Seems I have not kept up with the Golden Rice Project. They are now crossing GRII with its 3o odd micrograms /gram beta carotene into many varieties of rice. If you are interested you can ask for the specific varieties or go to goldenrice.org and read for yourself.

As for GP not being responsible for the delays. Give this forum a break. They are directly involved in lobbying governments in the far east(you know your own neck of the woods) against Golden Rice.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/syngenta-agm
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/worldfoodday1410
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/all-that-glitters-is-not-gold
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/failures-of-golden-rice

And here is some real information on it.

Why Greenpeace is morally bankrupt (IMHO)
http://www.sirc.org:80/articles/rice_dilemma.shtml

http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Potrykus_Zurich_2005.pdf

http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/FDA_Mayer_Apr_2005.pdf

Golden Rice II http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7196

So after reading al these links please explain how over two years after Greenpeace learned Golden Rice II has sufficient beta carotene to stop the blindness and death of poor children, they(GP) still have the BS story about the original golden rice on their website. Seems people like bush goddess are misled by such activites and FAR WORSE the delays are costing poor children their lives!

I agree Ian, it sounds absolutely ridiculous and very unfair to non-GM farmers but this is the coexistence plan that is presented to us by Avcare and adopted as "accepted by industry" despite non-GM growers disagreeing.
The law states that anyone making a statement about their product (eg non-GM or GM-free) must ensure that their product is as they state (ACCC states that non-GM = no GM) and the legal contracts we sign on delivery require farmers to sign to declare our canola does not have GM (or a level of less than 0.9%) and that we indemnify the supply chain if they cause any contamination. Legally the non-GM farmer is liable for recall and contamination cleanup and price differences if our delivery causes contamination of a non-GM product.
While a 5 metre buffer zone is recommended, the coexistence principles state that it is up to the farmer to provide the buffer zone necessary to meet the demands of their market and of course 5 metres is woefully inadequate to meet these.
"Talking with neighbours" will never keep GM and non-GM canola segregated. The "talk" was applicable to corn where flowering is very short and flowering times could be coordinated where the non-GM grower avoided similar flowering times (not the GM grower). Canola however flowers from July to November and non-GM growers can certainly NOT avoid our crops flowering during this time.
The recommended coexistence plans for any country is that the non-GM grower is to keep GM out, not the GM grower to keep it contained. There is absolutely no onus on the GM industry to keep their product out of our non-GM supply chain and that is wrong!

Canadians and key markets (such as Japanese mills) realised that it was too difficult and too expensive for non-GM sector to try to keep GM out of a non-GM product.
Non-GM canola growers either market as GM or have a rigorous identity preservation system (including importing uncontaminated non-GM seed)that almost totally counters the premiums offered for non-GM. Neither is acceptable to farmers not wanting to be adversely impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need. Why should we accept costs?
ABARE's full report explained that there are some premiums and there is market access problems. Reading the graph from ABARE (I sent it to you last month) you can very clearly see the price penalties associated with Canada marketing their produce as GM. Why should we accept lower prices?

Your link states clearly that the canola used for yield trials excluded chemical use. State Ag Departments did use chemicals and concluded Invigor yielded the same as triazine tolerant varieties but less than non-GM hybrids.

RobW, not only have you an obvious issue with Greenpeace that I can't help you with, but you appear to misunderstand the issue. Golden Rice is not grown anywhere in the world because the specific rgulatory criteria (instigated by Monsanto)does not permit multiple backcrosses. Why would Monsanto want regulation? If the government is charged with regulating the safety of GM, the government is then legally liable for any problems if it is found unsafe in the future.
If GR is worth releasing, regulatory guidelines will either need to be changed to allow multiple backcrosses or will need to be bred to only include one single GM process. But no... pro-GM activists like to use this as an incorrect example of how the starving are denied a trait that could save them when their reasons for lack of commercialisation are simply not true.

Julie, I guess you are making stuff up.

The ACC actually says that GM-Free = no GM. Read all about it here
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=306404&nodeId=15a6875cfd129808c320370c1a142e8d&fn=News%20for%20Business:%20Genetically%20Modified%20Foods%20and%20Organisms.pdf

“If the product does contain novel DNA and/or novel protein — of any percentage — a 'free' claim may mislead. In this case the manufacturer or supplier should consider a different claim that more accurately describes the product.”

A non-GM claim would more accurately describe the product. I couldn’t find anywhere where the ACC said you couldn’t use a non-GM label.

And you must grow some fantastic canola that flowers for 6 months. How come you get such rubbish yields?

Didn’t you have some research done in Western Australia showing almost no pollen movement between canola crops? Wouldn’t this mean that 5m would be perfectly fine for separation? How often do you grow canola in any one field? Wouldn’t it be possible to not plant canola next to your neighbour’s GM canola? That works fine for GM crops in North America. Isn’t it a rule in Australia that the grower getting the premium should be responsible for delivering the required specification?

Don’t accept costs, grow GM canola. You will get higher yield for less cost and, as there is no price penalty, you will do fine.

Somehow I get the feeling that you are trying to make this seem harder than it is.

What graph you sent me? Now you are really making stuff up.

The ABARE report talked about price premiums for organic and certified GM-free – both identity preserved systems. “While there is some limited evidence of price premiums for organic and certified GM-free canola, markets for these canola types are still very much small niches” and then stated “the great bulk of GM canola is sold at very similar prices to conventional canola in most major canola markets throughout the world.” http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

More from ABARE “Comparisons between Australian and Canadian domestic prices have been used to suggest that there is a growing price premium for Australian canola in world markets on the basis of its non-GM status. However, such a comparison reflects a range of domestic supply and demand conditions in the two markets, making it difficult to isolate any potential preferences for non-GM canola.” Fairly definitive huh?

And Julie, because you don’t seem to be able to read, let me quote from the pamphlet on the InVigor trial results:

“Herbicide system trials: (Refer Figure 1 & Table 1, Page 2) In demonstration strip trials, the combination of weed control and hybrid performance resulted in all InVigor lines outperforming the conventional, Spectrum and Triazine Tolerant (TT) Beacon variety comparisons. The hybrid vigour is evident early with InVigor lines having greater seedling vigour and potential to out compete weeds early. The harvested yield differences were as much as 32 to 42% yield versus the conventional and 18 to 28% versus the TT variety. Oil yields for InVigor lines ranged from 42 to 45% (versus 41 and 40% for the comparison varieties).” http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/2005%20InVigor%20hybrid%20canola%20research%20and%20innovation%20trial%20results.pdf

Notice that bit about “the combination of weed control”?

Now where are these State Ag Department trials you keep talking about? I haven’t been able to find them so far.

Perhaps third time lucky here. Where is the evidence that glufosinate application reduces yields of InVigor canola? Or did you make this up as well?

Julie, what rubbish you are talking about Golden Rice. Almost every GM crop sold has resulted from “multiple backcrosses”. That is how you get the GM trait into agronomically-useful varieties.

Well if Julie won't read, others can. The links make it very clear
Monsanto has nothing to do with Golden Rice but Greenpeace sure does.
Although the biotech industry did initiate the special regs for GM crops they massive lobbying by NGO's brought us the Catagena Protocol with all its flaws. The reality is increased regs are being used to stop GM crop development in the developing world and those people are the ones who suffer for the illogical nature of the regs.

If the negative costs of not implimenting GM technology were ever examined as a consequence the Precautionary Principle demands the GM crops should be developed. Oh and ther PP demands the PP should be scraped.