RobW -

You make a statement about 'pseudoscience' and I'd apprecite your definition of that.... then 'science'...... and where does anecdotal evidence fit into the gathering and collecting of research material?

If you abide by the double-blind and replicable study system, then so much material is missed as the terms of reference for any trials limit the scope of what can actually be discovered. Rarely in such clinical trials do emergents occur as the parameters are so tight there is no opportunity. Thus the results are reasonably predictable. This isn't science - this is repetition and endorsement.

True science is seeking the new and unknown and it is only when working in an unknown zone that discoveries are made. It takes courage for a person to move from a state of knowing to unknowing as one has to abandon many beliefs and opinions their (scientific) reputations have beeen founded on.

I am not demeaning in any sense the years of study some people have in specific field as learnings build on previous knowledge. However, in clinical and technical science these days - with commercial imperatives - true science for the sake of itself, is now rare.

Again, I'd love to see people think beyond the results per se, and extend their imaginations to how, where, why and how this will be applied and take a 2, 4, 6, 10,20+ year appraisal using holistic frameworks.

I can understand the thrill of developing something new and novel - on a smaller scale, I do that with recipes in my laboratory (kitchen). However, responsibility must be taken to look at the long-term effects of some of the creations...... silicone breast implants seemed a good idea at the time and were a money-spinner for Dow Corning. A few years on and many cases of illness and damages claims proved disastrous for all involved.

Short-term economic gain is not a good enough reason to pursue a case.... and I rest mine.

Ian Edwards (Agronomist), again you are only reading the summary and not the full report. There are other reasons for results that you are deliberately denying and these can give false positives.
Notes on 2005 Trial (first results) included:
- "Seasonal conditions experienced included a late break, stress during growing season and late rain, which favoured herbicide tolerant hybrids."
- "Conditions ideal for late maturing varieties."
Notes on 03 and 2005 trials (second results) included:
- "Weed free sites selected. No Liberty applied." (did they use Triazine on the TT varieties I wonder?)
- "2004 trial sites were subject to drought conditions hence no results included."
These trial result summaries are not really assessing yields in the way that farmers would grow the crop and are a bit misleading aren't they? Do you support the 2ha independent trials proposed?

Ian, see the earlier posts for the debate on the Ag Dept trials, you found the reference yourself.

The idea was choice and non-GM farmers do not want to be forced to either grow or market "GM". Who pays if the misleading propaganda is wrong? Farmers! Be confident about the propaganda and push for the GM sector to be liable for the consequences, rather than the farmers that do not want to be adversely impacted.

Non-GM is the same as GM-free (organic Federation has written confirmation of this). FSANZ was part of a legal action against a New Zealand sausage maker who used the supposedly less-restrictive "Non-GM" label and was succesfully prosecuted for false and misleading claims with a 0.08% GM contamination. A similar problem was experienced by a german breakfast food manufacturer. The legislated 0.9% rule (differs internationally) is what level requires a label of GM, it is not what is tolerated in a non-GM label

You need to look at canola growing in the paddock, canola has been flowering for weeks now and usually stops around September/October but some is still flowering in November if late rains are around. Pollen trials would differ depending on seasonal conditions (eg.wind) and animal infestation (we have thousands of emus and kangaroos roaming about our crops and pollen will survive on animals for a few days.) Why not have a rule preventing GM farmers planting within a paddock of their neighbours? It would be far fairer. GM is the intruder to the industry, not non-GM.

Ian, I sent the ABARE graph (work requested of and done by Max Foster) to everyone on the committee and you are one of those. It was printed in the Farm Weekly as an attachment to Bill Crabtrees letter but his letter did not reflect what the graph showed and many farmers laughed about that.

RobW, you are ignoring what I am explaining.
1. Monsanto applied to the US government to instigate the regulatory process and as you say "Although the biotech industry did initiate the special regs for GM crops".
2. The special regulatory rules do not allow numerous GM backcrosses.
3. Golden Rice was developed using numerous GM backcrosses (rather than a single gene event)
4. Golden Rice does not comply with regulatory rules.
5. Lobbying or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (re transport labelling) has nothing to do with it if it can't pass the regulatory rules to start with.

