Bush Goddess the truth is that most of the claims made by the ant-GM groups have not come to fruition. This technology has for the most part proved perfectly safe and robust as used by more than 10 million farmers on more than 100 million hectares last year. Not everybody has had a good experience with the technology, like all technologies, but those that don’t want to use it have choice and can opt out.

There has been no advantage to Australia in not adopting the technology. There are not higher prices paid for non-GM products from Australia except for a few very small niche markets. At the same time Australian farmers are missing out on any benefits. The bans in Australia are serving no real purpose except allowing Greenpeace to claim another success in their quest for donations.

GM products are just another tool, but they can be a very useful one. If everybody else has access and you don’t, you are immediately at a competitive disadvantage. Extra supply may depress prices, but if your opposition are the ones able to increase supply and you can’t, you still suffer the disadvantage. That might not matter if there were advantages to not having access, but in fact there are none.

The document in question is available from AFAA, but is in fact the creation of a wide variety of people in the industry all of whom have a vested interest in agriculture ranging from growing agricultural products, seed and technology providers to product marketing. The NCF wasn’t asked because, as Julie has stated, they represent nobody but themselves. Instead it was the representative farmer’s organisations that were asked and have all signed up.

Let’s see your “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” I travel extensively in two of these countries and have visited the third over the last decade and a half. The changes driven by GE crops I have seen are: less tillage and less use of herbicides.

Reality check Ian,
What benefits? It does not yield more but costs more.
What choice? We are all expected to market as GM and therefore consumers will not have a choice either.
Blind freddy can see that there are price penalties and market access problems associated with marketing as GM ("lower prices" is even used as a selling point to get support from the buyers of grain)

Oh yes of course, you mean the benefits and choice for the research and development sector and others in the industry that as you admit "all of whom have a vested interest".

Forcing all the risks onto non-GM farmers is negligent.

Julie, InVigor canola does yield more because it is a hybrid – often it yields more than conventional hybrids. For the last decade, InVigor canola varieties have topped the Prairie Canola Variety Trials in Canada – this is an incontrovertible fact. TT canola yields less because it has an in-built fitness penalty. Another incontrovertible fact.

The price penalties are in your head. A new report published by the Australian Government had this to say: “Consumers do appear to be concerned about GM crops in general but these concerns do not appear to be translating into significant or sustained price increases being paid for non GM canola products.” http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology

I was somewhat amused to see that your "network" now uses Kim Chance as the expert on canola prices.

You would note that I included farmers as among those who have a vested interest in agriculture. Surely they are the ones who should be listened to? Their representative bodies have all signed up to Delivering Market Choice. It seems that your unrepresentative group are the ones who want to hold back progress for Australian farmers.

By the way, my name is not Ian.

Read the trial results Ian, non-GM hybrids yielded higher than GM hybrids.
Why should we believe the "experts" telling non-GM farmers that we will not suffer financially if GM is introduced when you expect us to pick up the tab if we are right and you are wrong. Those pushing GM need to put their money where their mouth is

Julie, I have read the results of the Prairie Canola Variety Trials. You can find them here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/PCVT_SECTION.pdf#zoom=100 for 2003, here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/PVT_pages.pdf#zoom=100 for 2004, here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/Variety_Trials_1-7.pdf#zoom=100 for 2005 and here: http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/Nov27_CD_pg25-30.pdf#zoom=100 for 2006. In 2003, Liberty varieties (=InVigor) were the two highest yielding varieties in the short season zone, the two highest in the mid-season zone and the 3 highest in the long-season zone. There were only 3 Liberty varieties in each zone's trials. In 2004, Liberty varieties were the 3 highest yielding varieties across the trials and in each of the 3 zones. There were only 4 Liberty varieties in the trial. In 2005, the 3 Liberty varieties in the trial were the highest yielding in each of the zones as well as across the whole trial. In 2006, the 4 Liberty hybrids were the highest yielding varieties across the trials. Liberty varieties were the 3 highest yielding in the long season zone, 4 of the 5 highest yielding in the mid-season zone (split by a Roundup Ready hybrid) and 4 of the 6 highest yielding in the short season zone (split by 2 Roundup Ready hybrids).

Clearly you are wrong about non-GM hybrids yielding more.

By the way, my name is not Ian.

So you go and change your words now into scientific jargon that you teach your students on the manipulation of DNA. No scientist truly knows what happens to proteins and genes in the long term with genetically modifed bombardment and if you deny this, you are truly lying to the general public. What I am fighting about is the damaging effect of the DNA with a bombardment of your GM gene. One damaged gene in a particular spot causes problems or are you denying this?

Yes we have a vast majority of allergens but you are affecting the protein as well with your bombardment thus the possibility of allergic responses is high or are you denying this?

Yes, there has never been a recall yet of GM products with food because how would you back-track it? The only way l-trytophan was found out was because it could be backtracked as it was a pill taken by people to "bulk" up their muscles.

How would anyone know if they went to hospital with an allergic reaction, that what they have eaten for years (now GM) would have caused an allergic response. It would not even cross the victims mind to mention that they have eaten GM as in most cases, due to poor labelling and policing of the labelling, they would not have known. That is why the GM companies can laugh at the statement "not a single case of harm anywhere in the world" You do not speak the truth and how dare you say that it is truth as it is not as you don't know. You are guessing only and one day you will know that.