GM companies do not control markets. If the argument is really that strong against them, then why do farmers seem to continually vote for more access to GM crops? GM companies do not sell the farmers product for them. The "closed loop" seems to have an open end doesn't it?

Then how come the latest report from ABARE is worried about market loss from NOT growing GM canola?

http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/07-074-002.pdf

The problem with complex systems is that trends can suddenly reverse. The latest report seems to be concerned about what will happen to your supposedly large non-GM market when the EU allows access to GM canola to meet mandated biodiesel requirements. If Australian farmers are not allowed access to GM crops by this time, then your market and "premiums" may disappear.

And the problem really comes down to: why do farmers appear to continually vote for GM access? The farmers perception of the market they will have for their crop will determine the speed of uptake of GM crops. Noone will be forced to do so. If you think GM poses a threat and that the world's food supply will be controlled by the large corporations, do you think that farmers that wish to grow GM are stupid, ignorant or just greedy?

Julie Non-GM farmer Newman:
Of course Australia already uses herbicide-resistant canola. Some 70% has been atrazine resistant. Atrazine is a herbicide being banned in Europe. Tim Hayes of UC Berkeley was just recently in Australia talking about his research which finds that atrazine at very low concentrations messes up frogs, such as making little male frogs grow up looking like females. I asked you some years ago in the presence of Greenpeace about this and you said you didn’t care. Is that still right?

Weed scientists have also known since this herbicide resistance was found in weeds more than 20 years ago that it reduces seed yields by at least 10-20%. The reason is that the mutation for resistance changes a critical part of the plants’ photosynthetic machinery, which was honed over hundreds of millions of generations to be the best possible. You may have gotten used to the penalties or even gradually improved the background yields, but you cannot change the fact that the mutant photosynthesis of atrazine resistant canola plants can never be as efficient as the wild-type. We also know that this kind of resistance as developed for canola in Canada, but has now been replaced in Canada by GM canola, at least in part to avoid those yield losses.

You profess to know a lot about Canada, but have you ever been there and talked to real canola growers or weed scientists? They would laugh themselves silly by your assertions that they have comparably very few weeds due to planting following snow thaw. The reverse might be to claim that Australia has no weed problems because their seeds dry out and die in the hot dry summers! Guess what? Just as weeds are adapted to heat in Australia, they have adapted to winter in North America, and thrive on the moisture from the thaw!

GM companies are simply not bothering with yield trials of any kind, independent or otherwise, unless the moratoria lift. Without some prospect of economic return, there is no reason for the companies even to put the genes in up-to-date local varieties.

Julie:

The reason that practicing scientists want to know about Carman’s experience in animal feeding studies is that it is a technically challenging area that requires experience to do well. In the hands of newcomers, untreated “control” rodents often do not meet international standards of survival and reproduction. It is not like keeping a pet cat or dog. So far as we can understand, Carman has no experience in this area. We have also seen examples of poor studies, also done by people with no prior experience in feeding studies, being much publicised, even if never published, or being overwhelmingly rebutted elsewhere.

Having answered your question, why can’t you answer some of ours?

What did you mean by “Monsanto was planning to have an end point royalty deducted after tests of 0.5%” and what is your source?

Where are “Farmers becom(ing) contract growers locked into a closed loop system and yes, the GM industry gets to pull the strings” ?

If this is such a problem, where is the concern among Australian cotton growers, who were limited to 30% Bt cotton for several years, and jumped to at least 85% GM crop as soon as allowed?

I’d also like answers to Agronomists questions, such as
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

Do you sit on Carman’s steering committee? What have Chance or Carman got to hide? Why won’t they release the names of the reviewers or steering committee?

Don’t tell me it is to protect these people. I have had hate mail, been routinely accused of corruption, had letters of complaint to my supervisors and been hit in the chest after a meeting. I have even been offered an escort to my car by meeting organisers concerned about my safety. I am sure there is no level of harassment that Chance’s people would get that could come close to what some of us have already experienced for speaking our minds.

