And how were the decisions made?
Farmers believed misleading claims of higher yields, drought tolerance, better profitability that has been promoted by the R&D sector that has a massive vested interest. Anyone who countered the debate put up with ridiculous bully boy tactics.
Buyers of grain are promised a reason to pay less for a product while farmers are told there are no price penalties with GM (well not exactly, they are told there is no price premiums for non-GM which means the same).
How about we make those that want GM pay those that don't if our concerns are validated?

Also, most policies of support are conditional but the conditions have not been met.
eg.
ABB SPEECH NOTES FOR THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ABB GRAIN LTD, MICHAEL
IWANIW AT THE ABARE OUTLOOK 2006 CONFERENCE, AT THE NATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE, CANBERRA, MARCH 1, 2006.
"ABB's view is that GM grains shouldn't be released for commercial
production in Australia until international and domestic customers
accept GM grain.and. Australia has tested and implemented an efficient and cost-effective value chain management system - recognised by overseas and domestic customers - that enables the trade of GM and non-GM grain, without risk of:
· Damaging the strong relationship existing between Australian
marketers and their customers

· Price discounts; and

· Loss of markets
We will continue to discuss the potential for GM grains with our
international customers, and will press for their introduction where the criteria I have just mentioned has been satisfied."

Julie, you need to get with the times and stop quoting outdated documents. This from Delivering Market Choice with GM Canola - Released 7th August 2007 http://www.afaa.com.au/pdf/Delivering_Market_Choice_with_GM_canola.pdf

“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.”

From the press: http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=44432

Southern NSW grain grower, Angus McLaren, told more than 400 delegates that the industry can adopt GM canola, and provide choice, to allow Australian growers to compete on the world market.

“Canadian canola farmers are reaping the rewards from GM canola. Australian growers should be able to have the choice to explore that opportunity.

“Extensive industry consultation has shown that the supply chain has the protocols, practices and processes either in place or available to manage these new varieties of canola, in the 2008 season.

The grains industry has also recognised that choice must be a priority across the supply chain and that all customers – from farmers to consumers - can use or access the products of their choice.

“Importantly, this document has been endorsed by leaders of organisations from across the industry,” he said.

Seems like the world has moved on Julie.

Agrifoods Awareness Australia is an organisation which was formed to lobby GE technologies to decision makers across governments and farmer associations. Have a peek as to who funds that organisation and an objective brain would figure out there are very vested interests.

Vested interests pursue one avenue and are not about providing a holisitc or world-view perspective and posess some of the very best spin-doctors around....... it is not difficult to create heart-string stories about GEs being necessary to feed the starving millions or Golden Rice delivering Vitamin A to save the sight of a few more.

Discreet lobbying to promote GE technology at the highest levels has been happening since the early 1990's (in Australia) and the developing companies have dedicated resources and personnel to play this part of the 'game'. If anyone has any doubts about the claims of these wonder crops, they are labelled luddites or techno-phobes, or said to possess quasi-religious zeal in their quest to seek independent information and question the mass application of yet another silver-bullet-solution.

As one of the posters said a little earlier, this is just another tool... some work and some don't. Thank you for this insight. What are the costs if this doesn't work? Who pays for cleaning up the mess? The proponents don't seem to have the confidence to do so in (their words) the unlikely event they could be wrong.

Why aren't the examples from India and the use of Bt cotton deemed important in gathering as wide as possible portfolio of evidence to ascertain the benefits or disadvantages of GM technology from around the globe (and there are plenty of examples of how the botanic landscapes have been irrevocably altered in parts of the US, Canada and Mexico since the widespred use of GE crops).

Why should Australia be led by the nose into the maelstrom of manipulated world commodity markets instead of remaining independent and therefore maintain a competitive advantage, not only for GE-free canola but a myriad of other products too........

A question on simple economics - if there is more of something in the market place, what happens to the price? Apply the laws of demand and supply........ why is a kilo of diamonds more valuable than a kilo of canola? Becuase there are less of them..... the more scarce an item, the more it is worth. The more canola there is on a world market, the less it is worth and recall what happens to Australian wheat prices when there is a lower harvest of wheat in the US - the price rises as there is less available.

Australia doesn't need to produce canola similar to Canada's. We need to produce canola that is more valuable than Canada's and that is taking the smart line.

And who represesented the non-GM farmers views on the single vision document?
The Network of Concerned Farmers were not consulted but were told that our views were represented by "Rocky" Hudson (ex Monsanto manager).
It disgusts me the corrupt lengths the research sector is prepared to go to to ram GM canola in.