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