this was inevitable. This is what happens when you put short term gain before long term sustainability.

Any one read the latest study on the human genome? A four year effort involving 35 groups from 80 organisations around the world have challenged the traditional view of gene function.
It appears that the Central Dogma of molecular biology ( the one gene,one protein principle) is officially disputed. Instead, genes "appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet understood."
The patenting of genes is based on the assumption that a gene is "an ordered sequence of DNA that encodes a specific functional product". If, in the context of this research, genes are only one component then how do the patents stand?
And what of safety issues? How can we be reassured of the longterm safety of GM foods when these assurances have been based on the idea that genes act and behave independently?
Thank goddness for the likes of Kim Chance who has the courage to put safety and health concerns first.
More independent research, and total transparency is needed before we consider growing GM crops here in WA.

let's look at this from a different angle: who should decide this question? (or any question, of course)

if you don't like the decision, is it because it's not the answer you want, or is it because the wrong people are deciding?

until this matter is clear, all talk is mere chatter.

suppose we agree that the government should decide. not a radical answer, although not my own.

then the contrary position is: some farmers see a buck to be made by breaking the law, much as a mugger does.

end of discussion?

If there is still so much we don’t know about the safety of GM crops, if there is still so much to be debated and tested, then we should not be leaping into using this technology. Why the rush if motives don’t involve putting profits before public safety?

I also believe FSANZ is not as scrupulous or strict in their regulation of GM crops as Ian would have us believe. What about their approval of the MON863 GE corn variety in 2003, even though they had access to data which showed abnormal developments in rats fed with the corn - smaller kidneys, liver toxicity and variations in blood composition. A later peer reviewed study confirming this was published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. FSANZ instead relied on the data provided by Monsanto to make their decision.
Again the genetically engineered GT73 canola variety was approved by FSANZ even though lab studies by Monsanto showed serious damage to laboratory animals, like increases in liver weight. ANZFA’s assessment relied exclusively on Monsanto's data which was nt peer reviewed.

Did they have the public’s best interests at heart here??

I just think that there is a need for more studies to be carried out, and I see no problem with debate about this issue, or further independent studies being carried out.

Julie, what a rant. It is funny how you seem to accuse others of using your own modus operandi. You should come to Canada and see the benefits of GM canola for yourself. Farmers there will tell you that it saves them money, increases yields, allows earlier planting, allows more stable rotations in the drier areas, helps no-till, cleans up weedy paddocks and saves fuel. In Canada farmers benefit and the environment benefits.

michael_in_adelaide, might I remind you that glyphosate resistant weeds were first found in Australia where no Roundup Ready crops were grown. Resistance occurs because the same herbicide is used over. In Canada, there are choices, farmers can follow glyphosate with glufosinate and there has yet to be a single glyphosate or glufosinate resistant weed in Canada, despite 11 years of GM canola. It is all about how you use the herbicides, not what crop you grow.

NatM, this is what FSANZ had to say on the canola: “Based on the data submitted, the slight increase in liver weight was possibly attributable to a slightly higher level of glucosinolates in the GM canola meal. Glucosinolate is well known to cause liver enlargement (Hayes, Principles and Methods of Toxicology, 3rd Edition). Equally, and perhaps more likely, the slight increases in liver weight were due to chance. FSANZ scientists, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research, the South Australian Department of Human Services, regulators in Japan, the UK and Canada, and members of FSANZ’s panel of independent experts were satisfied with this evaluation.” http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Amended%20Judy%20Carmen%20FSANZ%20RESPONSE%20TO%20ARTICLE%20April%202003v1.pdf Note that bit about peer-review.

The maize: “In conclusion, the observed differences are consistent with normal physiologic variation and are not related to the consumption of MON863 corn. The observed histopathological changes are similarly unremarkable for rats of this strain and age. Therefore, the results of this study do not indicate adverse effects from the consumption of MON 863 corn.” http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Assessment%20MON863%20feeding%20study.pdf

What floors me about comments such as those from Agronomist is the arrogance that assumes that farmers who do not want to grow GM crops (for whatever reason - founded in science, superstition or otherwise) should just move over for those that do. Yield and profit are not the only drivers in agriculture (and are not necessarily coupled in any case).

The onus must be on those who want to grow GM crops to ensure that they do not contaminate the crops (and disrupt the businesses) of those who do not want to. I have nothing against GMOs per se - as a geneticist I generate them myself in my work. But GM crops that cannot be contained are obviously a faulty product - and it is distressing to see how their use forces farmers who do not want to go GM into the hands of the GM companies.

Also Agronomist - Canadian farmers may be of superior intelligence in their use of alternating herbicide resistance but that does not change the basic facts on the ground as cited by the article from the American journal Science. If only we could all be Canadian what a perfect world it would be!

Bill, explain how comparing non-GM chemical resistant canola and our normal farming practices, with GM canola that is genetically modified to be resistant to a specific chemical (either glufosinate-ammonium or glyphosate)can possibly result in the claim that GM can do everything from saving fuel to earlier planting? The GM bit only gives chemical resistance. Bayers does not even control radish but costs a whopping $62/ha and the seed is $16,000/tonne! Monsanto (now Nufarm) will not give costs or contract details and their best trial yields on their website was 17% below the national average.
If Canadian farmers profited, they would not need to be reliant on their new subsidies that counter higher costs and lower commodity prices. In 2005, 7,000 Canadian farmers protested and subsidies were introduced to help prop up Canadian canola growers despite good seasons leading to their highest canola yields ever.
What are farmers really missing?
Commercial Traits: 68% herbicide tolerant, 19% Bt (plant produces its own insecticide) and 13% both. What a surprise, only failed promises since release 12 years ago. The most popular (80%) is glyphosate resistance which is an unwanted trait occurring in our weeds so it would be very easy to produce by non-GM means.

GM crops: 57% soy, 25% corn, 13% cotton and 5% canola. Soy, corn and cotton is not widely grown in Australia. Almost all of the GM canola is grown in Canada. Australia mostly grows cheaper non-GM herbicide tolerant canola.

GM Benefit?: USA and Canada are now heavily subsidising their GM crops. Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay governments do not recognise the patent, farmers plant pirated seed. Monsanto is trying to collect royalties from buyers and even governments. The rest India, China, South Africa and Australia, only grow GM cotton and our current debate is not about cotton.

No, Australian farmers are not missing out on anything other than higher costs and lower commodity prices.

Judy Carmans profile can be accessed at http://www.iher.org.au/ . Dr Judy Carman has a Bachelor of Science, an Honours Degree in Organic Chemistry, a Ph.D. in Medicine in the field of nutritional biochemistry and metabolic regulation, and a Master of Public Health specialising in epidemiology and biostatistics. Very impressive qualifications and not deserving of the radical ravings of the pro-GM sector who specialise in attacking anybody that dares to voice an alternative voice against GM that may interfere with their intention to profit significantly from it.

Consumers are rejecting GM because they do not want to be guinea pigs. Consumers. like myself, have learnt not to trust the pro-GM sector but many trust Dr Carman as she is not ignoring the genuine concerns.
Vicous slander campaigns against those with concerns only adds fuel to the fire and makes consumers think that the pro-GM sector are desperate and frightened of what Judy may find.
If no problem is found, it will help towards resolving the key economic issue of consumer rejection and the inability to segregate the product to meet consumer demands.
My understanding is that Ian's main concern is that the funding is inadequate to resolve the issue. If both the pro-GM and the anti-GM side agree with this statement, why not encourage more funding to be allocated to Judys research? Data will be reviewed when available, not before.
What additional tests should be done?
Monsantos GM canola/ liver weight concern (FSANZ, OGTR) could be addressed by having comparison non-GM varieties of different glucosinolate levels as comparisons. Any more constructive ideas?

Michael, are you implying that GURTs are a good idea?

But seriously, Agronomist is right that the herbicide resistance is not caused directly by GM crops themselves, but rather chemical overuse- even your precious article says that. Management strategies for resistance mitigation need to be in place for the technology to remain viable. Agronomist has already stated how a chemical rotation strategy can be used, and works already in Canada. Once GM crops hit here, a similar strategy can be used, why not?

And there is another article next to that one you cited in Science suggesting that herbicide resistant GMs are good for the environment! Shock horror!

And your suggestion that non-GM farmers have to roll over for the others, well thats just not true. They are free to plant whatever they wish, when they wish. Fears of markets refusing crops point blank because of GM contamination are unfounded. Most organic companies and buyers always allow some contamination, the limits can be set and tested for, especially when there is no greater public health risk from GM crops than non-GM ones. As a geneticist, are you suggesting that GM crops pose a health risk generally? If so, where is that data?

This issue really seems to be more about anti-capitalism than public health. Public health and "loss of markets" (no data there either) are just weapons used to attack those nasty corporations.

Julie, my name is not Bill. I am happy to answer your questions about the claims I made. GM canola in Canada allows earlier planting because weeds do not need to be controlled by soil incorporated herbicides before planting the crop. The weeds can be controlled after crop sowing. This gets even better with hybrid canola, because they are so much more competitive and stop later weeds from germinating. A single application may be all that is needed. It saves fuel because there is no need for additional herbicide applications or for the cultivation pass involved in incorporating herbicide. Lastly, because atrazine resistant canola is not grown, there is no yield penalty.

Now, I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions. You stated that you are on the same committee as Ian and could give the opposite story. So which of the following statements that Ian made about the activities of the committee is wrong?

1) Judy Carman spoke to the Ministerial GMO Reference Group
2) Judy Carman complained about FSANZ
3) Judy Carman refused to answer questions about the study details
4) The Minister refused to disclose the protocol of the study
5) The Minister refused to disclose the names of the International reviewers
6) The Minister refused to disclose the names of the steering committee

I have two degrees, does that make my qualifications almost as impressive as Judy Carman’s? Or perhaps, you might agree I am 2/3rds as impressive?

The real test of ability in research is through quality of research and publication – even michael_in_adelaide might agree with me on that.

Oh, and michael, Canada canola growers can and do grow non-GM canola without disruption, some have even sold their seed to Europe. Although as there is mostly no financial benefit in doing so, it mostly goes into the elevators with everybody else’s and is sold to Japan. About 10% of canola growers in Canada still choose to grow non-GM canola. The only thing that “forces” most growers into growing GM canola is the sheer size of the agronomic benefits provided by the new technology.

Thanks, Julie, for pointing to Carman’s well known website. You still have not provided even one relevant peer reviewed scientific citation. Indeed, is there any paper or an experimental protocol that you can point us to that would document Carman’s qualifications for a feeding study, which requires at least exacting standards and experience in animal care (as noted above by d)?

I count at best two degrees (not “many”) relevant to the field (a BS and Honours in Chemistry would not qualify someone to conduct feeding studies).

You have been quick to accuse those of us who have asked questions about Carman’s project of “vicous slander campaigns”. However many of us simply believe that Carman and the feeding study should be held to the normal and usual standards that other investigators have to meet to receive public research funds, including competitive processes in grant awards, and a review of the research track record. We are not comforted by Chance’s unwillingness to share even the most minimal details, even steering committee membership, which surely would be required of any other research project conducted on public funds. Could the OGTR’s advisers/committees remain secret? Do you sit on Carman’s steering committee? What have Chance or Carman got to hide?

GM can and does allow farmers to do everything from saving fuel to earlier planting, and I’m surprised that this is not obvious to you. You can plant at the first rainfall without using tillage or waiting for the weeds to emerge for spraying, extending the growing season, and it takes much less energy to drive a sprayer than to drag an implement through soil.

The US, Canada, and the EU all subsidize their crops, including wheat, the EU even more than North America, despite the fact that the EU does not subsidize GM, and despite the fact that there is no GM wheat even in North America. Julie, the best measure that GM is profitable to farmers is that several million farmers grow it on more than 100 million ha/year.

Pheebs: How can you be assured of the safety of any food ?

Michael (L?) in Adelaide: I have been working on pesticide resistance since 1976, most of that in the US. As Agronomist says, it is all about how you use the pesticides, not what crop you grow. You have a world expert just across town at the Waite (perhaps he is even your Faculty) in Chris Preston. Chris and I negotiated a resistance management plan with Monsanto for canola prior to the moratorium that involved not using glyphosate either the year before or the year after the RR canola crop. Chris has data showing huge fitness costs to glyphosate resistance that would help make this work. That Canadians do not have a resistance problem shows that strategies can work. I have stopped losing sleep over recalcitrant American growers who won’t pay attention to advice and create their own problems. Experience in Australia and Canada shows that resistance strategies work when people are willing to adopt them.

What floors me about your comments is that you are willing to allow small minorities prevent access to technology for all growers. All major farming organizations in Australia have adopted pro-GM positions by large majorities of their members. Shouldn’t democracy count for something?

You also seem unaware of the history of variety adoption in agriculture. It has always been the responsibility of those who want to sell into a premium market to assure the agreed standards are met, and growers have always managed to work it out with their neighbours. In my last 3.5 years in the US, I looked actively for cases in which there were bona fide coexistence problems, and could find none, as Bugsy has also concluded. To the contrary, I found farms like Teranova in California that grew both GM and organic. Please tell us where the use of GM by one farmer has forced others to adopt it.

In our highly competitive markets, profit is a key driver in agriculture (growers understand the difference between profit and yield).

DEMOS: Who should decide this question? Why should not the farmers decide? It is their livelihood and risks on markets.

Rick

Monsanto has just been nailed in South Africa for advertising that no adverse effects about the dangers of GM food had ever been reported. They denied to High Court Judge Mervyn King that MON 863 which had caused liver damage to rats, was their product. Meanwhile Monsanto had been suppressing this information and were ordered by a German Court to release the findings about the damage to the rats in the public interest. Monsanto had also applied for a commodity release of MON 863 in South Africa. I wonder whether anything like this could ever happen in Western Australia. Would test reports from a commercial applicant be the only tests that would be relied upon? they claimed to have a strict "Code of Conduct" and the advert was targeted at mothers of growing children. I would be interested to hear what readers think about the code of conduct and the targeting of mothers.

Rick & Agronomist, I am sure it is no surprise for you to learn that Australia already uses chemical resistant canola (non-GM) and already uses minimum till techniques. Adopting GM chemical resistant canola will not change our system, only our economics.
Australia has very different conditions than Canada. There is a massive yield penalty associated with leaving weeds unchecked during seed emergence and if you don't control the weeds at seed emergence, you will have a yield penalty. Our worst weed for yield reduction at seed emergence is ryegrass but Canada does not have a ryegrass problem and has comparably very few weeds due to planting following snow thaw.
Unlike Canada, we have multiple germinations of ryegrass that needs controlling. Neither glyphosate or glufosinate-ammonium has a residual action where triazine, used on our non-GM triazine tolerant varieties has.
No fuel is saved. Like non-GM canola, two applications of chemical are recommended and it is recommended that the canola is planted in a weed-free area. The same knockdown chemicals are recommended. Glyphosate, however, is to be avoided as a constant knockdown when using GM Roundup Ready (part of the resistance management plan).
While our non-GM triazine tolerant canola initially suffered yield penalties, this has been overcome now. GM will not give a 30% yield increase as promoted, Canadian yields actually fell when GM canola was introduced. If there was a GM yield advantage, the GM companies would not be refusing to participate in independent trials.
Agronomists comment that hybrids "stop later weeds from germinating" is not true and some farmers grow hybrids now.
Logic impresses me more than degrees, and what Judy Carman has said makes sense. What I have read from FSANZ and OGTR does not satisfy my concern that health concerns have been addressed. I fail to understand why those wanting qualifications do not regard Dr Carmans excellent qualifications as adequate.
How can you be negative about the quality of research and publication when it has not been finalised or released? Have patience!

Bugsy, the non-GM farmers problem: If GM canola is introduced, all canola is considered GM unless proven otherwise and blind freddy can see that GM meets market resistance and non-GM does not. ABARE statistics prove how Canada lost their significant premium and ABARE stated that Canada has experienced market access problems due to GM.

Market non-GM? Price prohibitive! Coexistence protocols require non-GM farmers to do everything they can to keep GM out, rather than the GM industry being required to keep GM in...it is too ridiculously imposing, too difficult and too expensive.
Tleast non-GM farmers could expect is to be able to test for GM before signing a guarantee that they do not have contamination or but tests are inadequate. Bayer has a test that is not accurate unless over 9.2% (well over the set "tolerance"). Monsanto was planning to have an end point royalty deducted after tests of 0.5%. Can they deduct their royalty if our contamination is over 0.5%? We are told to "trust Monsanto" and sue them if that does occur. Come on... where is the fair play?
Next? Introducing GM wheat would be industry sabatage as no market wants GM contaminated wheat.
Next? Who will accept drugs or plastics in food? It will be catastrophic introducing GM pharmaceutical or industrial products as no contamination at all will be accepted in food crops. Farmers could lose the ability to market food crops.
The issue is also about anti-capitalism. GM companies make deals with governments to "help" fund the R&D sector. They form alliances with the R&D sectors to trade a patent over all varieties. Farmers lose the right to replant seed and the GM/R&D sector sell whatever varieties that make the GM/R&D sector the most money at whatever cost the GM/R&D sector decide. Farmers become contract growers locked into a closed loop system and yes, the GM industry gets to pull the strings.
This leaves the farmers paying more to fund the GM/R&D sector but getting paid less as consumers don't want GM. Whats fair in this?

GM companies do not control markets. If the argument is really that strong against them, then why do farmers seem to continually vote for more access to GM crops? GM companies do not sell the farmers product for them. The "closed loop" seems to have an open end doesn't it?

Then how come the latest report from ABARE is worried about market loss from NOT growing GM canola?

http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/07-074-002.pdf

The problem with complex systems is that trends can suddenly reverse. The latest report seems to be concerned about what will happen to your supposedly large non-GM market when the EU allows access to GM canola to meet mandated biodiesel requirements. If Australian farmers are not allowed access to GM crops by this time, then your market and "premiums" may disappear.

And the problem really comes down to: why do farmers appear to continually vote for GM access? The farmers perception of the market they will have for their crop will determine the speed of uptake of GM crops. Noone will be forced to do so. If you think GM poses a threat and that the world's food supply will be controlled by the large corporations, do you think that farmers that wish to grow GM are stupid, ignorant or just greedy?

Julie Non-GM farmer Newman:
Of course Australia already uses herbicide-resistant canola. Some 70% has been atrazine resistant. Atrazine is a herbicide being banned in Europe. Tim Hayes of UC Berkeley was just recently in Australia talking about his research which finds that atrazine at very low concentrations messes up frogs, such as making little male frogs grow up looking like females. I asked you some years ago in the presence of Greenpeace about this and you said you didn’t care. Is that still right?

Weed scientists have also known since this herbicide resistance was found in weeds more than 20 years ago that it reduces seed yields by at least 10-20%. The reason is that the mutation for resistance changes a critical part of the plants’ photosynthetic machinery, which was honed over hundreds of millions of generations to be the best possible. You may have gotten used to the penalties or even gradually improved the background yields, but you cannot change the fact that the mutant photosynthesis of atrazine resistant canola plants can never be as efficient as the wild-type. We also know that this kind of resistance as developed for canola in Canada, but has now been replaced in Canada by GM canola, at least in part to avoid those yield losses.

You profess to know a lot about Canada, but have you ever been there and talked to real canola growers or weed scientists? They would laugh themselves silly by your assertions that they have comparably very few weeds due to planting following snow thaw. The reverse might be to claim that Australia has no weed problems because their seeds dry out and die in the hot dry summers! Guess what? Just as weeds are adapted to heat in Australia, they have adapted to winter in North America, and thrive on the moisture from the thaw!

GM companies are simply not bothering with yield trials of any kind, independent or otherwise, unless the moratoria lift. Without some prospect of economic return, there is no reason for the companies even to put the genes in up-to-date local varieties.

Julie:

The reason that practicing scientists want to know about Carman’s experience in animal feeding studies is that it is a technically challenging area that requires experience to do well. In the hands of newcomers, untreated “control” rodents often do not meet international standards of survival and reproduction. It is not like keeping a pet cat or dog. So far as we can understand, Carman has no experience in this area. We have also seen examples of poor studies, also done by people with no prior experience in feeding studies, being much publicised, even if never published, or being overwhelmingly rebutted elsewhere.

Having answered your question, why can’t you answer some of ours?

What did you mean by “Monsanto was planning to have an end point royalty deducted after tests of 0.5%” and what is your source?

Where are “Farmers becom(ing) contract growers locked into a closed loop system and yes, the GM industry gets to pull the strings” ?

If this is such a problem, where is the concern among Australian cotton growers, who were limited to 30% Bt cotton for several years, and jumped to at least 85% GM crop as soon as allowed?

I’d also like answers to Agronomists questions, such as
4) The Minister refused to disclose the protocol of the study
5) The Minister refused to disclose the names of the International reviewers
6) The Minister refused to disclose the names of the steering committee

Do you sit on Carman’s steering committee? What have Chance or Carman got to hide? Why won’t they release the names of the reviewers or steering committee?

Don’t tell me it is to protect these people. I have had hate mail, been routinely accused of corruption, had letters of complaint to my supervisors and been hit in the chest after a meeting. I have even been offered an escort to my car by meeting organisers concerned about my safety. I am sure there is no level of harassment that Chance’s people would get that could come close to what some of us have already experienced for speaking our minds.

Most farm lobby groups rely on GM information from the R&D sector and surprise surprise, the GM industry through Agrifood Awareness posing as specialists in formulating farming policies. I have certainly seen the misleading, deceptive and bullying tactics used in formulating a "policy decision".

The key reasons farmers want GM are because they are told that GM crops yield more and the "experts" are telling them that other countries are growing fantastic traits including drought resistant crops... a whole lot of hogwash by people with a vested interest.

Weed control is the "benefit" of GM canola, but detail is avoided. Yield is the promotional platform but trials are avoided. Costs and contract obligations are a problem but revealing costs and contracts detail is avoided. Certainly a pattern of denial here.

Atrazine has just undergone a "stringent" 6 year review and yes, while it is a problem in waterlogged areas like UK, it is not a problem in non-waterlogged areas of rural Australia. More feminine looking male frogs eh?! You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel for an excuse to bring in GM canola.

The closed loop system of getting seed, using specific brands of chemicals (must be on label), having to buy new seed every year, following management plans, signing contracts that allow access to property, allow companies to deduct payments (was negotiated at grains council level years ago), do not allow trials etc. Farmers wanting GM are not even interested in asking for the price, independent performance details or the contract details. Why?

Non-GM farmers just do not want to be negatively impacted by a GM crops we do not want and do not need.

If the "experts" were liable for statements of "no premiums for non-GM", they would not make that claim ... but no, non-GM farmers will be liable for any loss from GM contamination!

Please explain why there would be a market loss for not growing GM canola? No market is asking for GM but some markets ask for non-GM. ABARE even stated that market access has been lost in Canada due to GM. Non-GM can't miss out on the biodiesel opportunity because non-GM canola can be used for biodiesel too.

