since governments are under so much pressure to succumb to gm technology/farming/crop production, thank goddess at least one australian government has the fortitude not to lie down and accept the bullying. commendations to a government, and minister, prepared to seek out information and recommendations (hopefully) unadulterated by the pressures of big business. ask any home economics teacher - experts in the field of food, food technology and genetic engineering/manipulation of foods/crops etc - most will affrim their concerns about, and lack of support for, gm engineering, technology, manipulation and the enforcement by corporations and big businesses - such as monsanto - of their desire and efforts to control crop and other food production. commendations also to the farmers of india, particularly the dalits, for their strong and intelligent lobbying against the intrusion of gm manufacture/production into their lands, crops and livelihoods.

Julie, as you have avoided answering any of my specific questions about the claims Ian Edwards made, I must conclude that all of Ian’s claims are true and that your claim to offer the opposite story is false. This seems to be a common mode of operation for you. You habitually state that claims made by those you view as “pro-GM” are lies, but when pressed are unable to back this statement up. Why isn’t this just bullying?

Atrazine (and simazine) have been banned in Europe because they turned up in drinking water at concentrations the regulatory agencies considered concerning for human health. I understand there has been considerable concern in Australia about the use of these herbicides for the same reason. http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/inland/water02-4b.html#contaminationofgroundwaterbypesticides Just like there is concern about their use in North America. The Australian regulator changed the label in an attempt to reduce the risk of these herbicides appearing in drinking water.

Your song and dance about atrazine resistant canola yields is wrong and has been proved wrong by a group of researchers from Australia. Their paper found that in 22 crops growing two near-isogenic cultivars the TT canola yielded on average 26% lower and had 2-5% lower oil. Those interested can read the abstract http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/40/paper/AR01159.htm .

Your comments about subsidies are plain stupid. There is no specific subsidy for GM crops in the US. If a farmer can make more money by growing non-GM and pocketing the subsidy, why on earth would they grow GM? So surely, you have to agree that if these farmers make more money growing GM, then farmers without a subsidy should also make more money?

This convoluted logic of yours looks to me like an answer looking for an explanation. Talking of logic, which bit of Judy Carman’s logic makes sense to you? Why didn’t that same logic make sense to FSANZ, who summarily dismissed her comments and provided justification for their doing so? What do you know that FSANZ doesn’t know? Why doesn’t the logic that if photosynthesis in plants is slowed there will be lower yield make sense to you?

Agronomist, back to agro namecalling I see (are you getting that desperate already). My repeat answer of the questions... The details will be available AFTER the test, and the committee is nothing to do with decisions on the health tests as this committment was made before we formed. Dr Carman addressed the committee about her concerns, not about specific test details.

Independent yield performance trials will help establish if these GM Ht varieties are any higher yielding than non-GM Ht varieties so why avoid them? It is disappointing that Monsanto has a clause in their contract that prevents independent trialling after commercial release.

Ah... you are almost catching on about subsidies but missing the point that non-GM growers of the same commodity also have additional costs and losses by introducing GM. Financially, both GM and non-GM are impacted negatively by GM introduction and if a crop is not more profitable, farmers will not grow it. How do governments encourage farmers to grow an unprofitable crop? Introduce high subsidies for those crops. Result = 80% of the US subsidies are allocated to soy, cotton and corn (their GM crops) and therefore they become more profitable for farmers. Canadian canola growers required subsidies also. These crops would likely decline without these subsidies. Also, unlike Australia, both Canadian and US farmers dominantly rely on off-farm income as their main source of income.

It is logical sense that if consumers want confidence that the GM oil they are expected to eat is as "safe" as FSANZ and OGTR declared, the least you would expect is for the oil to be used in feeding trials, but its not.

Bugsy, No it does not mean loss of markets if we stay non-GM. The ABARE report does not say that GM canola will improve market access at all, it just means the increase in market demand for biodiesel may not be fussy. It does not say the existing non-GM food markets will disappear and suddenly want GM in preference. The majority of the supermarket chains are demanding a GM-free status, so changes in government legislation does not provide market access to GM food markets, acceptance by the supply chain can only do that and there is no evidence of that. As ABARE mentions, Canada has searched for GM friendly markets, what's left? Their main canola market is US (exported as oil) which is not GM sensitive. One of Australias key benefits to market access is our GM-free status, lose that and we risk market rejection. Unfortunately, it is not only GM growers that take that risk, Non-GM growers are expected to be forced down that track when we can see very clearly that it is a very foolish way to go.

May I remind you that Judy Carmans expertise in animal feeding testing is well above yours as agronomists/plant breeders and I am very confident she has the matter under control. It seems that rather than wanting confidence that the GM food test results are accurate, you want confidence that the results will be negative

Julie, you still avoided answering the questions. I didn’t ask about the tests or the results of the tests, but whether Ian Edwards’ statements about Judy Carman’s and Minister Chance’s comments to the committee you sit on were accurate. You implied in your first post that these were not accurate and have avoided answering direct questions about that ever since. I haven’t resorted to name calling and I don’t have to.

So the tests are to be on oil? Julie, do you believe in homeopathy? Your continued ardent defence of Judy Carman has got me interested. What are you trying to hide? Did you know that Judy Carman is on the faculty of the Adelaide Training College of Complementary Medicine? http://www.naturaltherapiescollege.com/ Is this where she is going to conduct her study?

Your statements about subsidies are ludicrous. Corn accounts for about 50% of all farm subsidies in the US and has done so for most of the last 20 years. Cotton accounts for 12% and soybeans for another 3%. Strangely, subsidies to soybean growers are declining, despite 90% of growers planting GM.

Independent yield trials are conducted every year by the Prairie Canola Variety Trials in Canada http://www.canola-council.org/growing_trials.html and North Dakota State University http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/variety/canola.htm and University of Minnesota http://www.maes.umn.edu/06VarietalTrials/canola.pdf in the US every year. The InVigor/Liberty Link varieties always come out on top. Clearfield varieties are invariably near the bottom. There are no Atrazine-resistant varieties because these are no longer grown due to poor performance.

As I explained before numerous times, our committee is nothing to do with the government feeding trials and Ian implied it was.

The debate is not about Australian farmers growing GM canola in Canada, it is about Australian farmers growing GM canola in Australian conditions.

Agronomist, again your facts are wrong. Please provide evidence of any commercial planting of triazine tolerant varieties as triazine tolerant varieties have never been approved for planting in Canada. In Canada all varieties with novel traits (both GM and non-GM chemical resistant traits) undergo the same regulatory process as GM and because the Atrazine varieties are not as profit-making for the breeders, it has never applied for licencing. Also Atrazine is more suited to Australian weeds, not Canadian. Note that Clearfield is available in both countries but is far more popular in Canada than Australia so obviously many farmers prefer this option to GM canola... a good indication that triazine tolerant varieties are a better option for Australian farmers.

Also, please provide your references re soy subsidies declining and I will comment further. Also your figures re percentages do not equate with the US govt presentation at the last Grains Week Conference in Canberra.. Interesting that Cotton is number 2 on the subsidy list when it only accounts for 5% of the agricultural production.