This post is getting increasingly difficult to download and post due to its length and my slow internet speed.

http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/FDA_Mayer_Apr_2005.pdf
This site is a pro-GM campaign saying how wonderful this GM rice is because it is a campaign brochure on goldenrice from the Golden Rice company not a scientific paper. It says how we who are taking a precautionary note, are being accused of stopping delivering to the poor people of the world this wonderful product. Jorge Mayer in his paper which you are quoting says that Golden rice can give 6 ug/g. Now a question to ask here is what happens when you have an overdose of Vitamin A? Let's get the facts straight. If you start changing all the rice in the world, people who are affluent, who have the correct amount of Vitamin A in their diets, have a possibility of having overdoses of Vitamin A don't you think or are you ignoring the obvious problems with this.

Excessive Vitamin A intake usually occurs through consumption of large amounts of Vitamin A supplements. Vitamin A is used in the body for vision, immunity and bone and tissue growth and maintenance. Excessive Vitamin A use during pregnancy may increase the risk of birth defects. It also can cause symptoms such as orange skin, blurred vision and nausea. Vitamin A toxicity can cause more severe symptoms such as growth retardation, hair loss and enlarged spleen and liver and even death.

"The Australian labelling system will show you that there is GM in the product". Wrong! You show me a vegetable oil that comes from GM cotton as it all does, that says "this produce may contain GM products" and then I will say the law is following some principle. There is no policing of this policy so it does not exist to the consumer who is trying to avoid it.

Why can’t the money spent on this product be used instead as a donation of food high in Vit A or vitamin pills for all concerned?

Despite the optional status of feeding studies, FSANZ made contact with Monsanto who subsequently provided a summary of the feeding study in rats and supplemental analyses. FSANZ requested Monsanto to also supply the full raw data for the rat feeding study on MON863. This data arrived at FSANZ accompanied by a full claim for commercial-in-confidence (CCI) under section 39 of the FSANZ Act. FSANZ did not agree to the CCI claim, and so the raw data was immediately returned to Monsanto in line with the conditions upon which it was supplied to FSANZ.

Julie, when I last checked AG-Spectrum, ATR-Beacon and InVigor 60 were all mid season maturity varieties, so you can’t use that as an excuse. Stress during the growing season is, I believe, common in canola growing areas of Australia, so that would be normal. If the non-GM varieties cannot take advantage of seasonal conditions like late rain, what good are they after all? If the comparisons were between varieties with different maturity groups, I might agree with you about false positives.

Funny, the other research I talked about listed the authors as working for Bayer, not the Department of Agriculture. Don’t tell Safe, she had enough of a fit when she thought Monsanto researchers were working in the EFSA.

Of course, I support trials. These varieties should go into the NVT shouldn’t they? But why trial them if farmers are not going to be allowed to grow them?

Julie, the ACCC was quite clear that GM-free had a specific connotation that was likely to mislead consumers. Oh and the NZ sausages. They were labelled at the time of testing as GM-Free, hence the court case. The company changed their labelling from GM-Free to non-GM after the discovery by ANZFA of GM soy in their GM-Free sausages. The NZ Commerce Commission didn’t like that either, but that was in New Zealand not Australia. In any case, I doubt the ACCC would worry about how bulk canola was marketed into Japan. Do they worry about impurities in bulk grain shipments?

Pollen trials? I understand the researchers measured seed at the end of the season accounting for all conditions up to harvest.

Julie you mean an ABARE graph that looks like this one? http://www.producersforum.net.au/n_calendar.htm
It is from Page 27 of the latest ABARE report. http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/gm_canola.pdf

Safe, oil contains no protein or DNA, so technically contains no GM material. The full Monsanto Mon 863 rat study is available from their website http://www.sites.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/technicalandsafety/fullratstudy.pdf