Agronomist:
I have to defend "Dickie" with reference to the statement that you made: "An out of court settlement provides for no admission of guilt. The fact that you seem to think otherwise confirms my earlier statement about ideology"

I beg to differ, as far as an "out of court settlement" goes! Any person that negotiates an out of court settlement generally does so to avoid loss of the court action (and subsequent notoriety and ensuing costs), loss of face and loss of finances! These actions are only employed by persons or companies who are guilty of wrongdoing and take this avenue as the most expedient way out of their predicament!

I hardly think that a statement or indication of leaning toward this line of thought should condemn one as an "ideologist!"

You yourself could be branded an ideologist as you have regularly exhibited a rabid support for this ongoing hero type worship of Monsanto and the ilk who care nought for humanity save the opportunity to make some fast profits and could NOT give a hoot for any dangers involved in their "little?" schemes.

If you want GM crops then be my guest, but please do NOT force them on the people who are just trying to execise caution and prefer to be "safe" rather than "sorry!"

Cuphandle to Agronomist: "you have regularly exhibited a rabid support for this ongoing hero type worship of Monsanto and the ilk who care nought for humanity save the opportunity to make some fast profits and could NOT give a hoot for any dangers involved in their "little?" schemes."

As someone who has worked both in industry and in a law firm, I am often surprised at the lack of understanding in the general community about how a business (especially a big business, in a competitive market) operates.

It is not in Monsanto's interests to sell poor or dangerous products; they would swiftly go out of business, both because of lack of follow-up sales and new customers, and because of having to pay damages if their products caused loss. Basically, you do not poison your customers, for fast profits would then be short-lived profits.

You may not subscribe to the view that Monsanto cares for its customers as "humanity", but surely such an evil, money-obsessed, child-strangling juggernaut as you believe it to be would want to keep the money flowing in?

Monsanto needs to keep farmers coming back. Each year, when a farmer decides what he/she will grow, they can choose the Monsanto product or a competitor's product. It's not like buying a car, where a manufacturer/distributor can sell to a buyer only once in 10 years or so, so it's not a great loss if they are not thrilled with the purchase. With yearly cropping, you have to keep innovating and keep your customers happy.

Farmers are pretty canny in my experience; it's hard to impress them; they are not susceptible to hype; and they trust each other's opinions and recommendations. You have to work hard to get and keep their custom.

And "Rabid"? "Hero-worship"? A little OTT there, Cuppers.

Me just now: "It's not like buying a car, where a manufacturer/distributor can sell to a buyer only once in 10 years or so, so it's not a great loss if they are not thrilled with the purchase."

Oops, just slurred the car industry - didn't mean to suggest (nor do I believe) that it doesn't care about its customers and the quality of its products - just wanting to highlight the need for a producer of low-priced, short-lived products (such as seeds) to be highly conscious of the need for repeated sales, cf a seller of high-priced goods where purchases are made at more lengthy intervals, whose focus can afford to be a bit different.

ScienceLaw/Agronomist

I endeavour to refrain from casting aspersions on reputable companies, however, proponents of GM need to understand that discerning folk must engage in some independent research - a "character check" if you like.

The number of ethical institutes criticising Montano is quite remarkable.

Unflattering articles about Monsanto have been raised on ScienceAlert, Global Research.Ca, Centre for Food Safety, Rockefeller Foundation, India Resource Centre, Biosafety Info Centre Malaysia etc etc.

When one reads an example such as the following, from the Public Patent Foundation, alarm bells start to go off:

"NEW YORK – July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers."

Are these the farmers you speak of ScienceLaw?

So gentlemen what can we make of the following article, published only last month?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

And an earlier scientific review on Roundup written around 2005:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:mzTgNuXueEgJ:www.walterreeves.com/tools_chemicals/article.phtml%3Fcat%3D22%26id%3D889+round-up+health+impacts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=au&lr=lang_en

These reports are not reassuring I'm afraid.

Like Canadian farmers were, we're told there will be GM canola yield advantages of 30-40% but you can see by the USDA statistics that there was no yield advantage when GM canola was introduced. Why would there be? The GM trait only gives chemical resistance like our non-GM crops.
Agonomist implies that TT varieties are not preferred in Canada when they have not been grown since regulation was adopted when GM crops were introduced. He implies that Australia will have the advantages of weed control that Canada had when we have different weeds and different chemical control needs where GM crops don't offer anything better than what we already have. He contradicts the Australian regulatory body for chemicals claiming Simazine and Atrazine have been banned in Europe as APVMA claim it has not, that it has only been restricted in the same manner Australia has restricted use in waterlogged areas.

While some farmers may prefer GM, many do not but pay the costs and market loss associated with GM. Argentina introduced an export tax for ALL farmers to pay Monsanto for user fees and now export tax has increased to over 44%, hence the massive protests. Brazilian farmers ALL have 2% of their income deducted from grain payments unless they prove there is NO GM present which is too difficult and too expensive. In Canada, the non-GM choice is a very old, very short season variety grown right up the northern area of Canada or Clearfield which is treated the same as GM.

Globally, the non-GM choice is disappearing due to plant breeding alliances with multinationals.

US is heavily subsidised and 80% of their subsidies are allocated to their GM crops, soy, cotton and corn and farmers are relying on off-farm income to remain sustainable. Will our government compensate us for forcing us to take these losses?

The reason why the research sector want to partner with multinationals such as Monsanto is because of their ability to collect payments by farmers not wanting to deal with them.

Why should we be forced to subsidise the GM industry?

Cuphandle, it is a bit more complicated than you are suggesting. The payout in law suits may simply be a financial decision. This was a large complex lawsuit that had dragged on for 6 years. The defendants would have incurred significant costs in legal fees with more in the offing. Even if they went to trial and won, there was no prospect of costs being returned from the plaintiffs. There can come a point where a payout by the insurance company is preferable to having you own resources tied up in a lawsuit. In fact, liability was explicitly denied by Dow and others at the time.

dickie, this is what the author of the “major new study” had to say about Geoffrey Lean’s treatment of his work. http://www.seedtoday.com/info/ST_articles.html?ID=56952

“These statements, among other assertions in Mr. Lean’s article are ripe for clarification. This brief piece is my attempt to set the record straight before the perversion of my research findings and the resulting backlash go any further.”
As for Relyea’s work, the story you point to has major deficiencies. Firstly, the concentration used by Relyea was equivalent to 64 L/ha of product. This is more than 20 times more than would normally be used in agricultural situations. Secondly, Relyea used a formulation that has no recommendation for aquatic use. Such a use would be illegal. Instead, there are “frog friendly” formulations of glyphosate that are registered for use in these situations – but not at the rate used by Relyea. If you used a herbicide product in a place where it is illegal to use it and at concentrations much higher than normal use you might get an effect. This is why herbicide products are regulated.

Julie, just briefly, you might like to look here for a comparison of Canadian yields with Australian yields. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-price-premium-in-australia-but-big.html This confirms what everyone in Canada knows, Canadian canola yields are on the up.

You should read the EU Commission Decisions I posted. They announce the withdrawal of authorizations for simazine and atrazine products. That makes a ban on use.