If Canadian farmers are so succesful, why are they mainly reliant on off-farm income and subsidies? If GM canola raised yields, the yields should not have fallen on adoption of GM.

Why not just admit that the R&D sector want investment partnerships with wealthy GM companies wanting returns on their hefty investments and don't care about farmer economics?

Governments have signed a biotechnology strategy to push a path to market for GM in exchange for encouraging investment into plant breeding. Plant breeders need to realise that farmers pay very well for R&D now. We pay a compulsory levy which is around 60-70% of the GRDC budget that R&D sector relies on. We pay well for the seed and we pay an end point royalty... name one other country that gets their farmers to do that!? GM is about encouraging investment to plant breeding but if farmers do not own the intellectual property we pay for, why should we keep paying just to give that to others to profit from us or to sell to our opposition? If GM is introduced just to fund the R&D sector, then we should drop our GRDC levy and EPR's.

Why would I be on the committee, I am a farmer, not a specialist in health testing? Just because the pro-GMers are not getting control over these tests, does not make them invalid. What are you so frightened of? Like every peer review, when the results are released that is the time to review them, not before. More and more adverse testing results are being released and they all seem to have the similarities(immunology problems, liver and kidney toxicity) so I feel sure Judy will check this. Todays latest adverse testing results came from South Africa http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=505727

From the latest ABARE report:

"The main implication of the introduction of GM canola is that Canada lost access to the EU market with its canola seed but generally Canada has found ready markets for its increased canola supplies elsewhere, particularly in Mexico, the United States, Pakistan and China. As discussed above, the European Union is likely to be a growing market for canola or rapeseed over the next decade. However, Australia’s advantage of being able to supply non-GM canola to the EU market could largely disappear if the EU ban on GM canola imports is lifted, which seems likely to occur soon."

Is this clear enough for you? Our competitive advantage could disappear, which means loss of markets doesn't it?

I am sure what Dr. Roush (and myself and others) are concerned with is that there is a potential for a lot of misunderstanding and error in toxicological studies, especially with such obviously biased researchers leading them. We have to have confidence that the results will be accurate, not released as fact before peer review and that the reviewers of the research are not politically motivated. If that is the case, I would not be afraid of anything, whatever they find. But if this just turns out to be an exercise in political football, then it degrades the hard work of real scientists that work within the rigorous peer review system. That is the reason why at least some details of what is proposed should be released. Peer review, open and honest is what you have talked about, now walk the walk. But be prepared for what happens to flawed studies when released into a cage of critical scientists.

since governments are under so much pressure to succumb to gm technology/farming/crop production, thank goddess at least one australian government has the fortitude not to lie down and accept the bullying. commendations to a government, and minister, prepared to seek out information and recommendations (hopefully) unadulterated by the pressures of big business. ask any home economics teacher - experts in the field of food, food technology and genetic engineering/manipulation of foods/crops etc - most will affrim their concerns about, and lack of support for, gm engineering, technology, manipulation and the enforcement by corporations and big businesses - such as monsanto - of their desire and efforts to control crop and other food production. commendations also to the farmers of india, particularly the dalits, for their strong and intelligent lobbying against the intrusion of gm manufacture/production into their lands, crops and livelihoods.

Julie, as you have avoided answering any of my specific questions about the claims Ian Edwards made, I must conclude that all of Ian’s claims are true and that your claim to offer the opposite story is false. This seems to be a common mode of operation for you. You habitually state that claims made by those you view as “pro-GM” are lies, but when pressed are unable to back this statement up. Why isn’t this just bullying?

Atrazine (and simazine) have been banned in Europe because they turned up in drinking water at concentrations the regulatory agencies considered concerning for human health. I understand there has been considerable concern in Australia about the use of these herbicides for the same reason. http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/inland/water02-4b.html#contaminationofgroundwaterbypesticides Just like there is concern about their use in North America. The Australian regulator changed the label in an attempt to reduce the risk of these herbicides appearing in drinking water.

Your song and dance about atrazine resistant canola yields is wrong and has been proved wrong by a group of researchers from Australia. Their paper found that in 22 crops growing two near-isogenic cultivars the TT canola yielded on average 26% lower and had 2-5% lower oil. Those interested can read the abstract http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/40/paper/AR01159.htm .

Your comments about subsidies are plain stupid. There is no specific subsidy for GM crops in the US. If a farmer can make more money by growing non-GM and pocketing the subsidy, why on earth would they grow GM? So surely, you have to agree that if these farmers make more money growing GM, then farmers without a subsidy should also make more money?

This convoluted logic of yours looks to me like an answer looking for an explanation. Talking of logic, which bit of Judy Carman’s logic makes sense to you? Why didn’t that same logic make sense to FSANZ, who summarily dismissed her comments and provided justification for their doing so? What do you know that FSANZ doesn’t know? Why doesn’t the logic that if photosynthesis in plants is slowed there will be lower yield make sense to you?

Agronomist, back to agro namecalling I see (are you getting that desperate already). My repeat answer of the questions... The details will be available AFTER the test, and the committee is nothing to do with decisions on the health tests as this committment was made before we formed. Dr Carman addressed the committee about her concerns, not about specific test details.

Independent yield performance trials will help establish if these GM Ht varieties are any higher yielding than non-GM Ht varieties so why avoid them? It is disappointing that Monsanto has a clause in their contract that prevents independent trialling after commercial release.

Ah... you are almost catching on about subsidies but missing the point that non-GM growers of the same commodity also have additional costs and losses by introducing GM. Financially, both GM and non-GM are impacted negatively by GM introduction and if a crop is not more profitable, farmers will not grow it. How do governments encourage farmers to grow an unprofitable crop? Introduce high subsidies for those crops. Result = 80% of the US subsidies are allocated to soy, cotton and corn (their GM crops) and therefore they become more profitable for farmers. Canadian canola growers required subsidies also. These crops would likely decline without these subsidies. Also, unlike Australia, both Canadian and US farmers dominantly rely on off-farm income as their main source of income.

It is logical sense that if consumers want confidence that the GM oil they are expected to eat is as "safe" as FSANZ and OGTR declared, the least you would expect is for the oil to be used in feeding trials, but its not.

Bugsy, No it does not mean loss of markets if we stay non-GM. The ABARE report does not say that GM canola will improve market access at all, it just means the increase in market demand for biodiesel may not be fussy. It does not say the existing non-GM food markets will disappear and suddenly want GM in preference. The majority of the supermarket chains are demanding a GM-free status, so changes in government legislation does not provide market access to GM food markets, acceptance by the supply chain can only do that and there is no evidence of that. As ABARE mentions, Canada has searched for GM friendly markets, what's left? Their main canola market is US (exported as oil) which is not GM sensitive. One of Australias key benefits to market access is our GM-free status, lose that and we risk market rejection. Unfortunately, it is not only GM growers that take that risk, Non-GM growers are expected to be forced down that track when we can see very clearly that it is a very foolish way to go.

May I remind you that Judy Carmans expertise in animal feeding testing is well above yours as agronomists/plant breeders and I am very confident she has the matter under control. It seems that rather than wanting confidence that the GM food test results are accurate, you want confidence that the results will be negative

Julie, you still avoided answering the questions. I didn’t ask about the tests or the results of the tests, but whether Ian Edwards’ statements about Judy Carman’s and Minister Chance’s comments to the committee you sit on were accurate. You implied in your first post that these were not accurate and have avoided answering direct questions about that ever since. I haven’t resorted to name calling and I don’t have to.

So the tests are to be on oil? Julie, do you believe in homeopathy? Your continued ardent defence of Judy Carman has got me interested. What are you trying to hide? Did you know that Judy Carman is on the faculty of the Adelaide Training College of Complementary Medicine? http://www.naturaltherapiescollege.com/ Is this where she is going to conduct her study?

Your statements about subsidies are ludicrous. Corn accounts for about 50% of all farm subsidies in the US and has done so for most of the last 20 years. Cotton accounts for 12% and soybeans for another 3%. Strangely, subsidies to soybean growers are declining, despite 90% of growers planting GM.

Independent yield trials are conducted every year by the Prairie Canola Variety Trials in Canada http://www.canola-council.org/growing_trials.html and North Dakota State University http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/variety/canola.htm and University of Minnesota http://www.maes.umn.edu/06VarietalTrials/canola.pdf in the US every year. The InVigor/Liberty Link varieties always come out on top. Clearfield varieties are invariably near the bottom. There are no Atrazine-resistant varieties because these are no longer grown due to poor performance.

As I explained before numerous times, our committee is nothing to do with the government feeding trials and Ian implied it was.

The debate is not about Australian farmers growing GM canola in Canada, it is about Australian farmers growing GM canola in Australian conditions.

Agronomist, again your facts are wrong. Please provide evidence of any commercial planting of triazine tolerant varieties as triazine tolerant varieties have never been approved for planting in Canada. In Canada all varieties with novel traits (both GM and non-GM chemical resistant traits) undergo the same regulatory process as GM and because the Atrazine varieties are not as profit-making for the breeders, it has never applied for licencing. Also Atrazine is more suited to Australian weeds, not Canadian. Note that Clearfield is available in both countries but is far more popular in Canada than Australia so obviously many farmers prefer this option to GM canola... a good indication that triazine tolerant varieties are a better option for Australian farmers.

Also, please provide your references re soy subsidies declining and I will comment further. Also your figures re percentages do not equate with the US govt presentation at the last Grains Week Conference in Canberra.. Interesting that Cotton is number 2 on the subsidy list when it only accounts for 5% of the agricultural production.

As Agronomist insists on going on and on misrepresenting my statement, I will explain a little further.

Ians introduction to this post included:
"When questioned by the press on GM matters Chance has often stated that he has an expert “Ministerial GMO Reference Group” whose function it is to advise the government. As a member of this group I can state that the animal feeding study by Judy Carman was never referred to the reference group, but the Agriculture Department has since been directed to fund the project in Adelaide, South Australia."

Note that this comment from Ian Edwards may be construed as implying that the committee has something to do with the health tests but it has not.

And again his comment: "Who are the real losers in all this? It is the farmers of Western Australia who are being denied a choice of technology to use on their farms while the minister seeks excuses to continue the moratorium on GM crops."

Note, that this can be construed as implying that the health tests are something to do with the WA moratorium when it is not. All moratoria is state based and therefore based on lack of industry preparedness and a serious concern regarding economics and this is their state based legislated responsibility.

My facts are wrong? Evidence that triazine tolerant canola has been commercially grown in Canada can be found in the following links detailing the history and registration of specific varieties.

http://www.canola-council.org/sysandvar.aspx

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/canola.html

http://olericulture.org/001/138/001138786.html

http://olericulture.org/000/615/000615572.html

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture still recommends triazine-tolerant canola for use on wild mustard, although the recommendation is quite dated.

If wild mustard is a problem in spring canola, use either ethametsulfuron-methyl or varieties of canola that are triazine tolerant. Because these tolerant varieties are not injured by recommended doses of the triazine herbicides, wild mustard can be selectively controlled within the crop.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/03-043.htm

You continue to ensure the debate is not about growing canola in Australia by continuing to make wildly incorrect statements about the Canadian canola industry in support of your crusade against GM crops. You shouldn’t be surprised if I keep pulling you up. I KNOW that GM canola has been good for the Canadian canola industry. I suspect it might also be good for the Australian industry, if only because the Australian industry seems to be falling so far behind Canada.

Actually, I don’t think that Clearfield is more popular in Canada than in Australia. According to the OGTR, about 11% of canola in Australia is Clearfield. Clearfield canola in Canada is about 12% of total plantings and less than 5% in Manitoba.

US oilseed subsidies (mostly soybean) were 12% of the total when they started in 1998. Now down to 3%. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01606.pdf
Wheat has historically been at 20% and rice at 7-10 %.

So Ian Edward’s statements about the activities of the reference group are correct then? Given that health is regulated at a Federal level, what is Minister Chance doing using spending money on a feeding study?

I have looked into some supposedly "independent" tests and chased up who funds them.
http://www.co.stearns.mn.us/documents/ExtWC06062007.pdf

June 6, 2007
The new University of Minnesota publication conducted by regional and local Extension educators and staff from the Monsanto Corporation, working with cooperating farmers.

University of Missouri, Iowa and Wisconson in conjunction with Bayer (who supplied the money – see page 2) on this nice glossy pamphlet.
http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/2006/GWC-1.pdf

Why are you pro-GM'ers, agronomists and plant breeders so interested in health when you are obviously only interested in your own economic wellbeing.

Thanks to this forum, I am totally sympathetic to the non-GM campaign and have very serious concerns for the health implications. I am looking forward to reading the results of Judy Carmans health testing. I have read and heard her concerns. There is no way anyone can backtrack what they eat with GM. And yet you GM'ers are saying trust us and eat it anyway. I don't want to be the guinea pig and thousands of other consumers don't want it either. I want to keep my choice to avoid GM.

It does not matter what country is doing what or subsidizing to the farmers as far as I am concerned as in the long run, if it's a biohazard, the world population is in danger. Keep it out of my food.

Is it safe?
The overwhelming opinion from scientists around the world clearly put GM food safety at or ahead of no gm derived food. Please have a look at The International Council for Science (the largest scientific body in the world to my knowledge) studied this and came to the safe conclusion. http://www.icsu.org/1_icsuinscience/INIT_GMOrep_1.html

There are many links on my website to scientific bodies that have looked at many aspects of GM crops and food. There is also a link to the American Medical Association position paper on GM crops and food. You can even compare what the critics say there as well.
http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager
Cheers

How can these scientists say GM canola oil is safe when they have not tested it? How can scientists claim it is the same as normal breeding when they weed out so many visually mutated plants?

There are many reported articles explaining the peer pressure on scientists with concerns from scientists wanting to encourage corporate investment.

Agronomist (DT), the TT references you gave refer to over 20 years ago before the regulatory process was set up and only on the very original TT varieties - Triton(1984) and Tribute(1985). I could not find any triazine tolerant varieties registered on the Canadian regulatory data base historically or current (can you?). It seems highly unlikely current TT varieties have ever grown competitively against GM in Canada.

Yield penalties for TT? You seem to have compared varieties developed almost a quarter of a century ago and Yes, these very early TT varieties had yield problems, which is why we do not grow them now, but todays Australian TT varieties are far higher yielding.

You may not "think" that Cleafield is more popular in Canada than Australia but even your own reference disputes that. Clearfield may be OK but it is certainly not as popular as TT and I don't personally know anyone that has grown it for more than one season. Figures used to quote varieties grown are often based on seed sold (not seed planted) and because farmers often replant their own canola (particularly in WA), areas grown are very different to seed purchased.

Your subsidies reference is over 7 years old referring to around a decade ago. US subsidies have been increasing for years and around US$12billion/year now. As I said, the crops soy, cotton and corn (the US GM crops) currently account for 80% of the commodity based subsidies.

I find it very amusing that considering the massive amount of money spent on pushing the pro-GM line, that the R&D sector is so against such a small amount being allocated to health testing. I have not found any consumers/voters that do not support this, only the R&D sector. Incidentally, I do not know any more than anyone else regarding the feeding trials, I have just listened to Dr Carmans concerns

Pushing something that is not profitable for farmers has a backlash.
R&D future if GM was introduced?

- Under government agreements, governments would withdraw from funding R&D in exchange for encouraging corporate investment and providing a path to market for GM.

- the GM industry will stop funding and start collecting from the R&D industry to profit from previous investments.

- GM farmers will be dissillusioned because costs are higher and yields do not stack up to promises. All farmers will be very ticked off to find we are selling at a far lower price than we would if we were selling non-GM.

- Farmers will not continue funding GRDC if we can't afford it and do not own the intellectual property we pay for. We certainly don't agree to take over the unprofitable "common good" R&D that governments did. To disolve the current compulsory levies, GRDC may corporatise (as rumoured) and because farmers paid the majority of R&D belonging to GRDC, farmers will insist on the majority of share allocation as per equity -: payments. GRDC will need to offer good dividends and share value to encourage investmentors. If not, buyers will not be interested and farmers would sell their shares. A corporate GRDC will not be viable if it is not possible to produce a massively improved return on their current R&D investments.

Where would that leave the R&D sector?

R&D Income: No charity based income (government/farmers) and no GM funding (they want returns on their investments they have already made, not continued losses)

R&D Liabilities: Must provide good profits for investors. Must pay heavily for the many IP and patents required for GM plant breeding.

Profit-making target? Farmers! But... don't expect to charge more for R&D developments becauses farmers will not adopt varieties unless they give a benefit higher than the cost. Everyone plans on making a fortune out of GM but only farmers are expected to pay more... Reality check! ...We can not and we will not!

I can't see the government bailing farmers or the R&D sector out, do you?

A couple of points -

The word 'science' is bandied around with gay abandon and used as a definitive when attempting to support an argument. I'd like to delve a little deeper in to how (good and bad)'science' is derived.

Terms of Reference define the parameters of research and studies are confined to these. If the Terms of Reference are narrowly confined, no other information is included in the final report and rarely are extrapolation of the final results projected into possible situations. Research outcomes are not always a useful end-product in themselves as there is a glaring shortfall in applying the research into possible real-life situations and undertaking sensitivity analyses to at least gain some ideas of the effects in longer-term timeframes.

Another thought - In last week's The Land (Thursday 5th July 2007, pp 13) there is an interesting article entitled 'Farmers try to block seed royalty sting' with the opening paragraph......'Farmers risk losing their right to be exempt from paying royalties on home-grown grain and pasture seed retained for future plantings unless they put a strong case to a national review of Plant Breeders Rights (PBR).'

I'm confused..... why is the NSW Farmers Association Grains Committee opposing any attempt to place royalties on seeds harvested by farmers for their own use yet seemingly overwhelming supportive for genetically engineered seeds which have these requirements already built in to the Technical User Agreement......

to quote someone else..... please explain?

Hi Safe, to be honest, I would suggest you were totally sympathetic to the non-GM campaign before you joined this forum. Your position has not changed despite the presentation of lots of information about health concerns.

On the subject of independence and company support, did you know that Julie “Non-GM Farmer” Newman once accepted support from Bayer? Do you think her independence is compromised any less than Chris Boerboom and Mike Owen? If so, why do you make the distinction?

Safe, do you believe in homeopathy? How else could you expect that oil with no DNA, no protein and no differences in composition from GM canola needs health testing?

Julie, the Canadians gave up growing Atrazine-resistant canola when the GM canola varieties were introduced because of the vastly improved yield of the latter. There is no way that atrazine-resistant canola could compete with the best varieties in Canada. The reference I gave you to yields was for Australian canola grown in Australia. The varieties in question were Surpass 600 and Surpass 600TT, both released in 1999. The former had 26% yield increase across 22 environments.

More on Australian canola growing here, which confirms most of what I have said. Except, according to the Pioneer Seeds, Clearfield canola makes up 25% of plantings.
http://www.pioneer.com/australia/media/canola_yields_canada.htm

The information on subsidies was given to you to demonstrate that subsidies were alive and well before the introduction of GM crops and the proportions given to various crops have not changed a whole lot. You seemed to want to make out they were invented for GM crops. In 2005, the major programs were Corn, cotton, disaster relief, conservation and wheat in that order. http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&yr=2005

Even the scientists are realising there is problem with ramming a gene where it's not welcome. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/01frame.html?ex=1184040000&en=412b911ec1e1b180&ei=5070 is a recent article by scientists that are backtracking from their pro-GM stance and looking at the safety of individual genes. This is only happening now which should have happened before GM was let out onto the market. The safety implications of what this could mean for GM is astounding.
“The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of how genes function. The exhaustive four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a “tidy collection of independent genes” after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists “to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do.”

One molecular biologist calls “the industrial gene.” is one that can be defined, owned, tracked, proven acceptably safe, proven to have uniform effect, sold and recalled,” said Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety. “

So you pro-GM’ers, the reason why we cannot show reference to the dangers of GM is because there is no way to track, prove it’s unacceptably safe, prove to have a uniform effect, or recalled. That makes your industrial gene a biohazard doesn’t it?

Is it really safe.

It would appear you did not go to the link I provided. In it the world's largest body of scientist make it very clear that there has not been a single case of harm from a decade of consuming food containing GM ingredients. That is called safe food any way you care to slice it. As for testing sorry you are completely wrong re GM testing. Each and every GM event has to go through a very extensive evaluation (read testing) procedure BEFORE it is allowed to be commercialized. This regiment is from 10-50 times the testing done on novel non-GM events. GM crops are the ONLY crops tested for allergen content BEFORE they are commercialized.

Say if one were to randomly mutate DNA with radiation or nasty chemicals and then commercialize the mutated plant without ever knowing what DNA was mutated, would that bother you?

Why is it everytime it is demonstrated that scientists have been examining in detail many aspects of safety on GM crops critics switch over to suggest they know better how to evluate safety testing then the experts. Hmmm.

http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager

It is pleasing to see this discussion is expanding beyond what is allegedly 'good for farmers' to postulate potential effects on human health.

No, there may be no specific cases of ill-health attributed to the consumption of ge foods..... similarly, it is unlikely one cigarette will cause instantaenous death. However, the cumulative effects of continuous smoking are well described and require billions of dollars each year for 'curative' treatment. I see a similarity between the two products - nicotene and ge foods - over a period of time, there will be repercussions and finally, a few people will scratch their heads and ask... 'Why didn't we see this coming?'

Short-term 'gains' are the mantra..... long-term vision is poo-poohed to the detriment of human and ecological health. With existing (non-ge) technology already providing substantial productivity results in canola, why embrace and be held tightly by a new modus operandi that will irrevocably alter the landscapes.

Actually bush goddess, GM foods are probably more like vegetable oil, since they don't actually contain addictive drugs or have elevated levels of carcinogens. Too much of one food can certainly make you ill and fat and cause you health problems and often isn't very nutritious by itself. But it's not "dangerous" in the usual sense of the word.

The reason we were talking about the economics of GM, is because there is no evidence of detrimental health effects of GM foods. Until there is, you and many others are just whistling dixie, conjuring up all sorts of bad karma. If you want to see something a bit scary that's supposedly "non-GM" (at least in Japan!) take a look at radiation breeding:

http://www.irb.affrc.go.jp/index-E.html

and then a good and interesting article:
http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Spring2007/GMOFeature.htm

But even the economics that "non-GM farmer" is talking about doesn't make sense. If GM can only be grown under subsidy (eg. in the US) because they are "unprofitable" as she proclaims, then there is nothing to fear here is there? Farmers won't grow unprofitable crops in a system that has no subsidies for that will they? To say otherwise is to imply that farmers are stupid. This line of argument is weak.

Yes it is true that radiation mutagenesis has produced literally thousands of varieties of food crops and we know exactly nothing about the random mutations throughout their genomes. Chemical mutation breeding has created even more varieties. Again with absolutely no idea what has happened to the genome/DNA. In every GM crop the exact nature of the engineered DNA is documented from its position in the genome, its sequence, its flanking genes, its expression patterns in every tissue of the plant, etc, etc. I find it completely illogical for critics of GM crops to say conventional breeding including radiation mutation breeding is OK but we need to ban Gm crops. This is why even the European Commission states GM crops and food are as safe or safer than conventionally bred plants.

