Julie
I do not know what you are talking about as there is not a plant variety around today that didn't have back crosses in its past.

As for numerous backcrosses they are designed to have local varieties (which are the best producers in a given area) gain the beta carotene. Which local population would you like to see continue to lose their children to VAD?

As for the Cartagena Protocol it is failing before it ever enters use. Most countries are already sidestepping the rather nebulous nature of it for more concrete rules based on sound science. History will see it become a quiant piece of international gobbledygook.

Is it safe/Bush goddess
My definitions of science are reductionist in nature so you will not like them. I also find it hilarious that now I have shown GR II has sufficient beta carotene to help you now switch the rediculous fear of overdosing. It is very clear there will never be enough research, data, or safe use for you to accept this proven technology. I am glad the decision about GRII is in the hands of others. Have a nice day

RobW, there is not a crop variety anywhere in the world that has the GM backcrosses that Golden Rice has. A GM crop like Roundup Ready is made by adding a soil bacteria gene to a non-GM variety which gives you resistance to glyphosate.... that equals one single GM process and permitted under regulation. Golden Rice has a family tree with numerous GM processes involved. The scientist that developed Golden Rice showed a chart explaining this at a forum in Perth and explained that this is numerous GM incidents and therefore not permitted under the regulatory process.
Monsanto because they instigated the rules and the regulatory process does not address concerns but it is costly which restricts applicants to big companies such as Monsanto.
If you want Golden Rice approved, rather than wasting time blaming someone thats not at fault, you need to lobby to have the regulations amended to permit the type of breeding process used in Golden Rice. While you are at it, amend the regulatory process to address consumer concerns rather than ignoring them which could even resolve the key consumer rejection issue and would probably end up being a far cheaper process for all.

Ian, Non-GM growers do not believe the propaganda about no contamination and no price penalties, and we should NOT be liable for the consequences. Just demanding GM risks are not a problem but expecting us to pay is just plain silly. The GM sector should accept liability for any negative impact caused by the product they are promoting.

No, I am sure you are well aware of the more specific and updated ABARE data sent to you, a detailed monthly historical analysis of prices for Australian and Canadian canola in both Australian dollars and US dollars. It is very easy to see that the pre-GM Canadian price premium was lost and that Australia was getting a very significant premium (exacerbated by the drought) until Australia imported cheap subsidised GM canola from Canada. If GM canola was not cheaper why was it imported rather than purchased from WA?

Ian, if you read Monsanto's Canadian contract, trials are not permitted after commercial release so we would need to rely on Monsanto/Nufarms twist on trial data after that decision is made.
How can farmers make an informed decision if prices and independent trial data will not be available until after farmers agree to use it? How many farmers purchase anything without knowing what it will do, what it will cost them and what conditions are attached?
I can not fathom farmers supporting GM without this data just based on a whim and a promise.
It's not my "excuse" it was Bayers and written on the notes regarding trials. Farmers should not be expected to just give GM a whirl trialling ... if eager farmers try it, and fail, it will be too late to recall the product and will be too difficult to market as non-GM, retain our non-GM status and hence ithence it will remove the non-GM opposition for Canada. Canada is a larger canola producer than Australia and I am sure the companies marketing GM canola are prepared to help Canada with their market access issue problem at the detriment of Australian farmers.
Have a nice weekend:)

"Centre to reveal ill-effects of Bt cotton to public Ashok B Sharma Financial Express, August 2 2007. http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=248767

Allergenicity: The Supreme Court bench issued notices for making public the protocol for detecting contamination in field trials of GM crops

New Delhi, August 1 The Centre has agreed to place the toxicity and allergenicity data relating to Bt cotton in the public domain. Additional solicitor-general Amarender Saran told the Supreme Court in the course of hearings on a petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues and others calling for a moratorium on GM crops on Wednesday that the government was willing to share bulky data related to toxicity and allergenicity of Bt cotton and that he would also hand over a soft copy to all the petitioners.

Rodrigues' counsel Prashant Bhushan said, "We had filed an application before the apex court not to allow field trials of GM crops until biosafety committees are set up in states concerned. We have also asked for the removal of CD Mayee as the co-chairperson of GEAC as he is on the board of a global biotech promoter agency - ISAAA. Mayee's holding such dual posts amounts to conflicts of interests. The court has accepted our application and has sent notices to the government."

I am angry that people like Mayee who have made the decisions on behalf of the government have vested interests. Around the world people are starting to wake up to the non-testing of allergies of this biohazard making the consumer the guinea pig.

Julie, I am finding it hard to follow your logic. If Monsanto in Canada does not allow trials of its canola, then how did their varieties end up in the Prairie Canola Variety Trials? How did they end up in the Provincial variety trials? Ontario http://www.oopscc.org/Canola2006.html , Manitoba http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/cropproduction/pdf/seed2007/canola.pdf , Alberta http://www.canola.ab.ca/research/9906.shtml . Should I take this as something else you made up?

You seem to be making this up as you go in an attempt to defend your indefensible position. Cherry picking bits and pieces of information and putting them together in an effort to confuse. Internal prices were high in Australia last year because of a drought. They came down this year because 1 million ha of canola were sown and the market expects plenty of availability. If Australia has a decent season, I expect Canadian and Australian prices to remain similar. And Julie, I don’t remember you ever having sent me a graph of any sort. You keep confusing me with other people. But you obviously mean a graph more like this one from independent consultant Bill Crabtree http://www.no-till.com.au/pdfs/gm_issues07/gm_issues_25jun07_Market_premiums.pdf

So Julie, I am still waiting for your reasons why glufosinate will reduce the yield of InVigor canola. At this stage, I can only conclude you made that up.

More hypothetical fears I see. Each time the last "concern" is demonstrasted groundless another pops up. As for allergenicity, Bt crops have been extensively examined for potential allergenicity before each and everyone is commercialized. They are the only crops in the world analyzed for amino acid similarities to known allergens.

Repeated attempts by critics of GM crops to demonstrate aantibodies(IgE) against transgenes has shown exactly zero confirmed cases anywhere in the world after 11-12 years of commercial use of Bt crops.

The only cases of people with real Bt allergies were found in farm workers who sprayed Bt bacteria on organic crops. In these cases the allergens were not the Cry proteins used in Bt crops.