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.

Thanks Bugsy - interesting! However, it does not really alter the point of my argument. In fact, it begs the question of why there is not more in-field-use data comparing the productivity of GM and non-GM crops. Also shows that genes fit into a web of interactions in the plants and that alterations are not "cost free". In this case they needed to add Manganese to correct for the effect of the modification in order to reinstate full productivity.

Its really quite simple. Follow the money and propaganda or SPIN trail.

1. http://www.seedsofdeception.com

What ABARE has done is appalling but in line with the governments stance to provide a public relations exercise to capitalize on the governments investments in GM.
Government institutes such as CSIRO have admitted it is best to get in bed with GM companies as it makes life easier for them. But who pays for the change from public to corporate plant breeding?
Everybody from scientists, to the seed industry to governments, to industry, to the GM companies are planning on making more money but where does it come from? Consumers don't want GM and those market that will tolerate it will do so if it is cheaper.
Farmers will need to pay more costs but get paid less for the product.
Non-GM farmers also have to market as GM because coexistence is not possible under the existing protocols that put all the costs and laibilities onto non-GM farmers.
The assumption is that there is a yield advantage with GM but there is not.
ABARE's main "profit" was presuming a yield advantage for GM wheat but no market in the world wants GM wheat. Both non-GM and GM farmers will be presumed to be GM unless we prove a GM-free status which will not be possible. Therefore, no matter how good the GM wheat plant is, if it causes all farmers to lose wheat sales it is a massive cost and a massive risk.
ABARE came up with an outrageous "benefit" figure to attract investors as investors calculate their profit potential on 100% or more of the "benefit" gained.
Its time government started doing more than protecting their own investments.
A good start is to stop lying to consumers claiming GM canola is proven to be safe when the oil has not been tested and the remaining meal escapes regulation because FSANZ has no authority over stock food.

What benefit? The "advantage" of RR is over as the canola has reached 6 leaf stage.

What a joke! Farmers are now realising the limitations of GM canola.

Roundup Ready canola is bred by transferring a gene from soil bacteria to the DNA of canola to make the canola plant resistant to glyphosate. Although this can be done very easily by non-GM means (our weeds develop natural resistance to glyphosate with overuse) GM allows Monsanto to retain a patent over the crop and its progeny. Farmers become contract growers to the patent owner.

For the first time, Roundup Ready canola has been grown commercially in Victoria and New South Wales.

The first year is to be the honeymoon phase but costs are already excessive:

Roundup Ready seed has cost at least twice the price of non-GM.
An upfront stewardship fee of $1,000/property is charged (half price this year).
A "discounted introductory fee" of $10.20 per tonne on all canola delivered for the 2008 season (in the form of an end point royalty system).
Legal fees if required to assess two contracts before signing.
In the following season, the farmer will also need to:
- regularly scout and control unwanted volunteer canola plants
- must add further chemicals to glyphosate in order to kill unwanted GM glyphosate tolerant canola volunteers
- will need to limit glyphosate use in following rotations and tillage or the more toxic paraquat/diquat chemical is recommended as alternatives.
So what is the benefit? Only broadleaf control for 6 weeks?

Glyphosate (for which Roundup Ready is bred to be resistant to) has no residual weed control and because good weed control is essential to control grasses on emergence, an alternative chemical (trifluralin) is recommended to control grasses. This gives residual grass control for the season.

Broadleaves will be controlled by the application of glyphosate but can not be applied after 6 leaf stage (around 6 weeks after planting and the plant is as high as your workboot).

Makes a mockery of the pro-GM public relations exercise of painting GM farmers up to be "progressive" doesn’t it?

They'll do their sums, just like everyone else. If it's being grown this year, maybe after the end of the season they can tell all the other farmers what happened. GM will continue or fall on its own merits.

And in the meantime, non-GM farmers lose their ability to market what GM sensitive markets want... a GM-free product.
If non-GM farmers follow the ridiculous pro-GM coexistence protocols, they will be left with massive costs and liabilities and a product that will be contaminated.
Why should an industry have the right to vandalise our profits and put a range of costs, responsibilities and liabilities onto the opposition?
Why should we be forced to compensate the GM industry for their incompetence at controlling their unwanted product?
Why should non-GM farmers accept economic loss for a product we don't want?
GM farmers had better be prepared for legal action to recover any losses they cause by wanting to give GM a try because that is our only recommended legal recourse.

If it's going to happen, then I guess it's going to happen. If what you say is true, then you will have to prove your losses and liabilities. If it is indeed provable, then I for one would be most interested. Until then, everything is hypothetical, is it not?

If Australia ends up with the sort of totals that Canad has in ending stocks then it will be easy to prove.
What of GM wheat? NO market in the world wants GM wheat yet if GM wheat is commercialised,markets will presume we are GM unless we prove a GM-free status which is too difficult and too expensive to do.
Thats why a strict liability regime would make more sense.
The GM company should be liable for the economic loss they cause, not the non-GM farmer and not the GM farmer that has been sucked in by a misleading propaganda campaign.

And what of GM wheat?
Plans for that were shelved years ago, and I see no company making moves to revive it. The market spoke.

Which misleading propaganda campaign are you referring to? There's many to choose from.

Actually if world food shortages increase as predicted b other recent articles, the markets wont bung on much of a penalty for GM - they'll just be grateful to get their hands on any produce. Of course, this relies on others getting their predictions right.

We would be stupid to accept that market risk when we don't want to.
Why not change the protocols around where it is the responsibility for the GM grower to contain their product and non-GM farmers can market unhindered? Only common sense really.
Plans were not "shelved" for GM wheat. Australia is a key investor in GM wheat projects now.
It is outrageous. No market wants it yet it is being railroaded through with hopes of adopting the same ridiculous plans where non-GM farmers must prove a GM-free status which is too difficult and too expensive. Nothing short of industry sabotage.
The reason wheat is so much worse is because products will need to be labelled as GM and therefore consumers know what is in the product and hence avoid it.
Why not do the independent health testing required to satisfy consumers? Only common sense really. But no, it is being avoided... what is the GM industry so frightened of? What do they know that will be exposed with independent health tests?

Gosh Julie, ending stocks in Canada again. Last time we talked here I pointed to this page http://www.canola-council.org/oil_meal_and_seed_supply_and_demand.aspx as the true state of affairs. Regardless, you seem to once again ignore reality in order to keep your little fantasy world going. The world quite happily buys Canadian canola with 5.4 million tonnes exported last year and the same forecast for this year. Including 1.3 million tonnes to Japan up to February this year. Ending stocks are forecast to be a mere 13% of supply.

Even better Canadian canola growers produced 9 million tonnes of canola last year at 1.5 tonnes per hectare average across the prairies. Rather better than you guys did with your atrazine resistant canola?