RobW, you missed the point. If some farmers give GM a whirl, the non-GM farmers will be faced with unmanageable costs, liabilities and problems. We do not want to be negatively impacted by a crop we do not want and do not need.

If the GM industry believed their own propaganda, they would accept liability for losses caused by their product... but they refuse and non-GM farmers are expected to pick up the tab for lost markets and lower prices or all the expenses of trying to prove a non-GM status.

Agronomist, the debate is about comparing yields of GM chemical resistant canola with non-GM chemical canola. The Ag Dept did this and found Invigor yields were the same as TT so GM obviously has the same yield penalty as TT. The Eastern states trials showed yields less than non-GM hybrids so there is obviously a yield penalty associated when comparing a GM hybrid with a non-GM hybrid. Monsanto's trials showed a significant yield penalty which was explained in the scientist magazine so we need independent testing to assess comparable yield penalties with all chemical resistant varieties.

Interesting that farmers are not knocking down the door of the Clearfield hybrid sellers when it supposedly yields almost twice as much. Perhaps the reality is not as good as the hype. It will certainly be an embarrassment for the R&D sector if growers try GM then drop it because its performance is not as good as the promises. The problem is that the GM-free status would be lost while some farmers give it a try.

Of course Australian yields have dropped, Australia has had a run of droughts and very late breaks to the season but controlling the weather is not a GM option (you would get more support if it was). Your reference even lists weather, delayed seeding, sclerotinia and blackleg disease before any mention of TT varieties.

Whats wrong with testing the oil, after all it is the part that consumers eat? How can anybody say its "rigorously tested" when it is not even basically tested?

Hi Safe, I know this link is a blog, but it covers the comments from Caruso pretty well and better than I could. http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20York%20Times I also called one of the Profs at the local university about this and she said that these networks have been known for ages and in any case because GM genes go in with their own promoters, they don’t usually affect the networks.

By the way, Caruso is not a scientist, she is a journalist. Also she has never supported GM technology.

I did like your idea that health risks have not been demonstrated because it is impossible to prove GM unsafe. Kind of a self-limiting exercise really. And now you want to throw money at testing something that cannot be proven?

Bush Goddess, you should look at some of the links in the discussion. “existing (non-ge) technology” does not provide “substantial productivity results in canola”, otherwise why would anybody want to grow GM canola? Australia is slipping further and further behind Canada in canola yield, apparently because of atrazine-resistant canola http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-price-premium-in-australia-but-big.html

So Julie you do believe in homeopathy.

On canola yields for InVigor, you mean this paper don’t you? http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:2d0oC6OUoJoJ:agspsrv38.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IKMP/FCP/CO/OILSEEDS_UPDATE_2004.PDF+crop+updates+western+Australia+2004+oilseeds&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=au (sorry the pdf doesn’t seem to be there at the moment). Now you should be able to tell me the importance of maturity groups. If you plant a mid-late variety in Calingiri in the last week of May would it yield more or less than an early-mid variety planted at the same time? What about the two early-mid InVigor varieties in the trial? How do you account for their spectacular performance? Or do we ignore them because they show that GM crops can yield higher than non-GM crops?

No, but your reference includes the data and disproves you well on a number of issues.

Firstly, the quote for 2003 "Canola yields and oil content was well above average...crop... second highest on record..." disproves your theory that our canola industry is dying without GM.

Yields:
Best yield = Non-GM: The new NON-GM triazine tolerant hybrids yielded between 108 - 139%... not bad eh? Why aren't the researchers making more fuss about this than GM when it yields more than GM or TT?

In 2001 the NSW/Vic/SA trials showed that non-GM Hyola (hybrid) yielded 120 while GM Invigor (hybrid) yielded 109. This shows GM hybrids yielding less than non-GM hybrids.

WA trials showed yields of Invigor 40 (this is approved for release)at 110 and Non-GM Surpass was 110, so GM yielded the same as non-GM TT.

While the differences are not really significantly less they prove that GM is NOT better yielding as claimed.

Plant early claim:
GM canola crops was sprayed with Glyphosate and Treflan as preemergents so your claim that you don't need preemergent spraying and can plant earlier is blown out the water.

I have deliberately ignored your silly question about homeopathy as it has no relevence to the debate.

You have clearly missed my point with testing. If you know what you are looking for, then it can be tested. If you do not know, then you are stabbing at a hay stack with a fork hoping that you don’t find anything.

I had to look up what homeopathy means and it says: method of treating disease by drugs given in minute doses. I tried for a flu shot last year but they had run out at my medical centre and I'm glad as everyone that I know that had a flu shot got flu this year. So what relevance is this to this debate?

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=74981-monsanto-efsa-mon-toxicity-gm 15/03/2007 - The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revealed that it will review the new data presented by French scientists that revealed toxicity concerns in rats fed the MON863 variety of GM maize from Monsanto.

The new data, from a 90-day rat study and published in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, indicated liver and kidney toxicity in the rats, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes as a result of eating the transgenic maize.

The researchers behind the new study, led by Professor Gilles Eric Séralini from the independent Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering based at the University of Caen questioned the methods used by Monsanto to initially show the safety and non-toxicity of the corn, saying that the statistical methods used were insufficient to observed any possible disruptions in biochemistry.

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=75494-monsanto-rbst-dairy-milk 04/04/2007 - The ongoing battle between Monsanto and dairy producers who do not use the firm's milk-producing hormone rBST has stepped up a notch, with the biotech and chemicals giant requesting action to stop what it calls "deceptive milk labeling and advertising".

So basically the GM companies are going to sue the farmers that say on their product that it is GM free so the consumer does not have a choice. They know that the consumers will definitely go for the non-GM variety. What a farce and a disgrace to the Government labeling system.

Quote"It appears that the Central Dogma of molecular biology ( the one gene,one protein principle)"

The one gene one protein principle is based on earlier experimental observations ( eg Garrod, Beadle and Tatum, Charles Yanofsy) amply confirmed many times over, and is <b>not the central dogma,</b> and is not being disputed by newer finding. The new findings are just adding depth and interest to earlier ideas, and the claims that geneticists think in the bizarrely simplistic way described by the critics just show that their comments are made by people without any contact with professional or even undergrad modern genetics. They represent and unreal dream world out of touch with modern biology.

The one gene one protein concept is just a first step of many leading to modern concepts of the many facets of gene behaviour.

Try and keep up Safe, the European Union already reviewed that (Seralini) research . They concluded that it was a crock, their statistics were wrong and there were no adverse effects from MON863.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/scientific_reports/mon863_ratfeeding.Par.0001.File.dat/sc_rep_efsa_stat_review.pdf

And this is exactly why there are concerns about Judy Carman's expertise in toxicity testing. The homeopathy reference is relevant because apparently Judy is also on the faculty of Adelaide Training College of Complementary Medicine.......

Also, are you familiar with the scientific methods of Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry? Well, they can analyse the composition of a great range of substances, down to very minute quantities. In fact they use these techniques for pesticide residue testing among a plethora of other things. Now, if you run canola oil from non-GM sources and oil from GM sources and see no difference and no extra components like DNA or protein, other than oil, what are you to conclude? No difference? How much do you have to look at?

That's also why canola meal was used for the rat tests, because canola meal can be used for animal feed. As stated above, the EU found the Seralini results showed nothing untoward about the GM canola meal when the correct statistics were applied and that the previous Monsanto studies were quite adequate and complied with the food safety standards.

Thanks heaps, Bugsy. They were going to be my comments almost exactly. The statistical report written by EFSA is a bit hard going, so the press release is probably easier to digest. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maize_Mon863.html

Julie Non-Farmer Newman, funny if you don’t believe in homeopathy, why do you think there is a potential health risk with oil that contains no DNA, no protein and is in every respect identical to oil from non-GM canola? Oil is so easy to test and demonstrate identity as Bugsy said – unlike meal.

Funny that this wasn’t the paper you meant. It was the one you quoted on your website. So what study did you mean then?

Hybrids are supposed to yield better than their inbred parents and the actual data for the Atrazine-resistant hybrids were 96 to 139% of the inbred parent. Still most of the Atrazine-resistant hybrids yielded less than the non-hybrid standard in the trial. There were no GM varieties in the trial, so you can’t make a comparison. Some promise, but a long way from success. And how many acres of Atrazine-resistant canola are grown in Western Australia? You know, you could be growing InVigor tomorrow?

Sorry the WA trials showed that InVigor ARHY0307, with the same maturity group as Surpass 500TT, yielded 130% of Surpass 500TT. You profess to be a farmer, what maturity group of canola would you plant at Calingiri in the last week of May?

And in 2002 in Vic/SA InVigor40 yielded 122 while Hyola60 yielded 112. You ignored this result. Why?

Both Hyola60 and InVigor40 are hybrids, but only InVigor40 has chemical resistance. And you told me the debate was about comparing chemical resistant GM with chemical resistant non-GM. Which is it then?

Glad you read my website www.non-gm-farmers.com and for sharing the excuses for yields varying. I did not compare yields of unapproved varieties. I compared hybrids with hybrids (GM hybrids yield less than non-GM hybrids) As I said, "While the differences are not really significantly less they prove that GM is NOT better yielding as claimed".

Why are the GM companies claiming an increase in yield of around 30% when there is obviously no such yield advantage against our currently grown varieties?

You must agree that we need well planned (not late) independent comparitive yield testing comparing the varieties planned for release:
1. GM hybrids with non-GM hybrids,
2. GM chemical resistant canolas with popular non-GM chemical resistant canolas,
3. Roundup ready comparisons of the same variety with/without the Roundup Ready gene,
4. heavy weed infestation (including radish) with light weed infestation,
5. no pre-emergent control with GM against weed control,
6. none/one/two applications of chemicals to assess difference in yield penalties associated with chemical application.

It appears the GM industry is frightened to participate in independent performance trials in case their outrageous claims are proved wrong. Rather rely on hype than reality?

It also appears the scientists are frightened of independent health testing and the results they have found. When any adverse health testing is reported, do desperate scientists get together with "CGM's gotta work or we lose our promised fortune. Quick everyone "discredit" the report!" ... but consumers can make up their own minds and they are. Consumers don't want a scientific reports saying how oil looks the same, we want health testing on the part that consumers eat and expect it if the regulatory process claims it is "rigorously tested".

I would like to thank the WA government for encouraging testing. I look forward to the results and if it is not positive for GM and those with a vested interests, I expect a massive inundation of scientists yelling "can't be true".

Will be off-line for a while so sign off with a thank you all for joining the debate.

All those trials are certainly a very good idea. But the details generally get bogged down on a few points:

1) Who will pay for these trials?
-If it's the biotech companies (it is their product after all), then would the people conducting the trial be accused of bias? If they have to shell out a small fortune for trials, will there be any guarantee that their product will be allowed to be used?
-If it's the public, then who will do it? There are already questions of anti-GM bias (or even possibly pro-GM bias) in some testing as evidenced by the article that started this thread. Also, questions of taxpayers paying for something that the GM companies should pay for, the anti-GM crowd would almost certainly accuse the government of subsidising the biotech companies.

2) What will be done with the results? Will you or any other anti-GM campaigner accept a positive outcome for the GM crop?

Kim Chance is on the public record as saying that the consumption of GM foods may cause a person to grow a tail!

Jim Peacock, Australia's chief scientist, claims opponents of GM crops are "an unprincipled minority that were spreading false facts and hype."

However, on May 27 of this year, Dr Maarten Stapp, a principal research scientist who worked for CSIRO for 23 years, as an expert on soil health, spoke to the Sunday Age.

He said that soil health is the key to better crops and senior CSIRO management had bullied him and tried to gag his criticisms of GM crops.

"GM won't solve our problems", he said.

He left in March of this year, after his Industry Division was made redundant and though he could have remained with CSIRO, he felt he had a duty to the farming industry to speak the truth on GM crops.

I am concerned that there is little information available on glysophate's potential to cause human cancers or human reproductive problems. In the New York state, Monsanto agreed to discontinue the use of its terms for this chemical as "biodegradable" or "environmentally friendly." Why?

That the use of glysophate, on GM crops is prolific, is another concern, a concern bred from previous stuff-ups where the public and farmers have had assurances that chemicals were safe for use. Many farmers have paid for those assurances with their health or even their lives.

There are now many who are questioning the gung-ho approach to the use of glysophate-based products.

Past eminent scientists endorsed the "cure all" organochlorine pesticides, now either proven or probable carcinogens, mutagens or teratogens.

These bio-accumulative chemicals have compromised every eco system on the planet and the entire food chain.

The scientific community has greatly benefited humans in many areas, however, they have also caused irreparable damage to our eco-systems and human health with their previous "silver bullets."

Their past haste in releasing new but flawed technologies is a very good reason to proceed with caution on the implementation of GM crops!

I'm putting my money on Mr Stapp's advice for the time-being!

Maarten Stapper is to be applauded in regard to publicly challenging the 'CSIRO line' on genetic engineering and, basically, it has cost him his job.

Dickie, you make some very sound points regarding historical records of the use of agri-chemicals and, as a social researcher, I am interested in understanding the very different mind-sets and beleifs of each contributor to this on-line forum.

Simplistically, there are (at least) a couple of camps.... one which believes in technology and see humans as remote from Nature and therefore manipulating and tweaking it is perfectly acceptable. Logic, reason and 'science' are the deemed currencies and anything outside these parameters (e.g. emotions, ethics and morality) are extraneous to the issue. There tends to be a narrower view of a situation and reductionism is used to 'simplify' a component. A mechanistic view of the world predominates in this belief-system.

Conversely, those with a belief system which incorporates humans as an integral component of the Natural world and ecosystem services, prefer to incorporate a more wholistic view and has a greater tendency to guage effects and outcomes over a longer time-frame.

Returning to Maarten's research which indicates soil health is the most important factor to encourage plant yields doesn't attract 'funding' upon which now the CSIRO is dependent as public research funding has been slashed over the past decade. Commercial returns are paramount for the CSIROs (and universities research units) so there has been a shift in the types of research conducted underpinned by the belief that 'the market will deliver the cheapest and most effective outcomes'..... Independent research for its own sake is a thing of the past.......

It is no wonder proponents for technology are feeling threatened.... if this investment doesn't yield the results promised by the developers, it's a bit like some of these property developments.... in spite of trusting the prospectus and the hype, all that's left are angry shareholders wondering what went wrong.

I'm letting you know that I have not "run away" from this debate, but I am going through the supposed "perfect" report from the EU. This may take some time.

I will not follow 'the press release at the end should be what we look at'. This study needs to be looked at with detail and I would also like to know why Monsanto was even at the research department at EFSA when they were doing their studies. They should have been banned.
So far I have found problems with their research as well. (Have yet to go through the whole lot as I am running 3 companies during tax time).
1. The seed was supplied by Monsanto but was not tested to see if it was 100% GM.
2. Only 26% GM was introduced to the rats for the testing. Why?

"in (up to) 4 of the 14 study weeks. Females fed the GMO diet showed a slightly greater body weight compared to their Controls at those weeks. The opposite was the case for Males. However, for both Genders differences were small i.e. below 3% and 4%,respectively. Given that the data were affected by some heteroskedasticity problems, results of the ANOVA may show an increased type 1 error rate. With the non-parametric approach, none of the Gender by Genotype interactions were significant".

I believe that 3% or 4% is significant. Any change is significant as there should be no change and yet 479 tests that were reported to EFSA by both Monsanto (2002) and Séralini et al. (2007). For these 479 tests, Monsanto (2002) reported 35 significant results while Séralini et al. (2007) reported 38 significant results.

"Using this empirical distribution of 184 ratios to characterise acceptable variability between-groups, at least 40 significant cases were observed out of 494 comparisons in 54% of the simulated datasets".

This is not truly debunking Seralini's report, just saying there were differences. Both reports from Monsanto and Seralini said that there are changes in the GM fed rats and the control rats. If GM was so "perfect" why are there changes?

More later.

It looks like we have a toxicologist! Please tell me wise one, why you think a 3% and 4% difference in body weights is biologically significant. I really want to know. What does that mean?

We aren't saying the report is "perfect", we are saying that it has been done, and Seralini was deemed incorrect. As I said before, under what conditions will you ever accept that GM is safe? I suspect probably none, and you are just looking for excuses to hold on to your prejudices.

And bush goddess, I really do resent the false dichotomy and the implication that scientists tend to operate outside of an emotional and ethical/moral framework. That is just wrong, scientists are people too and many of their studies are driven by ethical motivations.

For example, do you realise that many plant biotech scientists recognised that hard chemical dosing in agriculture was unsustainable and that is what led them to GM? Plants that can repel and kill their own pests, without any harmful effects to animals and humans....so much for that eh? So now here we have people who would sooner eat conventional crops grown with pesticides (i.e. neurotoxins) and herbicides (Atrazine) that remain in the environment and kill beneficial insects and wildlife. So much for conservationists!

One thing seems to be true no matter where in the world the debate about GM crops and food takes place. Those in favour of the technologies are quite happy with proper science based regulations. While those against the technology invariably call for a ban on it. If one does not want to benefit from these food technologies that is fine (they can easily avoid the products by buying organic only) but that does not give those people the right to deny these proven technologies to everyone else.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-crops-pesticide-use.html

"From 1996 to 1999, pest management in GE corn, soybeans, and cotton was relatively simple and effective, and engineered crops needed less pesticide than conventional varieties. By 2000, however, a contrary trend appeared—an increase in herbicide use on HT varieties over conventional varieties. That trend has continued and even accelerated in the last four years. Now, nine years of data on GE crops and pesticide use indicate that a total of 122 million more pounds of pesticides have been used on engineered crops than on conventional ones over that period."

If GM does get in, there will be no way that I, as a consumer, will be able to "Just eat organic" as everything will be contaminated when pollen moves.

The reason why I am concerned with the increase in body weight is because if the body weight increases with the 26% GM that they tested, what happens when it becomes 100%? Would you be concerned if you multiplied the test results x 4? I have not always been a non-GM person, but this debate when I challenged (as my name suggests) "Is it really safe" then the test results that you pro GM lobby gave me, showed that they were not totally conclusive, I became concerned.

When I challenged this, you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about. Well I am just a consumer but you have not shown me unequivocal proof yet. If you do not know what you are looking for in science then you will be looking in a haystack with a fork and hoping you don't find anything as I have said before. This is not "Proper science".

RobW

Perhaps those who oppose the implementation of GM crops are a little better researched than you, therefore they may be more aware that not all "silver bullets" are what they appear to be.

Queensland sugar farmers used organochlorine insecticides from 1947 to 1987. However, it was already known in 1959 that aldrin was a carcinogen which also attacked the nervous system in humans. Aldrin was not deregistered in Australia until 1992.

Once a technology is on the market, it is extremely difficult to obtain a ban, despite any scientific evidence of negative health impacts.

In 1980, Australian Vietnam veterans issued their first writ against the Federal government and those chemical companies involved in the Agent Orange case.

In October 1983, the US EPA banned all use of 2,4,5-T. The manufacturers, Dow Chemicals, withdrew its government registration in the US but not in Australia.

Federal and State authorities here at that time said there would be no further bans placed on 2,4,5,-T. History now reveals the horrendous deformities in many Vietnamese children, not even born during the spraying of Agent Orange.

Many of those who eargerly embrace new technologies regard themselves as "progressive thinkers" and their opponents as "luddites."

You state that GM crops are a "proven technology." I've been around a long time, studying food chemicals for some 35 years and the description, "proven technology" now rings rather hollow.

Ten or eleven years of trial runs on GM crops, is not a long time in the often flawed scientific world, heavily infiltrated by trade and commerce representatives, seeking fat profits for a few.

History shows that "progressive thinkers" have force-fed their opponents some very nasty "innovative" technologies. You state that opponents of GM can simply consume organics. With the advent of GM crops, I must ask, "how long will organics remain organic?"

Organics, contaminated by GM crops, prevents the "luddites" from choice, which you vigorously claim should be afforded to the proponents of GM crops.

What guarantee can you give that all people will remain free to choose the type of foods they prefer to consume?

Hi safe, I applaud your challenge in reading the statistical report. The answers to smone of your questions.

EFSA don’t have a research department as such. They assess studies submitted as part of regulatory packages. Monsanto conducted the experiments that are at the centre of this discussion. That is why they are mentioned. Greenpeace paid CRIIGEN to find evidence of harm in the data as part of their current push to create a body of research showing harm. This can also be seen in their support of the Russian neuroscientist Ermakova.

The seed was tested for GM content, see the original study Appendix 6.

The rats were fed diets containing 11% or 33% GM corn. They were not fed 100% GM corn, because rats cannot live on corn alone.

Differences of 3 or 4% in means are unlikely to be important if that factor normally varies by 30%. All rats will be slightly different. Fraternal twins in the same household will grow at different rates and at different times, because of different genetic make-ups. Nobody gets concerned unless these differences are outside the normal range for children of that age. The same applies here. Any differences found need to be assessed against the natural variation in those parameters. Only if they fall outside that range is further investigation warranted.

If these differences only occurred at up to 4 of 14 weeks, but were gone by 14 weeks, what does that mean?

The reason that there were some changes is because if you measure enough things, you will find one is different, purely by chance.

I don’t know where you got this 26% GM from. I point out that the rats were fed 11% GM corn as part of their diet or 33% GM corn. The rats would get very sick from being fed 100% GM corn, just as they would from being fed 100% non-GM corn.

From your first post on this forum in December 2005.

“I don't want to eat GM foods. Having a regulator saying it is safe will not convince me to eat it”

Says it all.

You make some good points, Agronomist. The claim that butterflies died when fed pollen from GM canola flowers was widely circulated some years ago. The truth of course is not quite what the anti-GM campaigners want you to believe. In fact, the butterflies were fed only pollen from GM canola, so they either starved to death if they chose not to eat something they didn't want to eat or they were poisoned if they continued to eat it. In real life, such butterflies would simply fly away from the GM crop and find alternative food sources. As I understand it, there are no reports of beneficial insects being adversely affected by GM canola.

It's interesting to note that Ian Edward advises that Greenpeace published an article written by Dr Carman and states:

"To most individuals this might have raised a potential conflict of interest flag about Dr Carman's competency to conduct "independent" trials but not to Minister Chance."

I am yet to understand how there could be a "conflict of interest" since I fail to see how Greenpeace or Dr Carman would profit from their opposition to GM crops.

Dr Carman is an organic chemist, a public health specialist and an epidemiologist. One could only perceive a bias on Dr Carman's part (if any) to be totally towards the welfare of public health.

On the other hand, I understand that Ian Edwards is managing director of 2 biotech companies in Perth. Therefore, his article promoting GM crops, could strongly be perceived to contain a vested interest given that Mr Edwards would be totally reliant on income from the agricultural and farming industry. Most forums, I am sure would have a perception of a "conflict of interest."