Most farm lobby groups rely on GM information from the R&D sector and surprise surprise, the GM industry through Agrifood Awareness posing as specialists in formulating farming policies. I have certainly seen the misleading, deceptive and bullying tactics used in formulating a "policy decision".

The key reasons farmers want GM are because they are told that GM crops yield more and the "experts" are telling them that other countries are growing fantastic traits including drought resistant crops... a whole lot of hogwash by people with a vested interest.

Weed control is the "benefit" of GM canola, but detail is avoided. Yield is the promotional platform but trials are avoided. Costs and contract obligations are a problem but revealing costs and contracts detail is avoided. Certainly a pattern of denial here.

Atrazine has just undergone a "stringent" 6 year review and yes, while it is a problem in waterlogged areas like UK, it is not a problem in non-waterlogged areas of rural Australia. More feminine looking male frogs eh?! You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel for an excuse to bring in GM canola.

The closed loop system of getting seed, using specific brands of chemicals (must be on label), having to buy new seed every year, following management plans, signing contracts that allow access to property, allow companies to deduct payments (was negotiated at grains council level years ago), do not allow trials etc. Farmers wanting GM are not even interested in asking for the price, independent performance details or the contract details. Why?

Non-GM farmers just do not want to be negatively impacted by a GM crops we do not want and do not need.

If the "experts" were liable for statements of "no premiums for non-GM", they would not make that claim ... but no, non-GM farmers will be liable for any loss from GM contamination!

Please explain why there would be a market loss for not growing GM canola? No market is asking for GM but some markets ask for non-GM. ABARE even stated that market access has been lost in Canada due to GM. Non-GM can't miss out on the biodiesel opportunity because non-GM canola can be used for biodiesel too.

If Canadian farmers are so succesful, why are they mainly reliant on off-farm income and subsidies? If GM canola raised yields, the yields should not have fallen on adoption of GM.

Why not just admit that the R&D sector want investment partnerships with wealthy GM companies wanting returns on their hefty investments and don't care about farmer economics?

Governments have signed a biotechnology strategy to push a path to market for GM in exchange for encouraging investment into plant breeding. Plant breeders need to realise that farmers pay very well for R&D now. We pay a compulsory levy which is around 60-70% of the GRDC budget that R&D sector relies on. We pay well for the seed and we pay an end point royalty... name one other country that gets their farmers to do that!? GM is about encouraging investment to plant breeding but if farmers do not own the intellectual property we pay for, why should we keep paying just to give that to others to profit from us or to sell to our opposition? If GM is introduced just to fund the R&D sector, then we should drop our GRDC levy and EPR's.

Why would I be on the committee, I am a farmer, not a specialist in health testing? Just because the pro-GMers are not getting control over these tests, does not make them invalid. What are you so frightened of? Like every peer review, when the results are released that is the time to review them, not before. More and more adverse testing results are being released and they all seem to have the similarities(immunology problems, liver and kidney toxicity) so I feel sure Judy will check this. Todays latest adverse testing results came from South Africa http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=505727

From the latest ABARE report:

"The main implication of the introduction of GM canola is that Canada lost access to the EU market with its canola seed but generally Canada has found ready markets for its increased canola supplies elsewhere, particularly in Mexico, the United States, Pakistan and China. As discussed above, the European Union is likely to be a growing market for canola or rapeseed over the next decade. However, Australia’s advantage of being able to supply non-GM canola to the EU market could largely disappear if the EU ban on GM canola imports is lifted, which seems likely to occur soon."

Is this clear enough for you? Our competitive advantage could disappear, which means loss of markets doesn't it?

I am sure what Dr. Roush (and myself and others) are concerned with is that there is a potential for a lot of misunderstanding and error in toxicological studies, especially with such obviously biased researchers leading them. We have to have confidence that the results will be accurate, not released as fact before peer review and that the reviewers of the research are not politically motivated. If that is the case, I would not be afraid of anything, whatever they find. But if this just turns out to be an exercise in political football, then it degrades the hard work of real scientists that work within the rigorous peer review system. That is the reason why at least some details of what is proposed should be released. Peer review, open and honest is what you have talked about, now walk the walk. But be prepared for what happens to flawed studies when released into a cage of critical scientists.