Common-sense says that an unnatural genetic modification of a living creation is more likely to result in a new creation that is less than perfect as opposed to natural genetic interaction by mutual agreement of two related species, or within a species.

It is therefore easy to appreciate the results of the United Nations' International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). It is hard to imagine that any national or international institution will ignore its major findings in future decisions on agricultural research and development. But Australia has, in the company of the U.S. and Canada, three countries wedded to the biotechnology companies.

There have been scores of studies over the past two decades that have invariably shown that GM crops underperform in yield, use more chemicals and deplete the soil of valuable micro-organisms. Australia is now in the process, which hopefully will be reversed if the NSW and VIC governments are prepared to read the report by the IASSTD. There is always the indication that there are hidden forces at work that continually promote genetic modification despite the lack of true peer-reviewed research. The only research accepted by governments is that provided by the very purveyors of GM seeds, etc

What a dereliction of duty by Australian, Canadian and American Governments in refusing to endorse the IAASTD report. There is a repugnant stench to this puppetry and campaign funds.
Farmers the word over must farm smarter and reduce and eliminate their dependence on toxic chemicals, artificial fertilisers and GM crops. It is certainly possible, it does require a degree of commitment and above average intelligence to succeed as a sustainable steward of the land. The scientists who contributed to the IAASTD report are to be commended. They obviously took their job very seriously and it would appear that they were able to avoid the coercion of multinationals with a bias and vested interest.

There are myriad reasons why farmers must wean themselves off the toxic “chemical” approach to farming. It is unsustainable and it is ludicrous that they pour millions of litres of these toxic substances on our soil and food. It is equally irresponsible that nitrogenous fertilisers are force fed to crops. A high percentage of this fertiliser volatilises into the atmosphere or percolates through the soil profile finishing up in aquifers / river systems. Agricultural chemicals and artificial fertilisers have a deleterious impact on soil biology; natures volunteers that work 24/7 and only requiring some thoughtful consideration.

The price escalation of fertiliser may be a blessing in disguise for the environment, forcing farmers to evaluate their situation.

There is compelling evidence that links GMOs as the catalyst behind the CCD in bees and a suspected link between GMOs and Morgellons Disease.

At present three of the world’s greatest pollinators are disappearing in America since the introduction of GMO crops. First it was the bees, then the birds and now bats. GMOs and chemicals are high on the list of suspects. Food allergies have skyrocketed since GMOs were clandestinely sequestered into the American food chain.

Governments and farmers must heed the IAASTD report and other independent research on GM crops. As a retired farmer and consumer I consider myself to be very well read on this subject, therefore I will vigorously avoid GM and GM food at all cost

Testing - lost comment

After reading the executive summary of the IAASTD report (and fully agreeing with it I must add) and then this article and the comments on this forum and
an odd sensation happened, I realised how full of crap Greenpeace must be.

I really think that before commenting further everyone who reads this article should read the Executive Summary of the final report of the IAASTD.

http://www.agassessment.org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_210408_Final.pdf

Did Jan van Aken attend? What he says and what is written in the summary don't appear to be reconciled. Or maybe Jan has a comprehension problem? That can often happen when English is not ones first language.
to quote the report: "While approving the above statement the following governments did not fully approve the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report and their reservations are entered in the Annex.
Australia, Canada, United States of America (3 countries)".

No mention of China either, who apparently joined the USA (but not Australia?) on not fully supporting a particular section (on GM crops). HMMM, spin spin spin?

But all involved indeed did approve the summary (if not fully and in certain areas outlined in the annex). However, anyone who thinks that this report needs "ratification" (ie Non-GM Farmer) needs to remember that this is only a report (one generally agreed upon by all parties except for specific entries) and not a treaty. Also, Non-GM farmers conclusions about the document don't appear to be the actual case either, in what appears to me to be a case of reading into the words more than is there.

It's also not surprising that the same rent-a-crowd greenies all comment as if it is Jan's article is the Truth, and make wild speculations and assumptions as to the contents of the documents without reading them. That seems to be the standard these days.

I'm afraid I failed to come up with any reference to Genetic Modification being a waste of money(or being a detriment) in the IAASTD summaries, although there is indeed ref to uncertainty and consumer acceptance of GM.
In fact the IAASTD report includes trangenics as one of the continuing tools in agriculture.

Australia didn't endorse the report: "The wide range of observations and views presented however, are such that Australia cannot agree with all assertions and options in the report."
At least Aust was involved unlike Germany and the Netherlands who failed to participate.

"Considering the adverse health testing that has been found in the little testing that was done"
Could you elaborate please.

"There is compelling evidence that links GMOs as the catalyst behind the CCD in bees and a suspected link between GMOs and Morgellons Disease."

Compelling CCD evidence? Scant at best, to the point of being baseless. http://www.americanfarm.com/TopStory5.01.07f.html . GM also doesn't explain the losses in areas where GM is not grown, and conversley the lack of the disorder in major GM growing areas.
As to Morgellons:
"Many dermatologists refute the suggestion that this is an actual disease but instead indicate that many of these patients have psychological problems or other common skin disorders" 2007 Atlas of Human Parasitology.

Should the disease actually exist, where is the link that GM is the cause and not simply because it happens to use agrobacterium(cited presence in a "Morgellon" case, though the agrobacterium source is not speculated upon).

These sort of insinuations are a sad reflection of how poor the case is against GMO's. Sure we have every right to be uncertain about new technology, but why do some have to misrepresent the facts or draw wild aspersions when they obviously don't know if GM is unsafe.

Bugsy you beat me to it, but I'll post anyway, I'll have to read and type faster. I haven't gone as far as calling greenpeace crap, but it is a logical conclusion.

Bushbred, there has been some talk about growing mustard(not sure if they said indian specifically) seeds over here in NSW for biodiesel, grow well(take their word for it) in our unreliable conditions and have high oil content. I don't think they can compete for price with the value of other grains and oilseeds at the moment though.