Ian Edwards has sung the praises of the Royal Society of London. Seemingly these praises are not universal. The Institute of Science in Society published an article on the Royal Society's views on GM crops and their methods of peer reviews. Posters can access this article by calling up "Royal Society Under Fire."

People are free to believe whatever they like. The problem arises when advocates of food that represents approximately 2% of the food supply are calling for the remaining 98% to be of their choosing. Not quite democratic.

As I have said many times choice is fine yet it is those who oppose Gm crops that are calling for bans. People who have no problem with GM content are not calling for a ban on organic food even when there is significant issues around safety well documented with using manure as fertilizer(remember organic spinach last year).

The evaluations of safety re: GM crops and food are not ten years but atleast twenty five years. Somehow there will never be enough safety data for critics I suspect. And as for Greenpeace not profitting from their anti GM campaign. Simply not true. Their donations have increased by approximately 18% since they began their anti-GM campaign. There is also the organic food interests they hold but don't talk about that definitely make them money by stirring fear in the public over GM crops and food.

Simply put. There is not a shread of evidence of harm to humans or the environment from 11 years of commercial growing and cunsumer consumption of GM crops and food. That track record can not be matched by any other type of food production. All the "what ifs" in the world can not change this safety record.

Finally, it is very ignorant of people to assume the world actually as a choice of adopting this technology. We do not. Global pressures on land, water and wild stocks mean we must incorporate GM technologies into global agriculture systems. Without such the remaining wilderness will dissappear to the plough. Now that is what I call unsustainable agriculture! This does not mean GM crops are a panacea, they are not. Often they are not even te best choice for a given situation. however they are the best choice for many and the only choice for some. To deny this based on ideology is to put ones head in the sand.

Cheers

The spurious argument that GM technology is needed to 'feed the world' is absoultely untrue as there is an abundance of food being produced already. The problems lie in equitable distribution systems and universal access to it all.

It is estimated there are 900 million people receiving less than 200 calories per day yet, conversely, there are one billion clinically obese people..... shortage of food? Apparently not.

Yes.... erosion, salinity, pollution, housing and industrial development are reducing the amounts of arable land available for food production but the first two can be reversed by regenerative farming systems. These focus on polyculture systems which reflect and enhance a rich and complex biodiversity upon which we rely for our quality of life.

The example of butterflies in an earlier posting is a beauty; apparently butterflies aren't restricted to living only on GM food crops if they don't want to.... they can find other sources. Wrong. In the monoculture situation, there are no other sources of food (weeds) as they have been spryed into oblivion..... eliminated.

Another interesting point from an earlier posting..... apparently donations to Greenpeace have increased by 18% since this organisation has been involved in the anti-GM debate..... I read this as a powerful display of conusmer sentiment against the (wider) introduction of these products.....

Dear “Safe”:

The report you have cited claiming increases in pesticide use, “http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-crops-pesticide-use.html “, was paid for by the anti-GM Union of Concerned Scientists, and was written by Chuck Benbrook, who serves as the Organic Center’s Chief scientist (http://www.organic-center.org/about.staff.php). Benbrook’s claims have been widely shown to be misleading (eg., www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810). For example, although there have been some small increases in soybeans in some cases, these have been because glyphosate is a less potent herbicide replacing others of greater persistence and toxicity to non-target species and humans.

Dear Bush:
Do you make a living out of farming? Until you do, I don’t think you can lecture the rest of us on “regenerative” and polyculture systems. Ag is trying to be regenerative now (limited by costs) and there is a reason why polyculture is not more widely practiced; it is less efficient and the public (through the large food chains) is not willing to pay what it costs.

Have you travelled in Africa where the food problems are most acute? You are right; the food problem is currently one of distribution, but what a problem distribution is! The distribution systems in Africa are so poor that it is hard to even distribute malaria medicines and bed nets, much less tonnes of food! And there is the importance of self-sufficiency to self-esteem. People need to be able to produce their own food, and on less land and with less environmental impact. GM is already delivering that in South Africa, and could do more in the rest of Africa, but is currently inhibited by lobbying by NGOs and market threats.

I was trained as an entomologist. If you think that “there are no other sources of food (weeds) as they have been spryed into oblivion..... eliminated”, you need to come to North America and see the reality. The primary source of non-pest insects like butterflies has always been field margins, and the “weeds” and insects are still abundant there.

That Greenpeace may have increased its donations by 18% is only a measure of the success of its fund raising campaigns.

Dear All:

I am struck by how this debate has paralleled the recent controversy over “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Just as with the safety and value of GM crops, the vast majority of scientists who work in disciplines related to Climate Change accept the overwhelming data that Climate Change is being driven by humans. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and despite having their errors publicly exposed, climate change deniers continue to make their claims (eg., that it is the sun!) and inexplicably continue to receive support in government circles (Sen Nick Minchin has apparently argued in support of “Swindle”).

Similarly, despite repeated corrections on the facts by people like Agronomist, Bugsy and myself, Julie “non-GM Farmer” Newman continues to make claims that are simply false if not fanciful, and yet has enjoyed a favourable reception from Kim Chance, the original focus of this thread.

The producers of “Swindle” claim that the proponents of climate change make money from it. Should we be surprised that the GM deniers on this website make the same claims about those who have the temerity to support GM? But as we have learned about “Swindle”, people really making money off the controversy are the producers of the “Swindle”! And here we see claims that Greenpeace’s revenues have increased 18%!

The facts are that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the registered GM crops are at least as safe for humans as conventionally or organically grown crops, and safer for the environment. It is also abundantly evident that farmers are making more money by growing these crops, as illustrated by their rapid international adoption by some 8.5 million farmers. People who don’t want to eat GM will be able to access organic, because only a few large area crops are even being targeted for GM and segregation systems are already practiced for organic. Essentially this is an argument over whether the vast majority of farmers should work as serfs, accepting less income and greater health and environmental risks, for a small minority of the population.

Democracy demands otherwise.

Rick

Since we are on the issue of "conflicts of interest", perhaps some posters are unaware of the following:

Ian Edwards worked for Pioneer Hi-Bred for 22 years. Pioneer Hi-Bred is a company owned by Dupont which has many patents for GM seeds.

One could not be blamed for perceiving this long-term affiliaton to have the potential for Dr Edwards to have a vested interest? Therefore, if there is no conflict of interest, shouldn't the author, when writing articles to influence his readers, add a disclaimer as a footnote?

Dickie, and I once worked for the US Government, but I don't see how that is relevant. You seem to live in a strange world where people don't move on when they change employers and continue to follow the instructions of their previous employers. Is this something that you do?

While DuPont has GM patents, it has no commercial GM crops - yet. Likewise, US Universities hold a vast number of GM patents and I am sure Australian Universities do to. This is because Universities is where a lot of the early research was done.

This type of attack is the last resort of those bereft of arguments. It shouldn't matter whether Ian Edwards or anybody else once worked for Y company or not. If their statements are wrong you should be able to point out where the statements are wrong and provide the support for that view.

Dear Dickie:

In reply to one of your earlier messages, I began studying and then working in agriculture after reading Rachel Carson’s "Silent Spring”. Carson’s literature review shows that all of the harms from organochlorines were detected and described within 7 years of their widespread use, published by 1957. We are now into 11 years of GM use, and with 50 years of advances in risk detection, with no problems.

“How long will organics remain organic?" As long as you and like minded people are willing to continue to pay a premium price for current production and segragation practices. Few crops are even being targeted for GM. How will GM canola, for example, affect what you eat? Apples, broccoli, organic beef, etc?

This is an unnecessary beat up of organic ag on GM, and one that is not being reciprocated. There is no reason for organic to be affected.

The Institute of Science in Society has no scientific reputation. Even before ISIS, their leader, Mae-Wan Ho, was known only for her weird ideas denying Darwinian theories of evolution. These people are in the same class as a few scientists who deny that HIV causes AIDS.

On the subject of conflicts of interest, if you really want everything above board, how about if you ask GM opponents to offer transparency on their funding? Where does GeneEthics get its funds? Jeffrey Smith earns money off his “best selling” books attacking GM, and if you think that it is worthwhile trumpeting Ian Edwards’ history, is it any less relevant that Smith has been a member of the Natural Law Party, the political arm of the Maharishi movement, which is opposed to GM.

Dear All:
I see that Julie (“non-GM”) Newman has confirmed that she has little regard for biodiversity (or toxicology), declaring that “More feminine looking male frogs eh?! You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel…” (July 6). (BTW, the scientific paper claims that the frogs are really messed up.) Given Julie’s alliance with Greenpeace on GM, what strange bedfellows politics makes!

Rick

Agronomist

You allude to my query over a potential conflict of interest on Ian Edwards part, as being "the last resort of those bereft of arguments."

However, I have already presented my argument on the advent of GM crops.

I'm sure you will agree that the claim from a pro-GM poster, that Greenpeace's revenue has increased by 18% since they commenced an anti-GM stance, is quite ridiculous given that increase, over a minimum period of some 10 years, would be considered peanuts and therefore holds no relevance at all on the issue of GM crops.

Greenpeace is spending $150 million dollars on its worldwide campaign against GM crops and food. How is this not relevant to the GM debate?

Golden Rice could have already been saving hundreds of thousands of children from going blind each year but huge pressure from NGO's (including Greenpeace) to convince governments test/regulate this GM product into oblivion have delayed its introduction by years.

Demands that it be proven "risk-free" are actually ploys to delay, delay, delay as nothing can ever be proven risk-free. Since the ONLY way we can truely know how safe something is is by past safe use. The track record on GM crops and food is very encouraging. Still having said that a case by case evaluation is still important.

R Roush

Thank you for supporting my claim about the use of organochlorines where the serious health impacts of these chemicals to humans were detected and published by 1959.

Could you also advise why organochlorines remained available in Australia for nearly 40 years after that scientific discovery and were not totally banned until 1997, with the exception of mirex?

Mirex, one of the "dirty dozen" chemicals continues to be sprayed on mango crops in the NT, even though mirex was banned in the US in the '70's and alternative, safer chemicals are available. This chemical and its unintentional by-products of dioxins and furans cause cancers, immune and reproductive disorders, respiratory diseases and diabetes.

Bush Goddess continues to raise some very valid points where she advises of the plentiful though inequitable distribution of food.

How many of us have witnessed through the media, whole orchards of Australian fruits being harvested and then buried in the ground?

RobW's claim that Greenpeace has spent $150 million dollars on its anti-GM programme also supports Bush Goddess' assumption that there must indeed be many citizens world-wide, who remain unconvinced over the "wondrous" merits of GM crops and clearly, many must be donating to and requesting from GP, that their issues of concern over GM crops, be raised in a public forum.

I remind posters that Greenpeace also employ many qualified scientists to arrive at their proven conclusions on the many and varied threats to human health. Unfortunately, Australian governments are notorious for remaining asleep at the wheel!

Dickie:

I didn’t say that organochlorines had serious health impacts on humans. The jury is still out on human health risks, where the data are ambiguous. I still wouldn’t want them. The chemicals were banned for environmental impacts, especially on bird eggs in the case of DDT.

You are getting off the topic of GM, and I don’t know much about the specific Australian decisions on old pesticides. However, for most pesticides, the decisions have been generally been made around the world on a risk/benefit basis. Indeed, DDT is making a comeback in Africa for mosquito control around houses because the risks to human health of DDT are much lower than the harms of malaria, which kills 1-3 million per year mostly black African kids.

I’m guessing that organochlorines were still used in Australia for some time because the risks were considered low compared to benefits and alternatives, and that there were few alternatives.

A similar risk-benefit analysis seems to be the reason that atrazine, which Julie “Non-GM Farmer” Newman is so keen to defend, is still allowed in Australia while being banned in Europe.

Mirex is very effective against ants and one of the few (only?) effective pesticides in some cases. I’d still be looking to get rid of it.

In any case, GM crops are being regulated much more stringently than pesticides. There is no credit given to benefits. For all practical purposes, if there is any discernable risk, the GM does not get registered and go to market. In contrast to atrazine, for example, there is no way that a GM crop could be sold in Australia if there was evidence of adverse effects on frogs!

With respect to the distribution of those fruit crops being buried, how would you distribute them to Zimbabwe (for example) where they are needed?

Greenpeace does employ a few people with scientific degrees, although to my knowledge, none in Australia. Given that their salaries clearly depend on adhering to Greenpeace policy, they can hardly be seen as independent and without a conflict of interest.

R Roush

"The jury is still out on human health risks." It's hard to believe that you have been working in agriculture when you make such misleading statements. The data is not ambiguous. Some organochlorines are deemed proven carcinogens, mutagens or teratogens, the rest are deemed "probable."

The Stockholm Convention, of which Australia has ratified, was formed purely from concerns over the impacts of persistent organic pollutants to human health and the eco systems.

In contradiction, Australia asked to be exempted from banning mirex until 2009, however, they are permitted to extend the use for another "five" years hence. Mirex is one of the most toxic chemicals known to man - and invented by man! Furthermore, POPs are known for their transboundary nature and can invade other areas thousands of miles from the source.

You state that the "risks were considered low compared to benefits and alternatives." That statement is also misleading. There are no other chemicals as toxic as organochlorines. The risks are extremely high.

The World Health Organisation and the Stockholm Convention reluctantly agreed to the return of DDT to control malaria. The current spraying is much less than previous and this is a desperate interim measure until another chemical can be proven to eradicate malaria. However, the spraying of DDT will continue to affect the eco-systems and the health of some of those in African countries and beyond. The lag time for adverse effects of DDT to show in humans is much longer than that for malaria.

You may consider I am off topic. Not really. I am merely attempting to point out that Australia is well known for "jumping the gun" when it comes to accepting "breakthroughs" which damage human health and our eco systems. Our state and federal governments have historically adopted a long period of denial and procrastination when it comes to fixing up the mess.

After all, we are already notorious for emitting the largest amount of CO2 per capita on the planet and procrastination by a government in denial is alive and well!

This EU report is a disgrace saying that it's scientific and baffling anyone who reads it with scientific jargon. They have not done any experiments themselves so they are only going on a report that can be influenced by the pro-GM sector.

The report from EU is not a scientific paper as it's only an opinion influenced by Monsanto who were at the meeting. This is not good science. I demand a right to choose to avoid GM until the tests that I want are done. What is your problem with this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm shows the bribery that goes on with Monsanto and this is not good science.

I refuse to take what Monsanto says as they only want to sell as much as possible and they don't want to find anything in their tests so they adapt their tests to show that. I want proven technology with unbiased testing to prove the safety and done by scientists that have not got vested interest with the GM corporations or people.

The regulators do not do tests so I'm not going to accept an "opinion" of the regulators based on an unscientific basis.

Please let us know which country has approved Golden Rice for release. Because lobbying does not stop the approval it only stops the release. And in Australia that is on economic grounds.

Dear Dickie:
First, let me reiterate that I would be among the first to get rid of organochlorines, including mirex, although I would still allow their use for bednets in malarial control. For me, organochlorine harms to natural ecosystems are sufficient to justify their banning in agriculture. However, the harms of organochlorine insecticides from common field or food exposure (as opposed to industrial exposure, such as at processing plants or among improperly protected pesticide applicators) have been hard to prove.

Let’s turn to your main point, which seems to that Australia is "jumping the gun" in approving GM. Which countries do you credit for being more responsible? Europe perhaps? European countries have approved and are growing GM crops like Bt corn, but are banning atrazine. Contrast this to Australia, which continues to allow atrazine, but not GM “food and feed” crops, including GM canola that would displace atrazine use in that crop.

Is Australia jumping the gun or lagging behind?

Dear Safe:

Where’s your evidence that Monsanto influenced this review?

You have every right to avoid GM, but not to force farmers into poverty or the use of more dangerous pesticides to satisfy your whims. You can eat organic and avoid GM. What’s wrong with that?

In citing the 2.5 year old story on Monsanto and bribes, you neglected to observe that it was Monsanto who detected the bribery, reported it and accepted the fines. From the website you have cited (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm)

” The chemicals-and-crops firm said it became aware of irregularities at a Jakarta-based subsidiary in 2001 and launched an internal investigation before informing the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).”

That is, Monsanto started to sort this out some at least 3 years before the news story you quoted. My recollection is that they also sacked the rogue employee.

That also reminds me about the post from “rallyround”, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 5:05:15 AM, who claimed that
“Monsanto has just been nailed in South Africa for advertising that no adverse effects about the dangers of GM food had ever been reported. They denied to High Court Judge Mervyn King that MON 863 which had caused liver damage to rats, was their product.”

It took me a while to track down this obscure story, but what in fact happened is that Mervin King, is no longer an active judge but heads up the Advertising Standards Authority, objected to the statement that "no negative effects have been reported".

Given that anti-GM activists have reported negative effects, even if unsupported by further scientific reviews, as Agronomist has detailed on this website, Monsanto may have been technically wrong. What Monsanto should have said was that 'no substantiated scientific or medical negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported'.

R Roush

Australia's contradictory and shoddy regulatory systems is evident by the continuing use of the suspected endocrine disruptor, atrazine. I refer you to the much peer-reviewed Professor Dr Tyrone Hayes' expert opinion on atrazine:

www.atrazinelovers.com

My concerns remain over the prolific use of glyphosate which means this chemical can be sprayed up to 200 times onto genetically engineered crops.

The glyphosate metabolite (AMPA) has been identified in the tissues, urine and faeces of rats and rabbits, in the liver in poultry, pigs cattle and the kidney of pigs and cattle (USEPA). Do we really desire ingesting this chemical through our food chain? (rats excluded of course!)

Swedish Professor Lennart Hardell claims an increase by a factor of 3 in non-hodgkins lymphona in humans. He concedes his research was limited but it was sufficient to warrant further investigation.

Proponents of GM crops continue to use the argument that Europe has readily adopted the planting of crops.

This too is misleading since only 6 countries out of 25 are growing GM crops. The EU are bullying Greece to "conform" and pressure is continuing.

However, in contrast to the US, where GM crops cover some 54.6 million hectares, the following countries individual areas cover no more than 0.1million hectares:

Romania, Mexico, Spain, Columbia, France, Iran, Honduras, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany, Slovakia.

Denmark banned the spraying of glyphosates in September 2003.

The USEPA researchers suggested "glyphosate exposure possibly increases the risk of cancer but definitive conclusions could not be reached due to small sample sizes and confounding factors."

The US Department of Health found glyphosate and a glyphosate formulation were toxic to human placenta cell cultures and that glyphosate formulations were 10 to 100 times more acutely toxic to fish.

There is currently much evidence to warrant concern over the use of glyphosates.

Proponents of GM crops have a responsibility to look at all the current evidence from accredited institutions.

Australian governments have too often replaced one flawed technology with another but then so many of our politicians are blessed with great vision which far exceeds their ability.

dickie, you may like some more up to date info on Denmarks glyphosate restrictions. It appears the Autumn "ban" is no more.

Of course you may no be happy that the following link is from monsanto, but you will realise that what they say is heavily scrutinised, unlike sites that choose to reveal only partial truths.

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/denmark_bkg_05.pdf

If pro-GM activists really believed their misleading bulldust regarding GM crops, they would not refuse to accept liability for the problems associated with it. I do not think it is unreasonable for non-GM farmers to refuse to accept the economic loss that GM crops cause, particularly considering the GM sector also refuse this liability.
Interesting how the debate always regresses to the "Greenpeace alliance" rubbish. Neither Judy Carman or myself have ever been funded by Greenpeace but often accused of it. Talking to Greenpeace (or anyone else for that matter) does not make us "bedfellows". If the pro-GM activists talked to Greenpeace, you may find out that contrary to the bulldust spread, that there is only one national campaigner employed in Australia with the GM portfolio. Why are the pro-GM activists so worried about one person? I only met her for the first time last month when we were both at the same forum so claiming we are "bedfellows" is a bit odd eh?
Rick, Atrazine is banned in Europe for the same reason it is banned in Australian wet areas... it is unsuitable for wet areas but more suited to broadacre dryland areas. We have used Atrazine for decades and not noticed our frogs looking more feminine and they are breeding happily. If there were serious problems, it would be banned.
You are obviously just trying to create mischief by trying to remove non-GM opposition varieties. Shame on you.

Lets talk about the so-called economic losses from GM cross-pollination. Seems there is no exact value or level from cross pollination of organic crops from GM crops in any organic accreditation I have ever seen. So if there is no set limit there can not be any economic loss from loosing accreditation from GM cross pollination. Even the IFOAM does not recogize a threshold of GM crops cross pollination of organic crops and furthermore DOES NOT advocate testing to determine any level. Seems just claiming harm is good enough to demand a ban on a proven safe agricultural technology then. Hmmm.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912
shows bribes in Indonesia November 2006:-

"Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies of FDA,EPA and even the Supreme Court." This is a conflict of interest as these people would be making the laws that govern GM and the EPA is meant to be regulating.

http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1811 The judgement of ASA showing that Monsanto have been telling lies with regards to the health safety.

"January, this year, Monsanto was fined 15,000 euros (19,000 dollars)in a French court for misleading the public about the
environmental impact of herbicide Roundup".

"A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use. Monsanto's French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros".

"In 2005 Monsanto was caught smuggling South African produced GM Bollgard cotton seed into Indonesia disguised as rice. Monsanto was
fined for bribing Indonesian officials".

Quotes:-

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" — FDA, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229

"In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do" - Dr. Henry Miller, in charge of biotechnology issues for the Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 1994

"For years, these guys said PCBs were safe, too. But there's obviously a corporate culture of deceiving the public." Mike Casey of the Environmental Working Group"

As I have said countless times, I demand to be able to have non-GM produce available to me as a consumer. Contamination occurs and this is proven beyond doubt. You cannot segregate non-GM and GM. I still believe that GM is a biohazard.

Dear Dickie:

I forgot to mention that there are many other chemicals and natural compounds that are much more toxic than organochlorins, such as the fumonisins produced by fungi, some of which are much reduced in Bt corn.

I don’t know whether the resistance in any GM crop would allow you to spray it 200 times with glyphosate, but who would want to? To save costs, farmers use as little as they can.

What is your source on the glyphosate metabolite (AMPA)? Was this in laboratory feeding studies, or in exposure from foods in the marketplace?

Hardell’s paper failed to show that any relationship of glyphosate with cancer was statistically significant, that is, that the few cases he found were anything more than a chance association between people who thought they had used glyphosate and the cancer. His paper actually shows a stronger relationship with glass wool and non-hodgkins lymphona! As you indicated, even Hardell concedes his research was limited and inconclusive. It is also contrasts with many more detailed studies, including in reviews by the US National Academy of Sciences that failed to find any significant health risks from glyphosate.

If glyphosate was actually applied directly to human placenta cell cultures, I would be concerned. The challenge not met by those researchers was showing that glyphosate actually gets there.

It has been known for many years that a surfactant in some formulations of glyphosate is toxic to fish (and frogs too). As a consequence, the manufacturers have produced formulations without the surfactant for users who need to control weeds near water.

Regulators and people like myself do look at all the current evidence from accredited institutions. You still have not surfaced any that I have not seen before.

