Julie, my name is not Bill. I am happy to answer your questions about the claims I made. GM canola in Canada allows earlier planting because weeds do not need to be controlled by soil incorporated herbicides before planting the crop. The weeds can be controlled after crop sowing. This gets even better with hybrid canola, because they are so much more competitive and stop later weeds from germinating. A single application may be all that is needed. It saves fuel because there is no need for additional herbicide applications or for the cultivation pass involved in incorporating herbicide. Lastly, because atrazine resistant canola is not grown, there is no yield penalty.

Now, I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions. You stated that you are on the same committee as Ian and could give the opposite story. So which of the following statements that Ian made about the activities of the committee is wrong?

1) Judy Carman spoke to the Ministerial GMO Reference Group
2) Judy Carman complained about FSANZ
3) Judy Carman refused to answer questions about the study details
4) The Minister refused to disclose the protocol of the study
5) The Minister refused to disclose the names of the International reviewers
6) The Minister refused to disclose the names of the steering committee

I have two degrees, does that make my qualifications almost as impressive as Judy Carman’s? Or perhaps, you might agree I am 2/3rds as impressive?

The real test of ability in research is through quality of research and publication – even michael_in_adelaide might agree with me on that.

Oh, and michael, Canada canola growers can and do grow non-GM canola without disruption, some have even sold their seed to Europe. Although as there is mostly no financial benefit in doing so, it mostly goes into the elevators with everybody else’s and is sold to Japan. About 10% of canola growers in Canada still choose to grow non-GM canola. The only thing that “forces” most growers into growing GM canola is the sheer size of the agronomic benefits provided by the new technology.

Thanks, Julie, for pointing to Carman’s well known website. You still have not provided even one relevant peer reviewed scientific citation. Indeed, is there any paper or an experimental protocol that you can point us to that would document Carman’s qualifications for a feeding study, which requires at least exacting standards and experience in animal care (as noted above by d)?

I count at best two degrees (not “many”) relevant to the field (a BS and Honours in Chemistry would not qualify someone to conduct feeding studies).

You have been quick to accuse those of us who have asked questions about Carman’s project of “vicous slander campaigns”. However many of us simply believe that Carman and the feeding study should be held to the normal and usual standards that other investigators have to meet to receive public research funds, including competitive processes in grant awards, and a review of the research track record. We are not comforted by Chance’s unwillingness to share even the most minimal details, even steering committee membership, which surely would be required of any other research project conducted on public funds. Could the OGTR’s advisers/committees remain secret? Do you sit on Carman’s steering committee? What have Chance or Carman got to hide?

GM can and does allow farmers to do everything from saving fuel to earlier planting, and I’m surprised that this is not obvious to you. You can plant at the first rainfall without using tillage or waiting for the weeds to emerge for spraying, extending the growing season, and it takes much less energy to drive a sprayer than to drag an implement through soil.

The US, Canada, and the EU all subsidize their crops, including wheat, the EU even more than North America, despite the fact that the EU does not subsidize GM, and despite the fact that there is no GM wheat even in North America. Julie, the best measure that GM is profitable to farmers is that several million farmers grow it on more than 100 million ha/year.

Pheebs: How can you be assured of the safety of any food ?

Michael (L?) in Adelaide: I have been working on pesticide resistance since 1976, most of that in the US. As Agronomist says, it is all about how you use the pesticides, not what crop you grow. You have a world expert just across town at the Waite (perhaps he is even your Faculty) in Chris Preston. Chris and I negotiated a resistance management plan with Monsanto for canola prior to the moratorium that involved not using glyphosate either the year before or the year after the RR canola crop. Chris has data showing huge fitness costs to glyphosate resistance that would help make this work. That Canadians do not have a resistance problem shows that strategies can work. I have stopped losing sleep over recalcitrant American growers who won’t pay attention to advice and create their own problems. Experience in Australia and Canada shows that resistance strategies work when people are willing to adopt them.

What floors me about your comments is that you are willing to allow small minorities prevent access to technology for all growers. All major farming organizations in Australia have adopted pro-GM positions by large majorities of their members. Shouldn’t democracy count for something?

You also seem unaware of the history of variety adoption in agriculture. It has always been the responsibility of those who want to sell into a premium market to assure the agreed standards are met, and growers have always managed to work it out with their neighbours. In my last 3.5 years in the US, I looked actively for cases in which there were bona fide coexistence problems, and could find none, as Bugsy has also concluded. To the contrary, I found farms like Teranova in California that grew both GM and organic. Please tell us where the use of GM by one farmer has forced others to adopt it.

