You are missing the point "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."

How can there be no allergenicity when there seems to be "bulky data related to toxicity". I am sure it is not just one occurrence that you are so wanting the public to think.

What you say that has happened for years as mutagenisis that you say has been done with radiation or chemicals. This has happened with natural mutation and speeding up the process within the same plant kingdom. But GM is cross-kingdom interruption of the DNA by forcing a gene through bacteria bombardment that could disrupt the DNA sequence. This is very unstable and should be pointed out.

By cross-kingdom changes in the DNA, it produces allergens that were not allergens in the same kingdom. Look at the bean and pea example as according to GM Corporations, it was meant to be safe, but it produced allergens that were not in either the bean or pea. It created completely different allergens and had to be recalled. We did not need to demand human testing on the same plant kingdom but we should be demanding human testing if the DNA structure is being changed from cross-kingdom bombardment with a risk of transference to human DNA. GM is forcing and interrupting the DNA sequence with unstable foreign genes into the DNA structure itself in the hope that it would stick somewhere along the DNA strand. This has the potential to be very much a biohazard with unstable cross-kingdom bacterial genes crossing over to the human kingdom DNA.

Is it safe.
I am not sure you understand that data can be positive or negative or neutral. Toxicity and allergenicity are two though related separate categories of analysis. Do you know what the Delaney Clause is? It mandates authorities to force feed test animals large amounts of a given test substance and continue to increase the amounts until a physiological response is determined. Sometimes it is death. By this form of testing even pure water causes bladder cancer when given at huge amounts. When I stated there is not a single case of harm anywhere in the world I speak the truth (what you are "sure" of does not change the facts).

Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species are MAN MADE distinctions and there is a great deal of genetic sequence proving DNA has crossed these MAN-made lines many, many times in history.

"But GM is cross-kingdom interruption of the DNA by forcing a gene through bacteria bombardment that could disrupt the DNA sequence. This is very unstable and should be pointed out."

I am afraid you do not know what you are speaking about. I teach students how to manipulate DNA and I can tell you DNA is DNA regardless of where it comes from and only extremely rarely does it destabilize the genome when inserted into a different species.

Sorry but allergenic responses are only found in one kingdom(the most advances one that includes humans). Allergens do come from all kingdoms and we have about 500 known allergenic protein sequences(the vast majority of allergens are proteins). Sorry there has never been a recall on any GM crop. There is no risk of 'Human DNA" being altered by transgenes in GM crops, pure psuedoscience I am afraid.

Please tell me have you been reading Seeds of Deception? If you have you have believed the contents of that book you have been deceived.

I think it was Rick Roush who made the comment that canola flowering is confined to short time-frames.... someone forgot to remind the volunteer canola plants which have been flowering on the road-sides in the Central West of NSW since June and will continue to do so until probably November..... but..... oh.... didn't someone assure us that canola can be easitly contained and therefore controlled? Who is paying for plucking out all the volunteers on roadsides, stock routes, railway lines, national parks, recreation areas and cemetaries?

There has been a (very famous) re-call of GM food: the Starlink corn designated for anilmal feed in the US in the late 1990's was discovered in corn destined for human consumption. I seem to recall the costs were in the order of multiple millions..... any lessons to be learned from this?

Certainly there are lessons in this bush goddess- lessons in regulatory approval strategies. The biotech companies will now seek approval for human consumption (not just animal consumption) for all GM varieties before release. The blunder was in rushing the product to market because animal consumption approval was easier. The fact remains that there has been no real public health threat (from toxictity or allergenicity) identified in GM crops so far.

http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn.html

There is another lesson, bush goddess, and that is you really should double check your comments before posting. Rick Roush said nothing of the sort about canola. It was Julie (Non-GM farmer) who commented about the short flowering times of CORN.

Pro-GMers: Why demand there is not a problem when farmers are expected to pay if there is? Why insist there is not a health problem when consumers will be expected to be the guinea pigs?
Ian Edwards (Agronomist), it is your position that is indefensible and your dodging tactics are quite humerous.
Read Monsanto's contract, it clearly states trials are not to be carried out without permission. I have also read Monsanto's response from a trial request requesting trials and Monsanto must approve trial details first then any results must be scrutinised prior to release. It gives them the ability to select positive results and hide negative results. It also gives legal recourse against any farmer that exposes GM "high yields" or "better profits" as a scam as any comparison with other crops would be considered legally as a trial.
This is similar to the selective data that Bayer Cropscience has given. Why would most of the trials of a GM chemical resistant crop developed as a weed control tool be grown in a weed free area with no application of chemicals? Are the trials rigged to avoid assessing yield penalties associated with glufosinate ammonium (as experienced by TT varieties). It does not matter how there is a yield penalty, it is a matter to prove there is no yield penalty and that has has been deliberately avoided.
Non-GM farmers don't mind if you explain your misleading excuses for Canada obviously tolerating a price penalty associated with adopting GM but we do mind if you expect us to believe it and then expect us to accept lower prices if you are wrong. If the pro-GM sector truly believed the propaganda, they would not hesitate to offer to compensate us if we are proven right and we do experience canola price penalties when GM comes in and it is too difficult and too expensive to try to market as non-GM to avoid the price penalties.
It is not unreasonable for us to refuse to accept economic loss caused by a crop we do not want and do not need

So Julie when you said “if you read Monsanto's Canadian contract, trials are not permitted after commercial release” you didn’t mean that at all. You really meant “Read Monsanto's contract, it clearly states trials are not to be carried out without permission”. Quite a different story. Of course the varieties will go into the NVT on the lifting of the moritorium won’t they?

Oh and I saw today that your government was set to approve GM cotton cultivation. www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/55503/GM-cotton-report-opens-new-potential-for-Ord-region

Why are most of the yield trials of atrazine-resistant canola in Australia conducted in the absence of weeds? Because that is the way such trials are conducted. It is the farming systems trials that are important. These have been conducted in a limited way by Bayer as described in their fact sheet. In that, the atrazine resistant canola came out quite well despite its yield penalty, because of improved weed control. The InVigor hybrids were just that much better again.

I think it has been you that has been providing misleading information about a price penalty. As far as Canadian farmers are concerned there is none. Indeed a Canola Council of Canada study found an economic benefit of $5.80 per hectare for farmers growing biotech canola. http://www.canola-council.org/manual/GMO/gmo_toc.htm Other studies have shown the value to the canola industry in Canada to have been huge - $175 million in 2005 http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/global_impactstudy_2006_v1_finalPGEconomics.pdf .