Europe has not readily adopted GM crops, but they are now adopting them, but as you note European countries are growing them. The area is increasing.

You and Julie non-GM farmer obviously need to have a chat about atrazine, who has again ignored the previous correction from Agronomist that the concerns are limited to wet areas

Juile:

Existing laws mean that companies are already liable for the crops they market to the extent that they, rather than the people who grow them, caused the harm. This is no different than with pesticides, where, for example, we could hardly expect Syngenta to be liable if you carelessly applied atrazine so that it got into a creek and risked frogs there, or drifted onto a non-TT canola paddock and damaged it.

You do know, by the way, that atrazine got into the water supplies of Adelaide, which sits in the driest state in our dry continent?

You have raged about losses from GM crops to non-GM farmers for years now. Can you show evidence documented by reputable sources that any non-GM farmer has had to accept any “economic loss that GM crops cause”?

Julie, are you denying that Greenpeace created your Network of Confused Farmers website? How was that funded again? Or that you at least once had regular teleconferences with Greenpeace, as Nic Kentish revealed to the media? Are you denying that Carman was identified in a TV broadcast as a Greenpeace spokesperson on GM? Don’t you have similar aims as Greenpeace, to block farmer access to GM crops in southern Australia? Wouldn’t cases like this strike most people as alliances?

Isn’t it true that you have met more people from Greenpeace than just the one you mentioned? Like John Hepburn? I don’t worry about Greenpeace in Australia, because it is clear that they have lost the debate in Australia, and if it is true to that they only have one person, it suggests that they know it too. I am more concerned about the imperialism of Greenpeace trying to limit farmer options in Africa.

I’ll turn the question around though; why is Greenpeace so worried about GM crops, when the overwhelming evidence is that they have been good for the environment?

When you say that “We have …. not noticed our frogs looking more feminine and they are breeding happily”, who is “we” can you outline these detailed observations? Dickie and Tyrone Hayes may be interested.

Rick you really are clutching at straws and again resorting to childish name calling!
I am sure you know that Greenpeace did not create or fund our NCF website (www.non-gm-farmers.com). George Kailis donated the money and arranged the shell of the site to be set up for me. I have done every posting on that site and am the only person ever to access it apart from the professionals George paid to set it up in the first place.
Obviously the pro-GM sector are frightened of facts or they would not worry about my website.
Big deal... we talked to Greenpeace to get them to understand what the issue is for farmers. Considering their lobbying experience, this is not unrealistic. At that time it was only John Hepburn who was replaced by Jeremy Tager and now Louise (...?). They have not moved en mass from Australia, there was never a mass to start with. What is unrealistic is how frightened and threatened the pro-GM activists are of Greenpeace and any other person opposing GM crops.
Our aim is to ensure non-GM farmers are not adversely impacted by a GM crop we do not need and do not want.
The pro-GM aim is clearly to make as much money out of farmers as possible and perhaps we are a threat because we expose the outrageous misleading claims that the pro-GM sector is making.
No, I do not think the debate is lost at all. If States ignore their legislated responsiblity to assess economics, they would need to be liable for that.
We are not organic farmers, we are conventional farmers. Canadian conventional farmers constantly accept a drop in price for their canola as it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate it (to do so would entail a IP system similar to organics.) The ACCC law states that if anyone makes a non-GM claim, it is legally up to them to ensure the non-GM claim is correct. Legally Non-GM = NO GM.

Considering how Canola was created by fusing two Napas entire genomes together, the notion that some consider there is something called non genetically modified canola is rather humorous.

I find it very interesting how some try to twist facts. The so-called pro-gm lobby are not afraid of greenpeace or any other critics of GM crops as the science and the track record speak far louder than any anti-campaign. 10 million farmers know the truth.

The so called pro-GM crowd are quite fine with people not wanting to grow this type of crop but the anti crowd seem to think they have the right to force others to live by their rules. Hmmm

Rob, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting the term "genetically modified". Yes, the genes have been modified but not using the GM technique which refers to recombinant DNA. The great non-GM advances in plant improvements compared to the currently poor advances in GM plant improvements shows what a failure GM is after over a decade of false promises.
We have no problem with what other farmers do or what the R&D want to do or what big business plans to do providing it does not impact negatively with our income. Those fighting the consumer or environmental debate feel the same about health and environment too.
Why not call for a very public debate to help those not involved in the debate understand what it is about ... pro-GM versus anti-GM on equal terms? Would the pro-GM sector be interested?

Is it really safe.
I find it very interesting that you would put a quote from Dr. H. Miller in your argument. You do realize that he wrote the book titled Frankenfood Myth. He is a very vocal proponent of agriclutural biotechnology.

Non-GM farmer

I have been debating this issue for years and it is the anti crowd that refuse to have a straight up debate not those with all the science on their side. My experience is that once the critics of GM crops and technology find out their empty rhetoric is quickly disproved by someone with extensive knowledge of what is real and what is rhetoric, they will not have a debate at all. Please prove me wrong. Would you like to debate any facts I have had published in the articles on my website? http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager

Dear Safe:
You still have not provided evidence that Monsanto influenced the review mentioned above. Nor have you told me why you just can’t eat organic and avoid GM. Organic is and will continue to be non-GM produce, and admixture with GM can be avoided. There are only two GM foods currently proposed to be grown in Australia, for example. Just how much canola and cottonseed oil do you use? Why not just use olive oil if you are so concerned?

You have found a number of websites that take statements out of context, or have not mentioned the follow-up investigations that cleared up the issues. For example, as Rob W indicated, if you read all of Henry Miller’s article, you’d know that he believes that the US regulatory system is TOO strict. Miller accuses “big business” of encouraging strict regulation, which has the effect of blocking smaller companies and universities, which don’t habe the tens of million $ to do all the required safety studies. Monsanto et al actually wanted rigorous regulation to help reassure the public.

If Monsanto really wanted to get away with bribery, or at least save themselves huge fines, why did they turn themselves in to the US government? Who would have found out about bribes in Indonesia, where bribery is apparently seen as a cost of business?

The new link, written by Jeffrey Smith, that you claim shows bribes in Indonesia in November 2006, just repeats same story from 2005. Smith makes money off books repeating every bad story he has ever heard about GM (having met him, I don’t think he even looks for any positive evidence for GM). Just one example is the claim that sheep were made sick or died from Bt cotton in India, a claim made by activists in India and completely discredited by other Indians.

Jeffrey Smith is a devotee of the anti-GM Maharashi TM Meditation movement and has claimed to believe (and to have demonstrated) among other things, “Yogic Flying”, which has been described as looking a lot like hopping. Just google “Jeffrey Smith Yogic Flying”.

Dear safe (continued)

Relevance? If someone came to your door campaigning against a woman’s right to an abortion with all manner of facts and stats, most people would find it relevant if the person was also a staunch Catholic or fundamentalist.

It is common to claim that "Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies of FDA, EPA and even the Supreme Court”. Just who are the offending people? Some examples that have been cited in the past include Donald Rumsfeld and Ann Veneman, neither of whom worked for Monsanto.

Monsanto has been criticised in a few jurisdictions around the world for claiming that Roundup is biodegradable, which of course it is, but some people have picked at technical details of the wording. For context, Roundup is far more degradable than atrazine!

So many of the other claims you make are just not believable, which leads me to doubt the others. “Bollgard cotton seed into Indonesia disguised as rice”? The seeds are vastly different in appearance.

Thanks, Rojo, for correcting the record on the glyphosate ban.

Julie:
Even your own website says that Greenpeace handled the funding for your website. You also teleconferenced with them. You have worked with Greenpeace’s John Hepburn, Jeremy Tager and now Louise (Sales?). So far as I can tell, there is no substantial difference between NCF’s position with that of Greenpeace or GeneEthics, for that matter, which seems to be to prevent access to GM crops by the vast majority of southern growers. I note that GeneEthics is also participating in an NCF Public Meeting on August 29 in Horsham. Most reasonable people would see that as an alliance of NCF, GeneEthics and Greenpeace. Why are you so keen to deny that?

Your website reminded me of other questions. What is the membership of NCF? Is it more than 10 people? Are there elections and bylaws? Who can join and how? I know I am far from the first to ask these questions. Why has NCF been so secretive on these points

RobW, your link to your website does not lead anywhere so it is difficult to comment.
I have never turned away from a debate and have always encouraged it because in fair debate, we can easily disprove the rubbish that we are being told. I have however experienced being invited to participate in a debate and when the pro-GM opposition found out I was attending, they refused to participate and hence the fair debate was cancelled and replaced with a well funded pro-GM forum.
RobW, you have every opportunity to debate what we have been debating on the forum but your input has been very limited. Debate away!

Non-GM Farmer
I have no idea what you are talking about. Every link works to my website. Either your last post is a stalling tactic or you have problems contecting to proper links. I await your debate on the large amount of well documented facts about GM crops and food available on my website. I would particularly like to hear which points in the articles I have written you would like to challenge for accuracy.

Cheers

Rick,
We have debated this before in depth and as you rightly pointed out by referring to my website reference, I have been extremely honest regarding George paying Greenpeace who passed the payment to the website coordinator. I was completely unaware of the arrangement but George is a busy man and he chose to do it that way. We are talking about a miniscule amount of money compared to the ridiculous overspending (paid by corporates AND governments) on promotion done by the pro-GM activists. I have personally paid my costs. I don't really care what your attitude is to how talking to someone can possibly mean "working with" or being a "bedfellow" although I do sympathise with your wife/partner if you accuse her of the same. It is not a denial issue as I do not have a problem with it, it is correction of you trying to deliberately misinterpret the facts. However I realise its normal for the pro-GM activists to play the man, not the ball.
Good... Genethics is attending are they? I have not been involved in
arranging that meeting. Do you also consider yourself to have alliances with Monsanto if you speak at the same conference?
Read our website, NCF has never been secretive... we are a NETWORK of
concerned farmers set up to research and distribute information and networks network with a primary aim of distributing researched information and submitting this research to other organisations to influence policy.
Networks don't run like the established farm lobby groups (of which I have held senior positions in and very aware of some of the less-than-democratic policy formation methods).

R Roush

Your denials of claims made by GM opponents is interesting in that you are literally denying dozens of documented facts revealing that Monsanto has played dirty.

I can only access threads where it is Monsanto which has been the subject of litigation for fraudulent advice over their products.

I remind posters that Monsanto were the manufacturers of the heinous Agent Orange. One should view the hideous photographs of current Vietnamese children afflicted with physical deformities from this chemical. It appears there is no hope of compensation from Monsanto.

Many of us are aware of the appalling conflicts of interest between government and industry in this country. One need only investigate the number of past senior personnel from the Department of Environment in Western Australian who now have senior positions with Alcoa - one of the big polluters who was once regulated by these senior personnel.

"Is it safe" is correct when he advises that the food regulatory authorities in the US has been infiltrated by senior representatives from Monsanto.

Western Australia has learnt a lesson from the negative influences of lobbyists and their capture of ministers in government where Mr Carpenter has now placed restrictions on lobbyists' access to those who make decisions on constituents' behalf.

These restrictions are long overdue particularly when the public learn that the head of the EPA had planned to work for Burke and Grill! How can one be influenced by lobbyists over environmental assessments? It's a science! The Corruption and Crime Committee have yet to finalise their investigations over this ignominious affair.

A result of national and international revelations of corruption within governments has bred a public distrust of the influential players, their coziness with politicians and senior bureaucrats and their zest for profits.

Western Australians are still reeling from the current revelations and the many conflicts of interest between their government and industry.

GM proponents would be well advised to push their barrow elsewhere. Their alignment with an industry which is internationally viewed as unethical, will not influence the bruised and battered people of WA!

OK Non-GM
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. It seem the webpage link under my name does not work but the link in the text of my message acouple back certainly does.

I will start then. Please explain how using ionizing radiation to randomly mutate DNA throughout the entire genome of a plant and NEVER knowing which DNA , how much DNA or where in the genome the mutations have occurred is safer than knowing exactly what gene has been added, where it is added at what levels it is expressed in every tissue of the plant. At present there are over 2200 different varieties of crops that have been created by completely random mutations of the DNA by radiation mutation breeding.(IAEA) At least the same number have been created by random mutations(again completely uncharacterized) using chemicals. I would like to understand how you feel these techiques can possibly be considered safer than the relatively precise method of inserting a known gene of known function into a plant and then doing extensive analysis of that GM plant BEFORE it is commercialized.

As for the corruption accusations, please go to my website and red the paper on safety by the German Scientific Organization. Surely this is outside of the influense of Monsanto. http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager

Cheers

OK Julie
Perhaps the first question is a bit difficult for you to answer. lets try this one. Please explain to this forum how all three levels of the Canadian Court System that found Percy Schmeiser quilty were wrong. I have two articles on my website that detail why all three levels found him quilty. My personal favourite is Goliath vs Goliath. Aptly titled as the so-called grass roots campaign against GM crops and food is anything but grass roots.

I was wondering why you think 30,000 Canadian farmers now grow GM canola? This represents about 75% of the canola farmers in Canada. Are they less than smart or perhaps, just perhaps GM Canola is a better product and the SMART farmers know it.

OK now in order for us to have a debate (that you claim to want) you must now respond. Have a nice day

Dear Dickie:
What are your documents claiming that “Monsanto has played dirty”? So far all I see are internet rumours and trivial technicalities, such as that in South Africa Monsanto did not reference a paper from Seralini that, as Agronomist and others have pointed out, is overwhelmingly rejected by EU regulators and other scientists.

A predecessor of the current Monsanto some 30 years ago made Agent Orange, on contract from the US government. Monsanto itself has changed, having sold off its chemical business long ago. The people of the old Monsanto are long since gone. If compensation is to be paid, shouldn’t it be from the US government, not from people who had nothing to do with it?

Your comment about conflicts of interest in the WA government brings us back to Edwards essay. Perhaps go read it again.

Again, who are these “food regulatory authorities ….. infiltrated by senior representatives from Monsanto” ? Give us some names and what they did.

RobW’s link in the text worked for me. Thanks, Rob, for bringing it to our attention. There is some challenging reading here for Safe, Dickie, Julie and others.

Julie:

Others can (and have) judged your alliance with Greenpeace and GeneEthics. The amount of money is not the issue.

Again, is there any substantial difference between NCF’s position(s) and those of Greenpeace or GeneEthics, and if so, what is it?

Even after years now, you have still not answered obvious questions of representation.

If the “NCF has never been secretive” as you claim, why can we not find out what is the membership of NCF? Is it more than 10 people? Who can join and how?

When you write that “Networks don't run like the established farm lobby groups”, can we safely assume that you don’t have elections or bylaws and that you and maybe 1-2 other people make all the key decisions/policy statements?

You indicate that you “distribute information to other organisations to influence policy”. Who decides NCF policy positions and how? At least other farm groups have votes that are reported in the media. What about NCF?

Roush, Here's just a few excerpts at your request:

1 The Washington Post (2002) revealed Monsanto documents showing that the company routinely dumped PCB's in Anniston, Alabama and covered up its behaviour for more than 40 years. 3,500 local residents won a huge victory landmark in an environmental lawsuit. 15,000 additional area residents have filed another lawsuit citing health problems etc.

Monsanto argued that since they have contaminated the entire planet they are innocent of all liability.

2. Democracy Now (2003)

Monsanto is suing a small milk producer in Oakhurst that advertises its milk contains no artificial growth hormone. Monsanto claims the ads give the public the impressions AGH are not safe.

3. January 05

Monsanto fined $1.5 million for bribing an Indonesian official. Monsanto admitted one of its employees paid the senior official two years ago in a bid to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its cotton.

4. The Hindhu (2006)

The state government has filed several cases against Monsanto and its Mumbai sister company for various irregularities in BT cotton supply leading to large scale (over 3000) farmer suicides in the state of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Kemner vs. Monsanto Trial

Cover-up on the toxicity of and scientific fudging of dioxin health impacts. Citizens sue Monsanto.

6. Korea Times 15/2/06

In 1984, US chemical giants including Dow and Monsanto paid out $180 million to US war veterans.

In a landmark decision last month, the Seoul High Court ruled two US makers of Agent Orange, Dow and Monsanto, to pay $63 billion to a group of 6,700 Korean war veterans.

7. The Guardian 12/2/07

Evidence has emerged that Monsanto paid contractors to dump thousands of tonnes of highly toxic waste in a British landfill site, knowing that these chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environmental agency has launched an enquiry after the chemicals were found polluting ground water supplies and the atmosphere, 30 years after they were dumped.

To view the full reports (and more) please go to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/monsanto

Roush, additional information on this predatory company is available on request.

Dickie:

1) This has nothing to do with GM crop technology
2)This has nothing to do with GM crop technology. Although I guess it is within GM tech as a whole, but only on GM produced hormones which are injected. Monsanto has a right to sue if they believe that companies are implying their technology is unsafe (and making money from this implication) without any cause. If there is proper data that that shows that this technology is unsafe, then it should be withdrawn, but if there isn't any data then it is a scare campaign and a libel.

3) As stated previously, Monsanto themselves investigated and turned themselves in.

4)The state of Andhra Pradesh is suing over a dispute on the recommended cost of the seed, not over the technology itself. They are certainly not suing over farmer suicides.

5) This has nothing to do with GM technology.

6)This certainly has nothing to do with GM technology.

7)This also has nothing to do with GM technology.

There are hardly any instances of "playing dirty" with GM crops as far as I can tell from these snippets. Most of these environmental disasters seem to be from the chemical company and even then many are from over 30 to 50 years ago! Sure some of the chemical pollution of the past has been horrendous, but that has no bearing on GM technology.

Julie

Seems you do not want to answer my first three questions so here is another. Live Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria have been sprayed on organic crops for decades. Every critic of Gm crops say this is perfectly safe with 5000 odd genes being expressed in each live bacteria but when the one gene in the bacteria that actually does kill the pest insects is put in a plant so that the plant can protect itself without pesticides these same people find it scary and unsafe. Why?

OK perhaps you would like to discuss with me why the Chapela paper that allegedly found GM corn in Mexico was disavowed by Nature. Here is a hint, go to my website and see the detailed publication that shows Chapela showed exactly nothing with his poor molecular biology data. Oh and a study by Allison Snow four years later found exactly no GM corn in the same area. So much for the corn in Mexico being threatened by GM corn. In reality Mexican farmers are very adept at growing different varieties of corn in close proximity. Hmmm

Remember it was you who invited myself to debate this subject. I have put several points forward and you have not responded. Are you going to further support my post a while back where I told of how critics of GM crops never really want to debate with someone who know about the pseudoscience the critics push. Prove me wrong.

Julie, you have often claimed to represent the farmers of Australia, but now by your own admission you don’t. Your Network basically represents itself. Where you say “we” we should read a small number of people. You are aware I am sure that all the Farming Federations in Australia (with elected officers) have passed resolutions supporting the end of the moratoria. These groups are much more representative of farmers’ views than are the small group making up the NCF.

Regarding liability, shouldn’t you also be asking for anti-GM activists like yourself to accept liability for the problems caused by the moratoria? After all you promoted the moratoria. If not why not? And before you say there are none, you need to read ABARE on the lost benefits of GM canola to Australian growers. Or even Bill Crabtree on the same subject http://www.no-till.com.au/pdfs/GE_canola_for_WA.pdf. If you don’t like the Government take, Bill Crabtree is at least independent of both Government and the Chemical Industry.

Safe, you never seem to answer this question when I put it. It is my understanding that Australia has legislation imposing labelling of GM products. Are you telling me this is not true? If products are labelled, it will be easy to avoid them should you so wish.

Dickie, re secrecy in the Western Australian Government, I also abhor secrecy that would lead to the events you describe. Given your abhorrence for secret deals conducted by the Western Australian Government, I am expecting you to call for the Carman research to be scrapped and the project opened to public tender.

Thanks to Bugsy, RobW and Agronomist for their contributions.

Dear Dickie:
I have not much more to add except to note that wikipedia has no refereeing process and is well-known for containing info that is simply wrong. The statements there are growers being sued for wind blown contamination are just plain fabrications.

With respect to the past sins of Monsanto, the Japanese killed people some 65 years ago. Will you persecute all descendents of Japanese soldiers? When do the limits finally run out on stereotyping this generation for the sins of managers who are long since gone? Monsanto is still paying up for those sins, but does the current company have to be stereotyped for them?

Julie, I’ll look forward to your comments. I have otherwise assumed that your evasion for years now on issues such as the size and governance of NCF as indicating that you represent at best a tiny minority of farmers across Australia.

I’d also like to point out that GM has not been a failure and that people like yourself are largely responsible for the so-called “false promises” by imposing unrealistic demands on development.

Just as one example, drought tolerant canola was field tested in Canada in 2003 and shown to offer up to a 26% yield advantage over conventional (The Plant Journal 2005, Vol 43: 413-24, Figure 6). Salt tolerant canola was tested SIX years ago by Eduardo Blumwald, now at UC Davis. And Arcadia Biosciences in California has field trialed canola that maintains yields even with greatly reduced nitrogen applications.

Why has not at least the drought tolerant canola been proposed for field testing in Australia? Who would bother with arbitrary political decisions to block GM!

I trust that you will promise here to never use GM once it does become available!

Roush

Similar to your namesake at Monsanto, Dr George Roush, Medical Director, you need to admit you are peddling misinformation.

Wikipedia always quotes their sources for substantiation or where there is any doubt, includes their "citation needed" clause.

The Pace University School of Law, when investigating the processes which enabled Monsanto to market the bovine growth hormone, clearly expresses concerns on how inadequate the US regulatory system is.

Pace allude to the agencies' approval of "adequate" information on Monsanto's product, used as a substitute for assay testing and the FDA's eagerness to ensure protection of industry. As Pace advised: "Risks may not be known until after several generations have used the product."

Your vigorous support of Monsanto, a predatory company, which has for profit, caused untold misery and deaths to humans, animals and the ecosystems, reveals you are defending a company which lacks integrity and whose unethical corporate practices (past and present) are too prolific to ignore.

As a result, I believe you have greatly diminished your own credibility and that of the proponents of GM crops.

Therefore, I remind you that in regard to Monsanto:

"You cannot make a silk purse from a pig's ear."

And

"If you lie with dogs, you will get fleas" (apologies to the canine species.)

As a consequence, I now fully support Mr Chance's reluctance to approve a product which sounds too good to be true and a product which the people of WA do not need.

The time has now come to bid you adieu!

Julie where are you. The debate you claim to never back away from is waiting.

Dickie
After reading your last post this quote struck me as backwards. Therefore I altered it to fit reality.

"Your vigorous support of NGO's including Greenpeace, predatory multinationals with NO accountability to anyone, which has for profit, caused untold misery and deaths to humans, animals and the ecosystems, reveals you are defending NGO's which "demonstrate a complete lack of respect for science and logic" - Dr. Patrick Moore co-founder of Greenpeace, and lacks integrity and whose unethical corporate-like practices (past and present) are too prolific to ignore."

