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.