An excellent article Duncan. If the pro-GM activists with a vested interest truly believed there was not a problem, they would not be fighting so hard to stop a strict liability regime being introduced where the GM company is made liable for the economic losses associated with introducing GM crops.
Who do the pro-GM lobbyist think should be liable for economic loss?
The non-GM grower (as proposed) and WHY?
The GM grower (our legal remedy under common law)?
The GM company and key beneficiary of GM crops?
If the GM company was liable, they would ensure that GM crops were contained, not insist it is the non-GM growers responsibility for trying to keep GM crops out of our non-GM crops.
The reason the Australian government is pushing GM where the industry gets to write their own rules is because the aim is to capitalize on their investments in biotechnology, not to protect consumers or farmers.

What testing of GM and what choice is offered?
Canola oil has NOT been tested and that is what consumers are expected to eat but it was not considered necessary. The remaining meal is not regulated as it is used for stock feed. Monsanto's 2008 USA user agreement for Roundup Ready canola warns farmers not to graze their stock on canola stubble as there is insufficient information to prove its safety, yet our regulator claims that it has been "rigorously tested" and proven safe for human consumption.
GM canola oil will not be labelled as GM as it is not regulated and it will not be possible to label canola oil as GM-free as it is not possible to have NO contamination which is what is required to label as GM-free or non-GM.
What choice?

Agronomist
In 2005 Pyrne and Lembke looked at all the in vivo (live animal rather than test tube based) feeding studies looking at the impacts of GE foods on human health. Of the 10 they found at that time, all 5 independent studies found significant indications of impacts on human health. The indications of health impacts were never followed up or investigated. FSANZ has consistently refused to review any of its approvals (and it, like OGTR, has never turned down a GE application). Relying on proponents to provide accurate data is completely misguided and there is a wealth of peer reviewed material that supports that position. Proponents have no standard nor burden of proof in the legislation. Companies regularly reach conclusions that support their position, change data and omit data (as do many scientists who receive funds from those companies - unfortunately an incrasingly common problem).
Re weed resistance, even the OGTR acknowledged that weed resistance was likely in GE canola and would require increased use of even more toxic herbicides such as paraquat. The work of Benbrook in the United STates - based on USDA data ,fully supports that - and concludes that GE plants will over time require far more chemicals than conventional crops. There is ample evidence for precaution that is sorely missing from Äustralian regulation.

I have a degree in biotechnology and the genetic manipulation that is being performed in plants and animals is no more than occurs in nature.
Look at the Brussels sprout. Mutated by nature into all sorts of vegetables we eat today.
Over the course of my university education we were required to insert a human gene into E. coli. Do you not find it amazing that we may be able to employ bacteria to produce proteins that are required by humans, proteins that some humans cannot produce and need to acquire from an external source. I for one am fed up with the whole frankenfruit Idea. It is ridiculous.

non-gm,
are you sure our regulatory body has approved GM canola stubble for human use, otherwise you're not comparing apples with apples.

As canola oil cannot be tested for it's GM status(contains no DNA) it is rather pointless to gripe about that status. Effectively canola oil derived from GM and non GM canola is the same.
Exactly, what choice?

Cottonseed oil from GM seed is in the same category, and has been used in Australia as cooking oil and in margarines for the last decade, and does not contain the GM DNA either- if that makes it easier to accept.

Canola is not a common crop in my region, so I'm not fully aware of the proposed benefits of GM to that industry, though I suspect it revolves around the weed spectrum that tri-azine tolerant canola(ttc) targets. ttc currently suffers approx 20% yield loss compared to normal canola, and I assume Roundup Ready canola counters this loss with better yield, better weed control and less residual chemical use- which by their very nature last months in the soil.

GM cotton has had a positive impact resulting in approx 80% reduction in insecticides, something that is not measured in monetary savings alone.

“The only reason to believe there is lack of research and science based evidence on GM foods is if you are wilfully ignorant of the amount of research that goes into them.”

Well I don’t think I am alone in the belief that there has not been enough research and conclusive findings for GM food thus far. I couldn’t remember the name of the report about the rat experiments but after a quick search it was the "Pusztai Report".

Bugsy, some links for your pleasure below:

http://www.rense.com/general65/rats.htm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm

Another one relating to maize MON863 is mentioned about half way down the screen at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

The CSIRO halted further research on GM pea crops because they were found to make mice sick. I believe in this case the right ethical decision was made based on scientific research but I don’t believe this is always the case particularly in the case of Monsanto/Bayer’s own research. ie. would put more trust in CSIRO than a corporation with a special interest(although CSIRO has favoured biotechnology research lately over organic or soil health programs and some level of funding does come from the private sector).

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1510290.htm

If scientists found GM peas adversely affected the immune system why not use this as a basis for caution and further studies. There is no conclusive research on the safety of GM food. Cuphandle is right in his first post when he/she says we never learn.

Bugsy, I am not sure how homeopathy comes into this, but I would agree with you and Richard Dawkins that the same stringent measures should be afforded to these placebo medicines. I guess the difference is (if we are comparing) that the diluted version probably does no physical harm other than a hole in the back pocket. I would not say the same about GM food (just yet anyway).