Let me ask you this. Greenpeace is part of the anti-GMO industry that is directly responsible for delays in the introduction of Golden Rice to hundreds of millions of poor resulting in 500,000 children going blind each year. How can you support such an organization?

Seems another GM-myth just bit the dust.
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Article&artNum=15543

According to the "opinion" of the EU:- "At present, epidemiological data provide convincing evidence for an association between the amount of red meat consumed and certain forms of hormone-dependent cancers. Whether hormone residues in meat contribute to this risk is currently unknown.

The CONTAM Panel concluded that the new data that are publicly available do not provide quantitative information that would be informative for risk characterisation and therefore do not call for a revision of the previous assessments of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) (EC, 1999, 2000, 2002)."

The above is not proving anything, just saying that there is no quantitative or qualititive research available yet. But there is cause for concern as it is unknown. This is neither proving or disproving so how can you say a "myth" has been broken.

I agree with you dickie that Monsanto has not had a good record of looking after the health impacts of their products. I congratulate and thank you on your say as the pro GM sector are not listening to their own record at all.

"People like us" are genuinely concerned with GM. How can we not be when we are given false information and the facts have been hidden.

Why else did it take Greenpeace a court case to provide us with the evidence of the original safety testing of GM? Because it shows that there are concerns about this product and you are tampering with our health. By contaminating all of our food, if it shows that it is a biohazard in the future, there is no way we can retract it from the food supply. We would then have the only option of starving or eating the biohazard product of GM.

Been in Perth for meetings so responses are a tad late:
The farmer related problems of consumer rejection/market problems/patent rights etc is not relevent to mutagenesis.
Recombinant DNA does not specifically plant one gene in the DNA, it randomly forces many of the same gene into the DNA.
Percy Schmeiser deliberated selected for the trait but he tested the law which was claiming that Monsanto owned the plant if it contained a RR gene. Monsanto failed in that regard as Percy did not need to pay for the use of the plant if he did not use the trait (applying glyphosate).
Farmers in Canada choose the canola option of chemical resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium (through GM) while Australian farmers mainly use the option of chemical resistance to triazine. Unlike Ht varieties competing against non Ht varieties on introduction, we will have GM Ht varieties competing against Non-GM Ht varieties. Independent testing will reveal the differences but it certainly advantages are not the ridiculous 30% yield advantages claimed that has got support by those that are gullible when listening to those with a vested interest. Look at the cost, the chemicals, the weed control versus what we have and you do not get a farmer advantage.
The "others" claiming alliance is no other than those with a vested interest (particularly researchers) and people like Ian Edwards (Agronomist).
NCF represents the concerned farmers, Greenpeace represents concerned consumers and environmentalists. As explained we are a NETWORK distributing information, not a farm lobby group but many of us are members of farm lobby groups. Our organisation is relevent because we have well researched issues that is relevent to the debate and to policy formulation. Try debating or resolving the issues the NCF present.
Your Bt debate confirms what I was saying that you do not need GM crops for either herbicide tolerance of Bt. You can either spray Bt or you GM the plant to produce Bt. Bt is for cotton and corn which is not grown very widely in Australia.

The farming groups supported GM because they believe the misleading hype that you can get higher yields (with misleading evidence) and they have been desperately lobbied by the R&D sector who are desperate for corporate investment funding. I have always managed to counter the misleading debate with facts in WAFarmers policy day but only weeks before this years policy changed from an anti-GM to a pro-GM policy, I was undemocratically and unconsitutionally sacked as senior vice president of the Grains Council of WAFarmers for warning farmers of the liabilities associated with pooling with AWB (since confirmed I underestimated the problem). Typical of the dirty politics involved in formulating the GM policies.
The economic losses are based on misleading information claiming that we are missing up to 30% yield but we are not. Independent testing will prove this which is why it is avoided.
GM is the intruder to the industry, not non-GM. If you want to bring it in, bring it in where it does not adversely affect others income. If the pro-GM lobbyists believed their propaganda that there was "no losses" they would not refuse the liability associated with GM.
What is everyone so frightened of regarding Judy Carman, why not let her do the tests, reveal the data then debate? The parliamentary committee felt that the key problem with Judys testing was insufficient funding, not confidentatility issues. Only Ian Edwards (agronomist) had the issue about confidentiality.
Drought tolerant GM canola is not commercially grown in Canada. The only GM traits are herbicide tolerance (which we have in non-GM).
Golden Rice is not commercially available, it is not Greenpeace that is stopping it.
The debate is being corrupted by those with a vested interest (like Ian Edwards). I understand these people are desperate for corporate funding but why should their needs jeopardise farmers livelihoods?
Good governance is ensuring decisions do not have adverse impacts on others. Thank goodness, state governments are taking their role seriously.

So it is all a conspiracy then Julie, 10 million farmers around the world have had the wool pulled over their eyes and only you have seen the light. The fact that Canadian canola yields for the past 9 years with GM have averaged 1.5 tonnes/ha, whereas Australian yields without GM have averaged less than 1.2 notwithstanding. Perhaps the farmer’s groups (they are the ones with elected officials who represent farmers) have had a look around and noticed that Canadian growers of GM canola are getting higher yields with GM and are still able to sell their crop.

Independent testing in Canada demonstrates that Liberty Link (=InVigor) does yield more. In 2006, the 4 highest yielding varieties were all Liberty Link http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/Nov27_CD_pg25-30.pdf#zoom=100. For each zone, Liberty Link came out on top. These tests contained no Atrazine resistant varieties, which we know yield an average 26% lower than the conventional varieties. I think the 30% higher yield than the common Atrazine resistant in Australia could be quite achievable.

As for the claims of premiums for non-GM Independent consultant Bill Crabtree shows that in June 2007, the price differential was a measly $15 a tonne. Given that Canada has a bumper crop and Australia a miniscule one due to drought, this difference is insignificant. http://www.no-till.com.au/pdfs/gm_issues_Market_premiums.pdf

It is funny how you are trying to spin Percy Schmeiser. Whatever his motives, he was not trying to test patent law. Otherwise, why would he claim that the Roundup Ready came from his neighbour in pollen? Why would he initially deny growing Roundup Ready canola? Why would he doctor his seed samples so they had a lower level of GM than the ones kept at the elevator? Why would he claim to have been a canola breeder for 50 years and maintain that his valuable varieties had been lost when the Roundup Ready came on to his farm? You have to do better than that.

Julie
Nice try dodging the first question. Mutagenesis is the very heart of the matter. It is how many plant varieties are made with absolutely no idea what genes, how many genes or what genomic architecture is changed. yet you accept this as safe but highly examined GM varieties are not. That is completely illogical.

Canadian farmers have had NO Problems with growing or selling their GM canola crops.

You do not seem to understand that the regs demand the exact nature of what gene, where in the geneome and if it occurs how many copies of the given transgene must be determined BEFORE the product can be commercialized. Compared to complete unknowns with other forms of plant breeding. The techniques of site-directed insertion are improving all the time in GM breeding. It will not be too long before the exact location of insertion will be part of the process. Further the use of tissue specific promoters will mean the given transgene will only be expressed in the tissue where it is required in. There is virtually zero chance this type of expression regulation will come from other types of breeding.

Percy was found quitly three times and the SCOC found it was legal to patent RR canola, nice try at spin.

As for my "vested interest" it is education of the public about the realities of GE technologies and also about the pseudoscience (your website has the largest collection I have ever seen) critic try to pass on the public.
Cheers

Julie
I think cotton farmers in Queensland would disagree with little Bt cotton being grown.
That is rich that you can not see the HUGE conflict of interest with Judy's supposed independant research. There is no chance you would or do accept research from the so called vested interests of the pro GM side but somehow you are 100% blind to the obvious conflicts in research done by anti-GM camp.

Greenpeace has a HUGE amount to do with the massive amounts of tests being forced on the developers and the IRRC before Golden Rice can be given away to subsistance farmers. Greenpeace was also involved in the Zambian government denying donated corn to their people because NGO's told the govenment it was poison. How many people died of starvation there? The level of hypocrisy from Greenpeace is overwhelming. Why do you hide your connections to Greenpeace? Why does Greenpeace not tell the public they own large amounts of organic food stocks so they are selling fear to help their own bottom line?

Cheers

To RobW and R Roush: I've learnt a lot from your posts so thanks for your contributions. Sadly, you'll never win science-based arguments against the Julie Newmans of the world. They may have started out in their anti-GM lives as people with genuine concerns about GM food but now their goals have become political ones, so they push multiple barrows including pro-organic food, anti-GM and anti-corporations. No amount of science will sway them, especially since you can never prove that something is totally safe, in spite of the billions of GM meals that people have consumed over the last few years.
I've seen the same change in people from concerned citizen to unthinking zealot occur during anti-mining (especially nuclear) and pro-forests campaigns here in WA. Only rarely do these campaigners accept that they've got it wrong, regardless of the evidence put before them, but they've become converts to political causes which is how they then justify their exaggerations and half truths. The sad thing is that the media love these types of disputes and know that the more ridiculous the claim, the more newspapers they sell or the more people watch their TVs.
In spite of these handicaps, I hope you'll keep up the fight for truth or the luddites will have us back in our caves with the same low standards of living and high death rates that many developing countries still suffer from today.

Australian yields are static because of drought, not because of plant breeding. Graph average yields and you will find them similar to Canadian yields. Graph state yields and you will find states like Victoria yield higher than Canadian yields. Canadian yields are traditionally more stable due to a more reliable seasonal conditions but Australian yields are quite variable. It is nothing to do with GM although Canada's yields dropped when they adopted GM canola. As already explained, Australian farmers have adopted more suitable non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties and do not need GM. Since adoption, Canada's main market is America (sold processed) which is not GM sensitive but Canada lost their significant premium (averaged US$32.68/tonne) and now fluctuate between similar to grossly under the value of Australian canola. Blind freddy can see there has been a significant price penalty yet the blind freddies of the pro-GM camp are still yelling "no difference". Why? Because they expect to con non-GM farmers into thinking that there is no need for coexistence simply because it will be too difficult and too expensive to try.
It is normal pro-GM practise for ridiculous namecalling terminology like "luddite" or "zealots" or accusations like I am pushing a pro-organic line when we are large progressive conventional farmers and were contract crop sprayers for 20 years. This tactic is usually rolled out when the pro-GMers refuse to indulge in simple debate about benefits, alternatives, risks and risk management needed for GM crops. Non-GM farmers should not be adversely impacted by the introduction of GM crops and it is not unreasonable to insist on fair risk management. Any other business would have good recourse if a business was allowed to be introduced that could devalue their product and impose unrealistic costs on that business to try to protect themselves. No amount of namecalling should influence government decisions. Our group is influential because we give solid facts.

Cotton in its peak was only grown on 300,000ha, which is only 30 times the area of our farm (certainly not a major crop for Australia). It is declining rapidly as it is mainly irrigated from the Murray Darling and irrigation is being radically restricted. Yes, those that relied on profiting from the GM cotton industry would be desperately looking for another avenue. Australian cotton yields are usually the highest in the world and farmers can counter the additional costs but broadacre crops do not yield comparitively high and our costs are high enough now making net profits minimal and vulnerable to be eroded by GM. Farmers would not be able to afford additional costs but many are being promised lucrative funding if GM is introduced. Who pays? It is only farmers! What benefit? Very little and comparing yields of unsuitable TT varieties in Canada is irrelevent to Australian yields. We need independent performance trials in Australia.
What connection to Greenpeace is there to hide? Talk about transparency... why doesn't Agronomist admit who he is? It is obvious by the bitterness expressed, the debating tactics used, the terminology and wording he uses that it is the writer of the original article (Ian Edwards) but he refuses to admit it because readers will realise his massive vested interest.
Why has Judy got a conflict of interest? The only pro-GM excuse given is that she was quoted on the Greenpeace booklet but she was not paid for it. She is a genuine scientist with genuine concerns.
RobW, the debate is not about mutagenesis, it is about GM. Canada however regulates mutagenesis in the same manner as GM as all Canadian herbicide tolerant varieties are regulated (including non-GM with novel traits). I am keen to avoid additional problems for farmers, not introduce problems. It is comical how the GM process is claimed to be "precise" but the precise technology has not even been developed yet.
Percy was not forced to pay for the use of the RR technology because he did not use it.... its no spin, its fact.

Julie, as usual you avoid reading what is written. The yield values I gave you were averages over the last 9 years for both Canada and Australia. If you want to see a graph, GMOPundit has one. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/

The two droughts in Australia have impacted yields, but Canada also had droughts in 2001 and 2002. Looking through the yield data I have, the 3 highest yielding years for Canadian canola have been the last 3, 2004, 2005 and 2006. For Australia they were 1993, 1990 and 1996 in that order. Are you now going to suggest Australia has had 10 consecutive years of drought? In the 9 years prior to GM canola introduction in Canada, yields averaged 1.27 t/ha in Canada and 1.25 t/ha in Australia. Since GM canola was first grown in 2006, average Canadian canola yields have increased and average Australian canola yields have decreased.

What is this rubbish about “comparing yields of unsuitable TT varieties in Canada is irrelevent to Australian yields”? I didn’t mention yields of TT canola varieties in Canada because they have not been seriously grown there for many years. The comparison I made was Australian research conducted in Australia. You can read the abstract here http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/40/paper/AR01159.htm.

Oh, and I found this bit on trials with InVigor canola in Australia. http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/2005%20InVigor%20hybrid%20canola%20research%20and%20innovation%20trial%20results.pdf Note how well the InVigor did in the herbicide systems trials. I assume the atrazine resistant did better than the conventional because of lack of weed control in the latter.

You keep on trotting out this stuff about non-GM farmers being adversely impacted. What are the adverse impacts? They seem to be figments of your imagination. ABARE continually states that price premiums for non-GM canola are not apparent in the market. There is not a single Canadian source providing data for a price loss for canola on adopting GM.

Julie, why does it matter who I am? I am not claiming to represent the views of anybody except myself, unlike you. I don’t stand to make a single dollar out of GM crops, but the farmers I work with do.

Ian Edwards (Agronomist), you have again ignored the issue and it is laughable that you have been so insistent on "transparency" but too afraid to admit who you are and explain your vested interest and your dismal disapointment in not getting corporate investment finance and alliances for your GM wheat.
Non-GM farmers do not want contamination with a product that markets are rejecting. We do not want our existing supply chain (that we paid for through CBH tolls) to be taken over by GM while we are forced to provide a separate supply chain for non-GM. We know that it will be impossible to have a GM buffer zone (where all produce must be marketed as GM) on our non-GM property. How exactly can we manage that? Any ideas welcome!
Coexistence is therefore nothing but a lie!
If GM is introduced, we will get contamination and as there are price penalties associated with this, we want compensation for the difference not some cock-and-bull story claiming there is no premium... there may not be but there certainly is a price penalty and market access denial associated with GM.
Considering we also pay GRDC levies for plant breeding, pay for the seed and pay royalties on harvested seed, we also do not want non-GM varieties to be denied to us because of alliances and promises made to the GM companies (ie, if GM is offered, we want the new plant breeding varieties minus the gene that makes it GM).
We certainly do not want the right to replant our own seeds denied to us. I realise that you as a plant breeder wanting the promised profit increase do but we can't afford this additional cost.
Pay your own way.

There was no graph on your link but info is available on the USDA website. As I mentioned, Canada is now experiencing their highest yields ever (not due to the GM herbicide tolerant GM gene though) and yet they introduced subsidisies then.
When Australia has a drought our yields plummet to a fraction of our average where Canadian yields only show a slight variation. Check the figures!
Your ridiculous statement "These tests contained no Atrazine resistant varieties, which we know yield an average 26% lower than the conventional varieties." is very unscientific. Assuming a drop in yield due to archaic yield trials is not scientific or reasonable! Do the independent performance trials and get some decent data, don't just assume a yield advantage. Compare GM hybrids with non-GM hybrids, compare GM Ht varieties with Non-GM Ht varieties. Of course the GM companies don't want to do these trials, they know that their GM crops will not compete anywhere near the hype those of you with a vested interest are claiming.
The Canadian trial data you gave stated "Ht varieties were not sprayed with their companion herbicide" therefore the yield penalty normally associated with Ht crops was avoided.
The Australian trial data also stated "weed free sites selected, no Liberty applied". It appears Bayer is avoiding revealing the yield penalties and lack of adequate weed control problems.
Why avoid revealing the yield penalties associated with Ht? Trials must show yields of Ht crops as they would be reasonably grown in the paddock using the trait they are advertised for.
Bayer also claimed that the 2004 trial data was not included as it was subject to drought conditions. If it performed better not worse in drought, they would have included it. We also need independent trials including drought conditions not selective biased data.

Julie, you do like to charge off without properly reading things don’t you? You just go ahead making any claims you want in your funny little world. You didn’t read the bit where I said I don’t stand to make a single dollar out of GM crops. That would of course mean that I don’t have GM wheat to sell. I don’t think that I have been particularly promoting transparency here, I am not against it of course, but I don’t see that I have been particularly strong on it, unlike R. Roush.

I don’t understand your complaints. Why would you want to particularly sell your crop as non-GM? Surely you would sell to the highest buyer, whether they are a GM buyer or not? What markets are rejecting GM canola except for Europe? How much canola have you sold to Europe lately? Do you realise that Europe has been buying GM canola oil from Canada? Why are you expecting to have a GM buffer zone on your property?

There are no obvious price penalties associated with GM canola on the world market. ABARE keeps looking at this and keeps coming to the same conclusion. From their 2007 report “Based on world import data, the conclusion of the analysis reported here is that the great bulk of GM canola is sold at very similar prices to conventional canola in most major canola markets throughout the world.” http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

I am sure GMOPundit had a graph. Here it is: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-price-premium-in-australia-but-big.html

Julie, I did point you specifically to the herbicide systems trial where herbicides were used, specifically because the real importance to farmers is the combination of yield and weed control.

Perhaps you might explain how glufosinate use results in a yield penalty with InVigor canola?

I think Bayer would be quite happy to have ever so many trials conducted with their InVigor varieties. They have at least 9 years experience of having the highest yielding variety in Canadian trials.

To reitierate words form David Suzuki 'when studying genetics, the subjects of history, ethics and philosophy should also be compulsory to fully appreciate the wider effects of applying technology and to learn from previous experiences'.

Reductionist science is alive and well judging by the postings over the past week with atomic-level details being provided. This was not the point of Kim Chance's decision to maintain a GM-free state....... it was to ascertain a far wider and more holisitc perpsective of the effects, not to debate the minutae of the technology.

Going back to the GM-Golden Rice to save the sight of millions of Asian people, a small fact is often negelcted. To obtain this benefit, each person needs to consume up to nine kilograms EACH DAY and, as most of the targeted people are struggling to feed themselves half a kilo each day, it is impossible. However, this argument is oft used to play the humanity claims.

A new and similar situation has recently been announced and applauded by the GRDC in the development of High Amylase Wheat (HAW). The new and 'improved' characteristics of this wheat (which has attracted $12.5million of 'research' dollars) is that it will have a higher amount of residual fibre that will survive processing, and then absorption by the small intestine so that the colon and bowel will have greater anoutns of fibre which is necessary for good function.

If there was less mechanical processing, more natural fibre would be retained in the end products so humans would automatically receive adequate fibre in their (wheat) diets. There is already enough fibre in the existing wheat strains which is removed by processing. However, the GRDC is claiming this is an opportunity for farmers to grow this new strain of wheat and contribute to overall health benefits. Farmers are being sucked in to embrace yet another whizz-bang product and anyone suggesting the opposite will be labelled a luddite or zealot!

We need to exercise our imagination and create scenarios that include all perspectives...... being forced into a corner often causes brown-snake behaviour... with unfortunate outcomes.

Bush Goddess

Sorry but David Suzuki has been caught red handed spreading falsehoods about GM crops by myself. If you want you can go read an article I wrote "Transgenic Canola Does Not Threaten Bees and Butterflies"

Been reading Greenpeace literature on Golden Rice I see. The fact is the Golden Rice has enough Beta carotene that it requires about 100-200 grams a day to alleviate vitamin A difficiency in these poor people. As I have said they(GP) have no morals spreading this BS which causes undue delays. There is a link on my site to The Real Golden Rice story.

If you are getting your information from Non-GM Farmers website you are being misled by pseudoscience BIGTIME.

Cheers

Ian Edwards (Agronomist) Yes I understand you don't have GM wheat to sell because you sold the rights and lost your company and a lot of money invested because of the consumer rejection/market rejection/economic risk/moratoria problems associated with GM. It is understandable why you are so bitter but no need to attack those expressing genuine concerns.
If farmers don't grow GM, why would we want to sell as GM? Trying to convince me that there is no problem with markets is ridiculous and implying there could be a premium for GM is outrageous.
If your GM wheat was approved for example, all farmers would either have to market as GM or prove that it has no GM present. As there is no practical way to prove a GM-free status (no test for all the grain), all wheat would be sold as GM. This is a major problem when no market in the world has indicated their willingness to accept GM or GM contamination in wheat. Hence no GM wheat grown commercially anywhere in the world.
Get it?... GM commercially released, farmers grow either non-GM or GM = coexistence too difficult and too expensive = all market as GM = no markets available = what the heck do we do with out wheat? = industry sabotage! We may as well grow weeds as they are about as marketable and grow so much better than wheat in all sorts of conditions.

You don't seem to know much about the "coexistence plans". If a grower is to market as non-GM, they are to provide a buffer zone on their property that will adequately prevent contamination to satisfy market demands and standards. The produce from that buffer zone is to be marketed as GM and kept separate from non-GM and all machinery/stock etc need to be evacuated of GM material if moving from the GM to non-GM buffer zone. How?
There is no intention to provide segregation, it is nothing more than a false political promise.
As I said, blind freddy can see by the data that Canada experienced a significant price penalty associated with marketing canola as GM.

Yield data should be taken on the variety when it is treated normally, not when chemical use and the associated yield penalties are avoided. If there was no problem with yield penalty associated with post emergent chemical use, it would not be avoided in trials.
As you say, the real importance to farmers is the combination of yield and weed control but you can't get the weed control without using the chemical and it appears you may not be able to get the yields when using the chemical.
I spoke to the researcher of Golden Rice and the regulatory regime does not allow such multiple GM backcrosses. The regulatory process was basically designed for Monsanto's single incident, single gene additive which is not a surprise as Monsanto applied to the US govt for the regulatory proposal, not Greenpeace.

We seem to have reached the pro-GM dummy spit time. Just yelling "untrue" while covering up the truth is a pretty poor debating tactic. Is there any more genuine debate to be had on this thread?

Julie, where is the substance to these comments you are making about buffer zones? Where does it say in laws anywhere that non-GM farmers need to have a buffer zone on their property? You are just making this up aren’t you?

