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.