morally-indefensible, That always gets my goat, what your really saying is you don't understand why someone would have a different view to you. The backlash about GM has as much substance behind it as natrapathy has none. At some point we have just stop listening to these fools. That time is now bring on the GM revolution.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/

Kind regards,

I completely agree Julian.

However, there is one more factor that you have failed to take into account, and that is the ideological fanatics that cannot, will not, be persuaded to ever want GM products. They have a loud voice and their numbers are quite large and they have varying degrees of sympathy withion the general population. Fear (especially of the unknown) is a powerful motivator.

The biotechnology companies have not done a very good job in dealing with them, but this is not unexpected. Even though many of them would have us drinking raw milk, not vaccinating children, drinking water...ooops, I mean taking homeopathic medicines to cure our ills....

The rest of the population just don't know anything about agriculture or what their food is actually made of. So, in the face of anything said to be 'controversial' most people take a conservative line.

There are no conspiracies for world domination here, it's just business. Businesses want to survive and have the best profit positions possible. We can regulate this, go in eyes open and have independent testing etc., we just have to get the legalities and regulation right. But if they are relying on people to understand science, forget it. Most people don't live that way.

There is no black and white in this matter but the more you look into the topic the dodgier the claimed advantages of GM become.

Just a few points:

1) ABARE have proven to be completely hopeless at predicting future oil production so why should we take their word about the economic benefits of GM? And currently promoted GM crops (those promoted by the multinationals) are reliant on oil-based industrial methods of agriculture so the days of their utility are numbered in any case.

2) Finally someone actually looked at whether GM crops are more productive than conventional. They examined soy production in the USA and found that, in terms of yield per acre, it is 10% less! See:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8405/
This actually makes biological sense because by e.g. making a plant make its own pesticide or herbicide resistance protein one is asking it to divert energy from grain production. By the same token, expecting plants to be able to be more productive than currently (by GM modification) to feed a growing world population is a furfy - the greater productivity of crops from the Green Revolution is due to them diverting energy to grain production from other tasks that they previously had to do for themselves - e.g. pest resistance, growing large root systems to search for nutrients etc. We now do those tasks for the plant by spraying them with pesticides, putting on fertilizers etc. For more info on this see:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/guenther.htm
GM may have some utility in adapting plants to grow under currently stressful conditions but dont expect any leap in productivity that is going to save the world.

3) It is not true to say that it is just consumers that are against GM crops. A survey conducted by the Stock Journal in South Australia showed that the majority of grain growers did not want the current moratorium on GM lifted (see Stock Journal 28 Feb 2008). Of course, the South Australian Farmers Federation have been completely gung-ho about GM so one wonders whom they are really representing - the farmers or the multinationals?

It all made sense until the last three paragraphs.

In any case, a business that caters to demand will do better than one that tries to force itself onto the market.

And the dodginess continues....
http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf

Page 3 is most interesting (I recommend a read michael_in adelaide)

The concern of profitability and yields should be one for farmers to consider. If they aren't profitable, why buy them? And of what concern should it be to non-farmers?

The concern for public health is one for regulators and toxicologists. Phoney health scares on GM abound.

Non-phoney health scares on regular produce also abound. No calls for bans though.

Everyone is looking at their bottom line and market access, including the non-GM farmers. And they will use every scrap of evidence or argument, no matter how weak, to maintain it.