In the US there is co-existence between GM and non-GM farmers and even between GM and organic. In California, they are grown by the same farm. In Europe there is co-existence between GM, non-GM and organic maize growers. The Canadian canola industry recognised there were no benefits to be had by adopting two product streams and allowed growers who wanted to sell other than through the main stream to do it themselves. There are still some non-GM canola growers in Canada and some of their canola is sold in Europe, 7,600 tonnes of it in 2003/4. http://www.canola-council.org/seedexports.html In North America and Europe farmers manage by talking to their neighbours to minimize problems. I know this might seem a strange way of proceeding, but you should try it some time.

ABARE is obviously not Blind Freddy. ABARE has consistently stated that there are no apparent premiums for non-GM canola in the world market. There are no studies on non-GM canola premiums from Canada, as Canadian growers know they only exist in small niche markets, not worth worrying about. When you have 4 million tonnes of canola seed to shift, you can’t worry about a 7,000 tonne market.

Julie, once again you have failed to read carefully. Let me repeat, the data in the herbicide systems trials included herbicide use. The atrazine resistant variety was sprayed with atrazine and the InVigor variety with glufosinate.

So where is this data that glufosinate use reduces yield of InVigor canola that you claimed? I have asked twice now and all you have done is repeated your assertion without any evidence. How am I to take this? There is no data?

Julie, I think it is you who are trying to avoid the debate. You make a large number of statements and when asked to support them you provide ………... nothing.

Another half truth from you.
"I spoke to the researcher of Golden Rice and the regulatory regime does not allow such multiple GM backcrosses. The regulatory process was basically designed for Monsanto's single incident, single gene additive which is not a surprise as Monsanto applied to the US govt for the regulatory proposal, not Greenpeace."

I find it extremely hard to believe you talked with anyone at Monsanto as the product is licensed to Syngenta (a European Biotech Company). If you had gone to my website and read you would know the Golden Rice trait is being crossed into IR-64 to allow maximun distribution FOR FREE to subsistance farmers.

The REAL story is found in an article titled:
Experience from the Humanitarian Golden Rice Project: Extreme Precautionary Regulation Prevents Use of Green Biotechnology in Public Projects

Seems I have not kept up with the Golden Rice Project. They are now crossing GRII with its 3o odd micrograms /gram beta carotene into many varieties of rice. If you are interested you can ask for the specific varieties or go to goldenrice.org and read for yourself.

As for GP not being responsible for the delays. Give this forum a break. They are directly involved in lobbying governments in the far east(you know your own neck of the woods) against Golden Rice.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/syngenta-agm
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/worldfoodday1410
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/failures-of-golden-rice

And here is some real information on it.

Why Greenpeace is morally bankrupt (IMHO)
http://www.sirc.org:80/articles/rice_dilemma.shtml

http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Potrykus_Zurich_2005.pdf

http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/FDA_Mayer_Apr_2005.pdf

Golden Rice II http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7196

So after reading al these links please explain how over two years after Greenpeace learned Golden Rice II has sufficient beta carotene to stop the blindness and death of poor children, they(GP) still have the BS story about the original golden rice on their website. Seems people like bush goddess are misled by such activites and FAR WORSE the delays are costing poor children their lives!

I agree Ian, it sounds absolutely ridiculous and very unfair to non-GM farmers but this is the coexistence plan that is presented to us by Avcare and adopted as "accepted by industry" despite non-GM growers disagreeing.
The law states that anyone making a statement about their product (eg non-GM or GM-free) must ensure that their product is as they state (ACCC states that non-GM = no GM) and the legal contracts we sign on delivery require farmers to sign to declare our canola does not have GM (or a level of less than 0.9%) and that we indemnify the supply chain if they cause any contamination. Legally the non-GM farmer is liable for recall and contamination cleanup and price differences if our delivery causes contamination of a non-GM product.
While a 5 metre buffer zone is recommended, the coexistence principles state that it is up to the farmer to provide the buffer zone necessary to meet the demands of their market and of course 5 metres is woefully inadequate to meet these.
"Talking with neighbours" will never keep GM and non-GM canola segregated. The "talk" was applicable to corn where flowering is very short and flowering times could be coordinated where the non-GM grower avoided similar flowering times (not the GM grower). Canola however flowers from July to November and non-GM growers can certainly NOT avoid our crops flowering during this time.
The recommended coexistence plans for any country is that the non-GM grower is to keep GM out, not the GM grower to keep it contained. There is absolutely no onus on the GM industry to keep their product out of our non-GM supply chain and that is wrong!

Canadians and key markets (such as Japanese mills) realised that it was too difficult and too expensive for non-GM sector to try to keep GM out of a non-GM product.
Non-GM canola growers either market as GM or have a rigorous identity preservation system (including importing uncontaminated non-GM seed)that almost totally counters the premiums offered for non-GM. Neither is acceptable to farmers not wanting to be adversely impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need. Why should we accept costs?
ABARE's full report explained that there are some premiums and there is market access problems. Reading the graph from ABARE (I sent it to you last month) you can very clearly see the price penalties associated with Canada marketing their produce as GM. Why should we accept lower prices?

Your link states clearly that the canola used for yield trials excluded chemical use. State Ag Departments did use chemicals and concluded Invigor yielded the same as triazine tolerant varieties but less than non-GM hybrids.

RobW, not only have you an obvious issue with Greenpeace that I can't help you with, but you appear to misunderstand the issue. Golden Rice is not grown anywhere in the world because the specific rgulatory criteria (instigated by Monsanto)does not permit multiple backcrosses. Why would Monsanto want regulation? If the government is charged with regulating the safety of GM, the government is then legally liable for any problems if it is found unsafe in the future.
If GR is worth releasing, regulatory guidelines will either need to be changed to allow multiple backcrosses or will need to be bred to only include one single GM process. But no... pro-GM activists like to use this as an incorrect example of how the starving are denied a trait that could save them when their reasons for lack of commercialisation are simply not true.

Julie, I guess you are making stuff up.

The ACC actually says that GM-Free = no GM. Read all about it here
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=306404&nodeId=15a6875cfd129808c320370c1a142e8d&fn=News%20for%20Business:%20Genetically%20Modified%20Foods%20and%20Organisms.pdf

“If the product does contain novel DNA and/or novel protein — of any percentage — a 'free' claim may mislead. In this case the manufacturer or supplier should consider a different claim that more accurately describes the product.”

A non-GM claim would more accurately describe the product. I couldn’t find anywhere where the ACC said you couldn’t use a non-GM label.

And you must grow some fantastic canola that flowers for 6 months. How come you get such rubbish yields?

Didn’t you have some research done in Western Australia showing almost no pollen movement between canola crops? Wouldn’t this mean that 5m would be perfectly fine for separation? How often do you grow canola in any one field? Wouldn’t it be possible to not plant canola next to your neighbour’s GM canola? That works fine for GM crops in North America. Isn’t it a rule in Australia that the grower getting the premium should be responsible for delivering the required specification?

Don’t accept costs, grow GM canola. You will get higher yield for less cost and, as there is no price penalty, you will do fine.

Somehow I get the feeling that you are trying to make this seem harder than it is.

What graph you sent me? Now you are really making stuff up.

The ABARE report talked about price premiums for organic and certified GM-free – both identity preserved systems. “While there is some limited evidence of price premiums for organic and certified GM-free canola, markets for these canola types are still very much small niches” and then stated “the great bulk of GM canola is sold at very similar prices to conventional canola in most major canola markets throughout the world.” http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

More from ABARE “Comparisons between Australian and Canadian domestic prices have been used to suggest that there is a growing price premium for Australian canola in world markets on the basis of its non-GM status. However, such a comparison reflects a range of domestic supply and demand conditions in the two markets, making it difficult to isolate any potential preferences for non-GM canola.” Fairly definitive huh?

And Julie, because you don’t seem to be able to read, let me quote from the pamphlet on the InVigor trial results:

“Herbicide system trials: (Refer Figure 1 & Table 1, Page 2) In demonstration strip trials, the combination of weed control and hybrid performance resulted in all InVigor lines outperforming the conventional, Spectrum and Triazine Tolerant (TT) Beacon variety comparisons. The hybrid vigour is evident early with InVigor lines having greater seedling vigour and potential to out compete weeds early. The harvested yield differences were as much as 32 to 42% yield versus the conventional and 18 to 28% versus the TT variety. Oil yields for InVigor lines ranged from 42 to 45% (versus 41 and 40% for the comparison varieties).” http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/2005%20InVigor%20hybrid%20canola%20research%20and%20innovation%20trial%20results.pdf

Notice that bit about “the combination of weed control”?

Now where are these State Ag Department trials you keep talking about? I haven’t been able to find them so far.

Perhaps third time lucky here. Where is the evidence that glufosinate application reduces yields of InVigor canola? Or did you make this up as well?

Julie, what rubbish you are talking about Golden Rice. Almost every GM crop sold has resulted from “multiple backcrosses”. That is how you get the GM trait into agronomically-useful varieties.

Well if Julie won't read, others can. The links make it very clear
Monsanto has nothing to do with Golden Rice but Greenpeace sure does.
Although the biotech industry did initiate the special regs for GM crops they massive lobbying by NGO's brought us the Catagena Protocol with all its flaws. The reality is increased regs are being used to stop GM crop development in the developing world and those people are the ones who suffer for the illogical nature of the regs.

If the negative costs of not implimenting GM technology were ever examined as a consequence the Precautionary Principle demands the GM crops should be developed. Oh and ther PP demands the PP should be scraped.

RobW -

You make a statement about 'pseudoscience' and I'd apprecite your definition of that.... then 'science'...... and where does anecdotal evidence fit into the gathering and collecting of research material?

If you abide by the double-blind and replicable study system, then so much material is missed as the terms of reference for any trials limit the scope of what can actually be discovered. Rarely in such clinical trials do emergents occur as the parameters are so tight there is no opportunity. Thus the results are reasonably predictable. This isn't science - this is repetition and endorsement.

True science is seeking the new and unknown and it is only when working in an unknown zone that discoveries are made. It takes courage for a person to move from a state of knowing to unknowing as one has to abandon many beliefs and opinions their (scientific) reputations have beeen founded on.

I am not demeaning in any sense the years of study some people have in specific field as learnings build on previous knowledge. However, in clinical and technical science these days - with commercial imperatives - true science for the sake of itself, is now rare.

Again, I'd love to see people think beyond the results per se, and extend their imaginations to how, where, why and how this will be applied and take a 2, 4, 6, 10,20+ year appraisal using holistic frameworks.

I can understand the thrill of developing something new and novel - on a smaller scale, I do that with recipes in my laboratory (kitchen). However, responsibility must be taken to look at the long-term effects of some of the creations...... silicone breast implants seemed a good idea at the time and were a money-spinner for Dow Corning. A few years on and many cases of illness and damages claims proved disastrous for all involved.

Short-term economic gain is not a good enough reason to pursue a case.... and I rest mine.

Ian Edwards (Agronomist), again you are only reading the summary and not the full report. There are other reasons for results that you are deliberately denying and these can give false positives.
Notes on 2005 Trial (first results) included:
- "Seasonal conditions experienced included a late break, stress during growing season and late rain, which favoured herbicide tolerant hybrids."
- "Conditions ideal for late maturing varieties."
Notes on 03 and 2005 trials (second results) included:
- "Weed free sites selected. No Liberty applied." (did they use Triazine on the TT varieties I wonder?)
- "2004 trial sites were subject to drought conditions hence no results included."
These trial result summaries are not really assessing yields in the way that farmers would grow the crop and are a bit misleading aren't they? Do you support the 2ha independent trials proposed?

Ian, see the earlier posts for the debate on the Ag Dept trials, you found the reference yourself.

The idea was choice and non-GM farmers do not want to be forced to either grow or market "GM". Who pays if the misleading propaganda is wrong? Farmers! Be confident about the propaganda and push for the GM sector to be liable for the consequences, rather than the farmers that do not want to be adversely impacted.

Non-GM is the same as GM-free (organic Federation has written confirmation of this). FSANZ was part of a legal action against a New Zealand sausage maker who used the supposedly less-restrictive "Non-GM" label and was succesfully prosecuted for false and misleading claims with a 0.08% GM contamination. A similar problem was experienced by a german breakfast food manufacturer. The legislated 0.9% rule (differs internationally) is what level requires a label of GM, it is not what is tolerated in a non-GM label

You need to look at canola growing in the paddock, canola has been flowering for weeks now and usually stops around September/October but some is still flowering in November if late rains are around. Pollen trials would differ depending on seasonal conditions (eg.wind) and animal infestation (we have thousands of emus and kangaroos roaming about our crops and pollen will survive on animals for a few days.) Why not have a rule preventing GM farmers planting within a paddock of their neighbours? It would be far fairer. GM is the intruder to the industry, not non-GM.

Ian, I sent the ABARE graph (work requested of and done by Max Foster) to everyone on the committee and you are one of those. It was printed in the Farm Weekly as an attachment to Bill Crabtrees letter but his letter did not reflect what the graph showed and many farmers laughed about that.

RobW, you are ignoring what I am explaining.
1. Monsanto applied to the US government to instigate the regulatory process and as you say "Although the biotech industry did initiate the special regs for GM crops".
2. The special regulatory rules do not allow numerous GM backcrosses.
3. Golden Rice was developed using numerous GM backcrosses (rather than a single gene event)
4. Golden Rice does not comply with regulatory rules.
5. Lobbying or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (re transport labelling) has nothing to do with it if it can't pass the regulatory rules to start with.

This post is getting increasingly difficult to download and post due to its length and my slow internet speed.

http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/FDA_Mayer_Apr_2005.pdf
This site is a pro-GM campaign saying how wonderful this GM rice is because it is a campaign brochure on goldenrice from the Golden Rice company not a scientific paper. It says how we who are taking a precautionary note, are being accused of stopping delivering to the poor people of the world this wonderful product. Jorge Mayer in his paper which you are quoting says that Golden rice can give 6 ug/g. Now a question to ask here is what happens when you have an overdose of Vitamin A? Let's get the facts straight. If you start changing all the rice in the world, people who are affluent, who have the correct amount of Vitamin A in their diets, have a possibility of having overdoses of Vitamin A don't you think or are you ignoring the obvious problems with this.

Excessive Vitamin A intake usually occurs through consumption of large amounts of Vitamin A supplements. Vitamin A is used in the body for vision, immunity and bone and tissue growth and maintenance. Excessive Vitamin A use during pregnancy may increase the risk of birth defects. It also can cause symptoms such as orange skin, blurred vision and nausea. Vitamin A toxicity can cause more severe symptoms such as growth retardation, hair loss and enlarged spleen and liver and even death.

"The Australian labelling system will show you that there is GM in the product". Wrong! You show me a vegetable oil that comes from GM cotton as it all does, that says "this produce may contain GM products" and then I will say the law is following some principle. There is no policing of this policy so it does not exist to the consumer who is trying to avoid it.

Why can’t the money spent on this product be used instead as a donation of food high in Vit A or vitamin pills for all concerned?

Despite the optional status of feeding studies, FSANZ made contact with Monsanto who subsequently provided a summary of the feeding study in rats and supplemental analyses. FSANZ requested Monsanto to also supply the full raw data for the rat feeding study on MON863. This data arrived at FSANZ accompanied by a full claim for commercial-in-confidence (CCI) under section 39 of the FSANZ Act. FSANZ did not agree to the CCI claim, and so the raw data was immediately returned to Monsanto in line with the conditions upon which it was supplied to FSANZ.

Julie, when I last checked AG-Spectrum, ATR-Beacon and InVigor 60 were all mid season maturity varieties, so you can’t use that as an excuse. Stress during the growing season is, I believe, common in canola growing areas of Australia, so that would be normal. If the non-GM varieties cannot take advantage of seasonal conditions like late rain, what good are they after all? If the comparisons were between varieties with different maturity groups, I might agree with you about false positives.

Funny, the other research I talked about listed the authors as working for Bayer, not the Department of Agriculture. Don’t tell Safe, she had enough of a fit when she thought Monsanto researchers were working in the EFSA.

Of course, I support trials. These varieties should go into the NVT shouldn’t they? But why trial them if farmers are not going to be allowed to grow them?

Julie, the ACCC was quite clear that GM-free had a specific connotation that was likely to mislead consumers. Oh and the NZ sausages. They were labelled at the time of testing as GM-Free, hence the court case. The company changed their labelling from GM-Free to non-GM after the discovery by ANZFA of GM soy in their GM-Free sausages. The NZ Commerce Commission didn’t like that either, but that was in New Zealand not Australia. In any case, I doubt the ACCC would worry about how bulk canola was marketed into Japan. Do they worry about impurities in bulk grain shipments?

Pollen trials? I understand the researchers measured seed at the end of the season accounting for all conditions up to harvest.

Julie you mean an ABARE graph that looks like this one? http://www.producersforum.net.au/n_calendar.htm
It is from Page 27 of the latest ABARE report. http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

Safe, oil contains no protein or DNA, so technically contains no GM material. The full Monsanto Mon 863 rat study is available from their website http://www.sites.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/technicalandsafety/fullratstudy.pdf

Julie
I do not know what you are talking about as there is not a plant variety around today that didn't have back crosses in its past.

As for numerous backcrosses they are designed to have local varieties (which are the best producers in a given area) gain the beta carotene. Which local population would you like to see continue to lose their children to VAD?

As for the Cartagena Protocol it is failing before it ever enters use. Most countries are already sidestepping the rather nebulous nature of it for more concrete rules based on sound science. History will see it become a quiant piece of international gobbledygook.

Is it safe/Bush goddess
My definitions of science are reductionist in nature so you will not like them. I also find it hilarious that now I have shown GR II has sufficient beta carotene to help you now switch the rediculous fear of overdosing. It is very clear there will never be enough research, data, or safe use for you to accept this proven technology. I am glad the decision about GRII is in the hands of others. Have a nice day

RobW, there is not a crop variety anywhere in the world that has the GM backcrosses that Golden Rice has. A GM crop like Roundup Ready is made by adding a soil bacteria gene to a non-GM variety which gives you resistance to glyphosate.... that equals one single GM process and permitted under regulation. Golden Rice has a family tree with numerous GM processes involved. The scientist that developed Golden Rice showed a chart explaining this at a forum in Perth and explained that this is numerous GM incidents and therefore not permitted under the regulatory process.
Monsanto because they instigated the rules and the regulatory process does not address concerns but it is costly which restricts applicants to big companies such as Monsanto.
If you want Golden Rice approved, rather than wasting time blaming someone thats not at fault, you need to lobby to have the regulations amended to permit the type of breeding process used in Golden Rice. While you are at it, amend the regulatory process to address consumer concerns rather than ignoring them which could even resolve the key consumer rejection issue and would probably end up being a far cheaper process for all.

Ian, Non-GM growers do not believe the propaganda about no contamination and no price penalties, and we should NOT be liable for the consequences. Just demanding GM risks are not a problem but expecting us to pay is just plain silly. The GM sector should accept liability for any negative impact caused by the product they are promoting.

No, I am sure you are well aware of the more specific and updated ABARE data sent to you, a detailed monthly historical analysis of prices for Australian and Canadian canola in both Australian dollars and US dollars. It is very easy to see that the pre-GM Canadian price premium was lost and that Australia was getting a very significant premium (exacerbated by the drought) until Australia imported cheap subsidised GM canola from Canada. If GM canola was not cheaper why was it imported rather than purchased from WA?

Ian, if you read Monsanto's Canadian contract, trials are not permitted after commercial release so we would need to rely on Monsanto/Nufarms twist on trial data after that decision is made.
How can farmers make an informed decision if prices and independent trial data will not be available until after farmers agree to use it? How many farmers purchase anything without knowing what it will do, what it will cost them and what conditions are attached?
I can not fathom farmers supporting GM without this data just based on a whim and a promise.
It's not my "excuse" it was Bayers and written on the notes regarding trials. Farmers should not be expected to just give GM a whirl trialling ... if eager farmers try it, and fail, it will be too late to recall the product and will be too difficult to market as non-GM, retain our non-GM status and hence ithence it will remove the non-GM opposition for Canada. Canada is a larger canola producer than Australia and I am sure the companies marketing GM canola are prepared to help Canada with their market access issue problem at the detriment of Australian farmers.
Have a nice weekend:)

"Centre to reveal ill-effects of Bt cotton to public Ashok B Sharma Financial Express, August 2 2007. http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=248767

Allergenicity: The Supreme Court bench issued notices for making public the protocol for detecting contamination in field trials of GM crops

New Delhi, August 1 The Centre has agreed to place the toxicity and allergenicity data relating to Bt cotton in the public domain. Additional solicitor-general Amarender Saran told the Supreme Court in the course of hearings on a petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues and others calling for a moratorium on GM crops on Wednesday that the government was willing to share bulky data related to toxicity and allergenicity of Bt cotton and that he would also hand over a soft copy to all the petitioners.

Rodrigues' counsel Prashant Bhushan said, "We had filed an application before the apex court not to allow field trials of GM crops until biosafety committees are set up in states concerned. We have also asked for the removal of CD Mayee as the co-chairperson of GEAC as he is on the board of a global biotech promoter agency - ISAAA. Mayee's holding such dual posts amounts to conflicts of interests. The court has accepted our application and has sent notices to the government."

I am angry that people like Mayee who have made the decisions on behalf of the government have vested interests. Around the world people are starting to wake up to the non-testing of allergies of this biohazard making the consumer the guinea pig.

Julie, I am finding it hard to follow your logic. If Monsanto in Canada does not allow trials of its canola, then how did their varieties end up in the Prairie Canola Variety Trials? How did they end up in the Provincial variety trials? Ontario http://www.oopscc.org/Canola2006.html , Manitoba http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/cropproduction/pdf/seed2007/canola.pdf , Alberta http://www.canola.ab.ca/research/9906.shtml . Should I take this as something else you made up?

You seem to be making this up as you go in an attempt to defend your indefensible position. Cherry picking bits and pieces of information and putting them together in an effort to confuse. Internal prices were high in Australia last year because of a drought. They came down this year because 1 million ha of canola were sown and the market expects plenty of availability. If Australia has a decent season, I expect Canadian and Australian prices to remain similar. And Julie, I don’t remember you ever having sent me a graph of any sort. You keep confusing me with other people. But you obviously mean a graph more like this one from independent consultant Bill Crabtree http://www.no-till.com.au/pdfs/gm_issues07/gm_issues_25jun07_Market_premiums.pdf

So Julie, I am still waiting for your reasons why glufosinate will reduce the yield of InVigor canola. At this stage, I can only conclude you made that up.

More hypothetical fears I see. Each time the last "concern" is demonstrasted groundless another pops up. As for allergenicity, Bt crops have been extensively examined for potential allergenicity before each and everyone is commercialized. They are the only crops in the world analyzed for amino acid similarities to known allergens.

Repeated attempts by critics of GM crops to demonstrate aantibodies(IgE) against transgenes has shown exactly zero confirmed cases anywhere in the world after 11-12 years of commercial use of Bt crops.

The only cases of people with real Bt allergies were found in farm workers who sprayed Bt bacteria on organic crops. In these cases the allergens were not the Cry proteins used in Bt crops.

