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!