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