You are missing the point "the government was willing to share bulky data related to toxicity and allergenicity of Bt cotton and that he would also hand over a soft copy to all the petitioners."

How can there be no allergenicity when there seems to be "bulky data related to toxicity". I am sure it is not just one occurrence that you are so wanting the public to think.

What you say that has happened for years as mutagenisis that you say has been done with radiation or chemicals. This has happened with natural mutation and speeding up the process within the same plant kingdom. But GM is cross-kingdom interruption of the DNA by forcing a gene through bacteria bombardment that could disrupt the DNA sequence. This is very unstable and should be pointed out.

By cross-kingdom changes in the DNA, it produces allergens that were not allergens in the same kingdom. Look at the bean and pea example as according to GM Corporations, it was meant to be safe, but it produced allergens that were not in either the bean or pea. It created completely different allergens and had to be recalled. We did not need to demand human testing on the same plant kingdom but we should be demanding human testing if the DNA structure is being changed from cross-kingdom bombardment with a risk of transference to human DNA. GM is forcing and interrupting the DNA sequence with unstable foreign genes into the DNA structure itself in the hope that it would stick somewhere along the DNA strand. This has the potential to be very much a biohazard with unstable cross-kingdom bacterial genes crossing over to the human kingdom DNA.

Is it safe.
I am not sure you understand that data can be positive or negative or neutral. Toxicity and allergenicity are two though related separate categories of analysis. Do you know what the Delaney Clause is? It mandates authorities to force feed test animals large amounts of a given test substance and continue to increase the amounts until a physiological response is determined. Sometimes it is death. By this form of testing even pure water causes bladder cancer when given at huge amounts. When I stated there is not a single case of harm anywhere in the world I speak the truth (what you are "sure" of does not change the facts).

Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species are MAN MADE distinctions and there is a great deal of genetic sequence proving DNA has crossed these MAN-made lines many, many times in history.

"But GM is cross-kingdom interruption of the DNA by forcing a gene through bacteria bombardment that could disrupt the DNA sequence. This is very unstable and should be pointed out."

I am afraid you do not know what you are speaking about. I teach students how to manipulate DNA and I can tell you DNA is DNA regardless of where it comes from and only extremely rarely does it destabilize the genome when inserted into a different species.

Sorry but allergenic responses are only found in one kingdom(the most advances one that includes humans). Allergens do come from all kingdoms and we have about 500 known allergenic protein sequences(the vast majority of allergens are proteins). Sorry there has never been a recall on any GM crop. There is no risk of 'Human DNA" being altered by transgenes in GM crops, pure psuedoscience I am afraid.

Please tell me have you been reading Seeds of Deception? If you have you have believed the contents of that book you have been deceived.

I think it was Rick Roush who made the comment that canola flowering is confined to short time-frames.... someone forgot to remind the volunteer canola plants which have been flowering on the road-sides in the Central West of NSW since June and will continue to do so until probably November..... but..... oh.... didn't someone assure us that canola can be easitly contained and therefore controlled? Who is paying for plucking out all the volunteers on roadsides, stock routes, railway lines, national parks, recreation areas and cemetaries?

There has been a (very famous) re-call of GM food: the Starlink corn designated for anilmal feed in the US in the late 1990's was discovered in corn destined for human consumption. I seem to recall the costs were in the order of multiple millions..... any lessons to be learned from this?

Certainly there are lessons in this bush goddess- lessons in regulatory approval strategies. The biotech companies will now seek approval for human consumption (not just animal consumption) for all GM varieties before release. The blunder was in rushing the product to market because animal consumption approval was easier. The fact remains that there has been no real public health threat (from toxictity or allergenicity) identified in GM crops so far.

http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn.html

There is another lesson, bush goddess, and that is you really should double check your comments before posting. Rick Roush said nothing of the sort about canola. It was Julie (Non-GM farmer) who commented about the short flowering times of CORN.

Pro-GMers: Why demand there is not a problem when farmers are expected to pay if there is? Why insist there is not a health problem when consumers will be expected to be the guinea pigs?
Ian Edwards (Agronomist), it is your position that is indefensible and your dodging tactics are quite humerous.
Read Monsanto's contract, it clearly states trials are not to be carried out without permission. I have also read Monsanto's response from a trial request requesting trials and Monsanto must approve trial details first then any results must be scrutinised prior to release. It gives them the ability to select positive results and hide negative results. It also gives legal recourse against any farmer that exposes GM "high yields" or "better profits" as a scam as any comparison with other crops would be considered legally as a trial.
This is similar to the selective data that Bayer Cropscience has given. Why would most of the trials of a GM chemical resistant crop developed as a weed control tool be grown in a weed free area with no application of chemicals? Are the trials rigged to avoid assessing yield penalties associated with glufosinate ammonium (as experienced by TT varieties). It does not matter how there is a yield penalty, it is a matter to prove there is no yield penalty and that has has been deliberately avoided.
Non-GM farmers don't mind if you explain your misleading excuses for Canada obviously tolerating a price penalty associated with adopting GM but we do mind if you expect us to believe it and then expect us to accept lower prices if you are wrong. If the pro-GM sector truly believed the propaganda, they would not hesitate to offer to compensate us if we are proven right and we do experience canola price penalties when GM comes in and it is too difficult and too expensive to try to market as non-GM to avoid the price penalties.
It is not unreasonable for us to refuse to accept economic loss caused by a crop we do not want and do not need

So Julie when you said “if you read Monsanto's Canadian contract, trials are not permitted after commercial release” you didn’t mean that at all. You really meant “Read Monsanto's contract, it clearly states trials are not to be carried out without permission”. Quite a different story. Of course the varieties will go into the NVT on the lifting of the moritorium won’t they?

Oh and I saw today that your government was set to approve GM cotton cultivation. www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/55503/GM-cotton-report-opens-new-potential-for-Ord-region

Why are most of the yield trials of atrazine-resistant canola in Australia conducted in the absence of weeds? Because that is the way such trials are conducted. It is the farming systems trials that are important. These have been conducted in a limited way by Bayer as described in their fact sheet. In that, the atrazine resistant canola came out quite well despite its yield penalty, because of improved weed control. The InVigor hybrids were just that much better again.

I think it has been you that has been providing misleading information about a price penalty. As far as Canadian farmers are concerned there is none. Indeed a Canola Council of Canada study found an economic benefit of $5.80 per hectare for farmers growing biotech canola. http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo_toc.htm Other studies have shown the value to the canola industry in Canada to have been huge - $175 million in 2005 http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/global_impactstudy_2006_v1_finalPGEconomics.pdf .

If Monsanto only approve the trials that do not show adverse results, they are not really accurate trials are they? I noticed there is a big push to get the NVT trials to rely on sponsorship rather than GRDC funding, but if they do, they are not independent are they?
Even if the government approved GM cotton, it will not be grown commercially till a processing plant is built. With the scare over the sugar mill being uneconomical, it could put investors off and commercial release is dependent on investors seeing it as an economical advantage for them, not for the R&D sector.
It is outrageous that you expect us to believe there is no price penalties associated with GM canola when it will be us that will be paying the difference if you are wrong. Put your money where your mouth is and get the GM industry to compensate us for the difference. If Canadians were profiting, they would not have introduced such massive subsidies when their yields were at their highest would they?
Canada does not have the cheaper, unregulated TT varieties to compete against so naturally there will be a big difference in non-GM comparisons.

Julie, you are clutching at straws now. How is Monsanto going to know the results of trials before they have been conducted? Is the NVT based on sponsorship? Their website doesn’t say so. This is typical of your claims. They hold ever so little water.

Much of the rest of what you state is perhapses and maybes.

You are also deluding yourself about atrazine resistant canola. Canada invented atrazine resistant canola, but none of it is now grown in Canada. The reason? The appalling yields. Canadian farmers routinely described it as yield resistant. In Canada there was no need to compensate growers for losses caused by GM canola, because there were none.

I have provided you with considerable evidence of the financial benefits to Canadian canola growers, which you refuse to believe because it undermines your quasi-religious beliefs on GM crops. There are other studies out there as well, but I am sure you will persist in your denialism.

Perhaps if you read the comments and the reports I reference more thoroughly you could manage to understand. However Ian I am aware that you are very bitter about the GM debate and you hold an vehement grudge against those that state the bleedin obvious about GM.

Monsanto insists on seeing results of trials both before and after they are done, therefore trials have been performed and Monsanto has the right to veto the information being released. I explained that there was a push for sponsorship on NVT trials, not that they are sponsored.

If we conduct independent performance trials on all GM varieties and compared them with our most popular triazine tolerant varieties, we would be able to have more information regarding performance. But no, to date the GM companies have refused independent trials. What do they know that they don't want us to know?

When we have independent data we can progress to evaluate costs versus benefits = benefit or no benefit conclusion for the grower wanting to grow GM.
Meanwhile non-GM growers are quite within our rights to refuse to accept additional costs and liabilities and you screaming saying that there are no risks is not going to appease us. Rather than deny there will be a loss, why not support legislation where the GM company compensates us for losses

Well this debate has wound down. Those with positive attitudes towards GM crops and food know the world is moving forward. Those on this forum (and sadly most forums) against never seem to accept the vast amount of data (and twelve years of consumption) that point to the safety of this technology. Those in favour say use it or not, your choice. Those opposed want it banned. And all the while more countries, more acres of biotech crops continue to be planted each year. I truely hope Australia gets past the discredited opposition points about GM crops and food and joins the world soon.

Cheers
Folks

Oh and one last point. GM crops and food are not a panacea. They are just another set of tools in the worlds agricultural toolbox. Sometimes the right tool sometimes not.

Cheers

Breaking news, it seems the Australian agricultural industry, producers, traders and marketers have all said they are ready for GM canola. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/australian-grains-industry-strongly.html

"Major Australian grains industry stakeholders have agreed that Australia is now ready to adopt GM canola, and are committed as demonstrated by their endorsement of this document to
deliver market choice. Accordingly, the Australian grains industry urges governments to recognise the grains industry’s ability and commitment, and to support the commercialisation of approved GM canola in Australia."

The list of participants in the announcement includes the Australian Barley Board, Cargill, CBH, Graincorp, Flower Miller's Association of Australia, PGA Western Graingrowers, WAFF, VFF, SAFF and others.

Kim Chance it seems will stand alone with Greenpeace, IHER, NCF and other groups with no representation.

And how were the decisions made?
Farmers believed misleading claims of higher yields, drought tolerance, better profitability that has been promoted by the R&D sector that has a massive vested interest. Anyone who countered the debate put up with ridiculous bully boy tactics.
Buyers of grain are promised a reason to pay less for a product while farmers are told there are no price penalties with GM (well not exactly, they are told there is no price premiums for non-GM which means the same).
How about we make those that want GM pay those that don't if our concerns are validated?

Also, most policies of support are conditional but the conditions have not been met.
eg.
ABB SPEECH NOTES FOR THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ABB GRAIN LTD, MICHAEL
IWANIW AT THE ABARE OUTLOOK 2006 CONFERENCE, AT THE NATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE, CANBERRA, MARCH 1, 2006.
"ABB's view is that GM grains shouldn't be released for commercial
production in Australia until international and domestic customers
accept GM grain.and. Australia has tested and implemented an efficient and cost-effective value chain management system - recognised by overseas and domestic customers - that enables the trade of GM and non-GM grain, without risk of:
· Damaging the strong relationship existing between Australian
marketers and their customers

· Price discounts; and

· Loss of markets
We will continue to discuss the potential for GM grains with our
international customers, and will press for their introduction where the criteria I have just mentioned has been satisfied."

Julie, you need to get with the times and stop quoting outdated documents. This from Delivering Market Choice with GM Canola - Released 7th August 2007 http://www.afaa.com.au/pdf/Delivering_Market_Choice_with_GM_canola.pdf

“Major Australian grains industry stakeholders have agreed that Australia is now ready to adopt GM canola, and are committed as demonstrated by their endorsement of this document to deliver market choice.”

From the press: http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=44432

Southern NSW grain grower, Angus McLaren, told more than 400 delegates that the industry can adopt GM canola, and provide choice, to allow Australian growers to compete on the world market.

“Canadian canola farmers are reaping the rewards from GM canola. Australian growers should be able to have the choice to explore that opportunity.

“Extensive industry consultation has shown that the supply chain has the protocols, practices and processes either in place or available to manage these new varieties of canola, in the 2008 season.

The grains industry has also recognised that choice must be a priority across the supply chain and that all customers – from farmers to consumers - can use or access the products of their choice.

“Importantly, this document has been endorsed by leaders of organisations from across the industry,” he said.

Seems like the world has moved on Julie.

Agrifoods Awareness Australia is an organisation which was formed to lobby GE technologies to decision makers across governments and farmer associations. Have a peek as to who funds that organisation and an objective brain would figure out there are very vested interests.

Vested interests pursue one avenue and are not about providing a holisitc or world-view perspective and posess some of the very best spin-doctors around....... it is not difficult to create heart-string stories about GEs being necessary to feed the starving millions or Golden Rice delivering Vitamin A to save the sight of a few more.

Discreet lobbying to promote GE technology at the highest levels has been happening since the early 1990's (in Australia) and the developing companies have dedicated resources and personnel to play this part of the 'game'. If anyone has any doubts about the claims of these wonder crops, they are labelled luddites or techno-phobes, or said to possess quasi-religious zeal in their quest to seek independent information and question the mass application of yet another silver-bullet-solution.

As one of the posters said a little earlier, this is just another tool... some work and some don't. Thank you for this insight. What are the costs if this doesn't work? Who pays for cleaning up the mess? The proponents don't seem to have the confidence to do so in (their words) the unlikely event they could be wrong.

Why aren't the examples from India and the use of Bt cotton deemed important in gathering as wide as possible portfolio of evidence to ascertain the benefits or disadvantages of GM technology from around the globe (and there are plenty of examples of how the botanic landscapes have been irrevocably altered in parts of the US, Canada and Mexico since the widespred use of GE crops).

Why should Australia be led by the nose into the maelstrom of manipulated world commodity markets instead of remaining independent and therefore maintain a competitive advantage, not only for GE-free canola but a myriad of other products too........

A question on simple economics - if there is more of something in the market place, what happens to the price? Apply the laws of demand and supply........ why is a kilo of diamonds more valuable than a kilo of canola? Becuase there are less of them..... the more scarce an item, the more it is worth. The more canola there is on a world market, the less it is worth and recall what happens to Australian wheat prices when there is a lower harvest of wheat in the US - the price rises as there is less available.

Australia doesn't need to produce canola similar to Canada's. We need to produce canola that is more valuable than Canada's and that is taking the smart line.

And who represesented the non-GM farmers views on the single vision document?
The Network of Concerned Farmers were not consulted but were told that our views were represented by "Rocky" Hudson (ex Monsanto manager).
It disgusts me the corrupt lengths the research sector is prepared to go to to ram GM canola in.

Bush Goddess the truth is that most of the claims made by the ant-GM groups have not come to fruition. This technology has for the most part proved perfectly safe and robust as used by more than 10 million farmers on more than 100 million hectares last year. Not everybody has had a good experience with the technology, like all technologies, but those that don’t want to use it have choice and can opt out.

There has been no advantage to Australia in not adopting the technology. There are not higher prices paid for non-GM products from Australia except for a few very small niche markets. At the same time Australian farmers are missing out on any benefits. The bans in Australia are serving no real purpose except allowing Greenpeace to claim another success in their quest for donations.

GM products are just another tool, but they can be a very useful one. If everybody else has access and you don’t, you are immediately at a competitive disadvantage. Extra supply may depress prices, but if your opposition are the ones able to increase supply and you can’t, you still suffer the disadvantage. That might not matter if there were advantages to not having access, but in fact there are none.

The document in question is available from AFAA, but is in fact the creation of a wide variety of people in the industry all of whom have a vested interest in agriculture ranging from growing agricultural products, seed and technology providers to product marketing. The NCF wasn’t asked because, as Julie has stated, they represent nobody but themselves. Instead it was the representative farmer’s organisations that were asked and have all signed up.

Let’s see your “examples of how the botanic landscapes have been irrevocably altered in parts of the US, Canada and Mexico since the widespred use of GE crops” I travel extensively in two of these countries and have visited the third over the last decade and a half. The changes driven by GE crops I have seen are: less tillage and less use of herbicides.

Reality check Ian,
What benefits? It does not yield more but costs more.
What choice? We are all expected to market as GM and therefore consumers will not have a choice either.
Blind freddy can see that there are price penalties and market access problems associated with marketing as GM ("lower prices" is even used as a selling point to get support from the buyers of grain)

Oh yes of course, you mean the benefits and choice for the research and development sector and others in the industry that as you admit "all of whom have a vested interest".

Forcing all the risks onto non-GM farmers is negligent.

Julie, InVigor canola does yield more because it is a hybrid – often it yields more than conventional hybrids. For the last decade, InVigor canola varieties have topped the Prairie Canola Variety Trials in Canada – this is an incontrovertible fact. TT canola yields less because it has an in-built fitness penalty. Another incontrovertible fact.

The price penalties are in your head. A new report published by the Australian Government had this to say: “Consumers do appear to be concerned about GM crops in general but these concerns do not appear to be translating into significant or sustained price increases being paid for non GM canola products.” http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology

I was somewhat amused to see that your "network" now uses Kim Chance as the expert on canola prices.

You would note that I included farmers as among those who have a vested interest in agriculture. Surely they are the ones who should be listened to? Their representative bodies have all signed up to Delivering Market Choice. It seems that your unrepresentative group are the ones who want to hold back progress for Australian farmers.

By the way, my name is not Ian.

Read the trial results Ian, non-GM hybrids yielded higher than GM hybrids.
Why should we believe the "experts" telling non-GM farmers that we will not suffer financially if GM is introduced when you expect us to pick up the tab if we are right and you are wrong. Those pushing GM need to put their money where their mouth is

Julie, I have read the results of the Prairie Canola Variety Trials. You can find them here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/PCVT_SECTION.pdf#zoom=100 for 2003, here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/PVT_pages.pdf#zoom=100 for 2004, here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/Variety_Trials_1-7.pdf#zoom=100 for 2005 and here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/Nov27_CD_pg25-30.pdf#zoom=100 for 2006. In 2003, Liberty varieties (=InVigor) were the two highest yielding varieties in the short season zone, the two highest in the mid-season zone and the 3 highest in the long-season zone. There were only 3 Liberty varieties in each zone's trials. In 2004, Liberty varieties were the 3 highest yielding varieties across the trials and in each of the 3 zones. There were only 4 Liberty varieties in the trial. In 2005, the 3 Liberty varieties in the trial were the highest yielding in each of the zones as well as across the whole trial. In 2006, the 4 Liberty hybrids were the highest yielding varieties across the trials. Liberty varieties were the 3 highest yielding in the long season zone, 4 of the 5 highest yielding in the mid-season zone (split by a Roundup Ready hybrid) and 4 of the 6 highest yielding in the short season zone (split by 2 Roundup Ready hybrids).

Clearly you are wrong about non-GM hybrids yielding more.

By the way, my name is not Ian.

So you go and change your words now into scientific jargon that you teach your students on the manipulation of DNA. No scientist truly knows what happens to proteins and genes in the long term with genetically modifed bombardment and if you deny this, you are truly lying to the general public. What I am fighting about is the damaging effect of the DNA with a bombardment of your GM gene. One damaged gene in a particular spot causes problems or are you denying this?

Yes we have a vast majority of allergens but you are affecting the protein as well with your bombardment thus the possibility of allergic responses is high or are you denying this?

Yes, there has never been a recall yet of GM products with food because how would you back-track it? The only way l-trytophan was found out was because it could be backtracked as it was a pill taken by people to "bulk" up their muscles.

How would anyone know if they went to hospital with an allergic reaction, that what they have eaten for years (now GM) would have caused an allergic response. It would not even cross the victims mind to mention that they have eaten GM as in most cases, due to poor labelling and policing of the labelling, they would not have known. That is why the GM companies can laugh at the statement "not a single case of harm anywhere in the world" You do not speak the truth and how dare you say that it is truth as it is not as you don't know. You are guessing only and one day you will know that.

http://www.ideaireland.org/gmfoodhealth.htm
"The gene insertion process (in GM process) is very inefficient and requires that an antibiotic resistance marker gene be coupled to the desired foreign gene.

This allows plants cells that have taken up the foreign gene to be selected by growth in the presence of the appropriate antibiotic. Once selected, GM transformed cells are stimulated to develop into fully mature plants.

There are potentially serious health concerns arising from the use of the GM process. Overall the GM transformation process (foreign gene insertion plus tissue culture propagation of plant material) is known to be highly mutagenic and can cause hundreds or even thousands of disruptions to the ordinary command code sequence in the DNA and may disturb the functioning of the cell in unpredictable and potentially hazardous ways. These new genes will of course cause the creation of new proteins, which will generally be alien to the plant, and may, in the worst case, be toxic, allergenic or otherwise detrimental to heath.

The characteristics of a protein with known allergenicity that would distinguish it from a protein unlikely to be allergenic are not known and further difficulties in the elucidation of allergenicity, including the availability of allergen-specific antisera have also been outlined."

Is it safe.

No scientist truely knows anything for sure. The suggestion that genetic modification is less precise then cross breeding, radiation mutagenesis or chemical mutagenesis breeding is simple incorrect. It is the most precise method man has ever used to generate new crops. If you have a problem with its efficiency then you must have a bigger one with all other methods. European Food Safety Agency said "genetically modified plants and products derived from them present no risk to human health or the environment...more precise technology and greater regulatory scrutiny probably make these crops and products even safer than plants and products generated from conventional plant breeding." of course it only took the EFSA 15 years and over 60 research proje`ct at a cost of 70 million Euros to come to this conclusion.

I do not Lie, period.

Please have a look at the German Academy of Humanisties and science Report on the allergen allegations. (linked on my website)

An excellent review article was resently published out of Spain. Biosafety and Risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes(antibiotic and herbicide tolerance genes to you) in Transgenic Crop Plants: A case of Science not Supporting the Politics. by Christou et al In it you can read all the reseach that leeads food regulators around the world to their safe conclusions about GM crops and Food.

and

The UN-OECD report on the safety of Bt crops is a very good read.
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/07-214-001.pdf In it you can read all the reseach done to demonstrate the safety of Bt crops. The front of the document shows all those scientific organizations that signed onto this document and its safe conclusion for Bt crops.

Enjoy the reading

Hi Safe,

Allergic reactions occur almost immediately after exposure to the allergen. If it is a food protein, certainly within an hour or so of ingestion. You would know. http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/factsheets/Factallergy.htm That is why we can be sure that the current GM foods on the market do not cause allergic reactions.

L-tryptophan problems were due to a faulty filtering process. The problems were known before GM L-tryptophan came onto the market and have been see since. The FDA has a full discussion:
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tp5htp.html
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00064.html
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ltr3.html

Somewhat ironically, this condition might never had come to pass had the alternative and complementary medicine industry not promoted high doses of L-tryptophan in the first place