If Monsanto only approve the trials that do not show adverse results, they are not really accurate trials are they? I noticed there is a big push to get the NVT trials to rely on sponsorship rather than GRDC funding, but if they do, they are not independent are they?
Even if the government approved GM cotton, it will not be grown commercially till a processing plant is built. With the scare over the sugar mill being uneconomical, it could put investors off and commercial release is dependent on investors seeing it as an economical advantage for them, not for the R&D sector.
It is outrageous that you expect us to believe there is no price penalties associated with GM canola when it will be us that will be paying the difference if you are wrong. Put your money where your mouth is and get the GM industry to compensate us for the difference. If Canadians were profiting, they would not have introduced such massive subsidies when their yields were at their highest would they?
Canada does not have the cheaper, unregulated TT varieties to compete against so naturally there will be a big difference in non-GM comparisons.

Julie, you are clutching at straws now. How is Monsanto going to know the results of trials before they have been conducted? Is the NVT based on sponsorship? Their website doesn’t say so. This is typical of your claims. They hold ever so little water.

Much of the rest of what you state is perhapses and maybes.

You are also deluding yourself about atrazine resistant canola. Canada invented atrazine resistant canola, but none of it is now grown in Canada. The reason? The appalling yields. Canadian farmers routinely described it as yield resistant. In Canada there was no need to compensate growers for losses caused by GM canola, because there were none.

I have provided you with considerable evidence of the financial benefits to Canadian canola growers, which you refuse to believe because it undermines your quasi-religious beliefs on GM crops. There are other studies out there as well, but I am sure you will persist in your denialism.

Perhaps if you read the comments and the reports I reference more thoroughly you could manage to understand. However Ian I am aware that you are very bitter about the GM debate and you hold an vehement grudge against those that state the bleedin obvious about GM.

Monsanto insists on seeing results of trials both before and after they are done, therefore trials have been performed and Monsanto has the right to veto the information being released. I explained that there was a push for sponsorship on NVT trials, not that they are sponsored.

If we conduct independent performance trials on all GM varieties and compared them with our most popular triazine tolerant varieties, we would be able to have more information regarding performance. But no, to date the GM companies have refused independent trials. What do they know that they don't want us to know?

When we have independent data we can progress to evaluate costs versus benefits = benefit or no benefit conclusion for the grower wanting to grow GM.
Meanwhile non-GM growers are quite within our rights to refuse to accept additional costs and liabilities and you screaming saying that there are no risks is not going to appease us. Rather than deny there will be a loss, why not support legislation where the GM company compensates us for losses

Well this debate has wound down. Those with positive attitudes towards GM crops and food know the world is moving forward. Those on this forum (and sadly most forums) against never seem to accept the vast amount of data (and twelve years of consumption) that point to the safety of this technology. Those in favour say use it or not, your choice. Those opposed want it banned. And all the while more countries, more acres of biotech crops continue to be planted each year. I truely hope Australia gets past the discredited opposition points about GM crops and food and joins the world soon.

Cheers
Folks

Oh and one last point. GM crops and food are not a panacea. They are just another set of tools in the worlds agricultural toolbox. Sometimes the right tool sometimes not.

Cheers

Breaking news, it seems the Australian agricultural industry, producers, traders and marketers have all said they are ready for GM canola. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/australian-grains-industry-strongly.html

"Major Australian grains industry stakeholders have agreed that Australia is now ready to adopt GM canola, and are committed as demonstrated by their endorsement of this document to
deliver market choice. Accordingly, the Australian grains industry urges governments to recognise the grains industry’s ability and commitment, and to support the commercialisation of approved GM canola in Australia."

The list of participants in the announcement includes the Australian Barley Board, Cargill, CBH, Graincorp, Flower Miller's Association of Australia, PGA Western Graingrowers, WAFF, VFF, SAFF and others.

Kim Chance it seems will stand alone with Greenpeace, IHER, NCF and other groups with no representation.