In our highly competitive markets, profit is a key driver in agriculture (growers understand the difference between profit and yield).

DEMOS: Who should decide this question? Why should not the farmers decide? It is their livelihood and risks on markets.

Rick

Monsanto has just been nailed in South Africa for advertising that no adverse effects about the dangers of GM food had ever been reported. They denied to High Court Judge Mervyn King that MON 863 which had caused liver damage to rats, was their product. Meanwhile Monsanto had been suppressing this information and were ordered by a German Court to release the findings about the damage to the rats in the public interest. Monsanto had also applied for a commodity release of MON 863 in South Africa. I wonder whether anything like this could ever happen in Western Australia. Would test reports from a commercial applicant be the only tests that would be relied upon? they claimed to have a strict "Code of Conduct" and the advert was targeted at mothers of growing children. I would be interested to hear what readers think about the code of conduct and the targeting of mothers.

Rick & Agronomist, I am sure it is no surprise for you to learn that Australia already uses chemical resistant canola (non-GM) and already uses minimum till techniques. Adopting GM chemical resistant canola will not change our system, only our economics.
Australia has very different conditions than Canada. There is a massive yield penalty associated with leaving weeds unchecked during seed emergence and if you don't control the weeds at seed emergence, you will have a yield penalty. Our worst weed for yield reduction at seed emergence is ryegrass but Canada does not have a ryegrass problem and has comparably very few weeds due to planting following snow thaw.
Unlike Canada, we have multiple germinations of ryegrass that needs controlling. Neither glyphosate or glufosinate-ammonium has a residual action where triazine, used on our non-GM triazine tolerant varieties has.
No fuel is saved. Like non-GM canola, two applications of chemical are recommended and it is recommended that the canola is planted in a weed-free area. The same knockdown chemicals are recommended. Glyphosate, however, is to be avoided as a constant knockdown when using GM Roundup Ready (part of the resistance management plan).
While our non-GM triazine tolerant canola initially suffered yield penalties, this has been overcome now. GM will not give a 30% yield increase as promoted, Canadian yields actually fell when GM canola was introduced. If there was a GM yield advantage, the GM companies would not be refusing to participate in independent trials.
Agronomists comment that hybrids "stop later weeds from germinating" is not true and some farmers grow hybrids now.
Logic impresses me more than degrees, and what Judy Carman has said makes sense. What I have read from FSANZ and OGTR does not satisfy my concern that health concerns have been addressed. I fail to understand why those wanting qualifications do not regard Dr Carmans excellent qualifications as adequate.
How can you be negative about the quality of research and publication when it has not been finalised or released? Have patience!

Bugsy, the non-GM farmers problem: If GM canola is introduced, all canola is considered GM unless proven otherwise and blind freddy can see that GM meets market resistance and non-GM does not. ABARE statistics prove how Canada lost their significant premium and ABARE stated that Canada has experienced market access problems due to GM.

Market non-GM? Price prohibitive! Coexistence protocols require non-GM farmers to do everything they can to keep GM out, rather than the GM industry being required to keep GM in...it is too ridiculously imposing, too difficult and too expensive.
Tleast non-GM farmers could expect is to be able to test for GM before signing a guarantee that they do not have contamination or but tests are inadequate. Bayer has a test that is not accurate unless over 9.2% (well over the set "tolerance"). Monsanto was planning to have an end point royalty deducted after tests of 0.5%. Can they deduct their royalty if our contamination is over 0.5%? We are told to "trust Monsanto" and sue them if that does occur. Come on... where is the fair play?
Next? Introducing GM wheat would be industry sabatage as no market wants GM contaminated wheat.
Next? Who will accept drugs or plastics in food? It will be catastrophic introducing GM pharmaceutical or industrial products as no contamination at all will be accepted in food crops. Farmers could lose the ability to market food crops.
The issue is also about anti-capitalism. GM companies make deals with governments to "help" fund the R&D sector. They form alliances with the R&D sectors to trade a patent over all varieties. Farmers lose the right to replant seed and the GM/R&D sector sell whatever varieties that make the GM/R&D sector the most money at whatever cost the GM/R&D sector decide. Farmers become contract growers locked into a closed loop system and yes, the GM industry gets to pull the strings.
This leaves the farmers paying more to fund the GM/R&D sector but getting paid less as consumers don't want GM. Whats fair in this?