More arm waving, biased, scare mongering, emotional claptrap from the anti GM Luddites.

By inhibiting the research and testing of crops tailored to thrive in otherwise harsh climatic environments these Luddites can complain that not enough research is being done to prove the safety of the end product.

These are the same people that in the late 1800s would have banned electricity generation because women and children could be electrocuted. Thank goodness we had more effective political leadership then.

firstly to Bob, excellent article, Thankyou and keep up the great work.
to Bruce,sad to see such a negative response.
Remember DDT.......
I would recommend you read a book 'Seeds of Deception', do some checking re it's contents and be shocked.

Promote Organics & bioDynamics re Food. GM is anti-nature.

"Our planet produces enough food to feed its entire population". More food production is not the only answer to world hunger."
I'm guessing gene ethics don't extend to general ethics, because whilst our planet does indeed produce enough food to feed it's population, thats the here and now. Unfortunately forecasts predict a increase in population to 9 billion by 2050, but also this population will have a demand that consumes twice that of the present population. Bob thinks we should be doing that without mechanisation and big oil it seems. A joyious return to subsistance farming.
Now I'm quite happy with the "precautionary principle" but GM technology has been around for over 10 years in commercial production in Australia alone, let alone worldwide. Without a whimper of ill effect. In fact the whole article manages to skip around any evidence relating to why GM crops are not part of the solution to global needs.
Somehow Monsanto is bad because it's big yet Microsoft with equal or greater influence in it's field gets favourable mention? Have some consistancy, please.
Comment is made about little in the GM pipeline in the next 10-20 years, but the requirements we'll have are generations hence. I'm afraid there is little foresight in the anti-GM campaign, and little information.

"For example, data based on some years and some GM crops indicate highly variable 10-33% yield gains in some places and yield declines in others." (IAASTD)
isn't quite the same as Bob's "The 2,500 page report found no conclusive evidence that GM crops can increase productivity". Obviously they did find yield increases, but I note with interest that they didn't quantify the supposed declines. Bob profers a 5-10% decrease in "some" GM corn/beans, but the increases can be up to 33%. Not quite the whole story is it. The IAASTD view GM as a tool, but recognise it isn't the answer to all the problems.

For a piece on GM theres a lot of talk about obesity, Howard and sustainable living. Some of which is relevant but none of which justifies an anti-GM stance.

People who can choose, choose non-GM.
GM is not yet reliably tested for long-term effects on consumers, despite what the review boards in Aussie might say [since they are stacked with industry employees, who obviously have a conflict of interest].
In Europe, they don't accept GM food. Same in Japan. Tasmania is winning big contracts because it is still separate from GM. Why not WA?
Farmers work like peasants for their GM corporation, who control what seeds the can use, and what chemicals they have to use to get the seed to grow.
GM is totally reliant on petroleum products- for equipment fuel, fertilizer, and biocides- therefore GM is unsustainable against Peak Oil. Local, well-designed and managed permaculture gardens do very well with no petrol products on small and [as community gardens] medium levels.
The more access you have to local, non-GM ['Heritage'] seed, the less you have to leave your food security to Monsanto and other TNCs who see food as just another commodity to manipulate for profit.

Japan chooses not to grow GM but seems to have no problem importing it.
http://www.grdc.com.au/director/events/groundcover?item_id=E875E53EFF6AA51EA55177E7F527CCBA&article_id=E921F029DCE3624CB640331BDBA1BED1

"Tasmania is winning big contracts because it is still separate from GM. Why not WA?" excellent question, and a quandry for those in power that continue to refuse to allow GM crops in WA.

"Farmers work like peasants for their GM corporation, who control what seeds the can use, and what chemicals they have to use to get the seed to grow." They don't have to, they can continue exactly as they have always done.

"GM is totally reliant on petroleum products- for equipment fuel, fertilizer, and biocides- therefore GM is unsustainable against Peak Oil."
as opposed to conventional farming? What part of GM is bad on that score?

Another typical emotional anti-science rant from one of the 'anything but GM' brigade. If GM food plants aren't an economic proposition for farmers, then they won't plant them, but campaigners like Phelps want to deny farmers (in both rich and poor countries) the opportunity to make their own decision.
And Phelps says: "Shifting from industrial agribusiness to sustainable farming is essential and means investing in research and development to help farmers optimise their use of land and water resources." Farming will be sustainable if we give farmers the fullest possible range of tools to choose from and the information they need to become sustainable, but Phelps denies them many of tools in the toolbox because he is anti-GM. And GM plants are the products of the very research and development that Phelps is calling for. Because he doesn't like this R&D outcome, however, he now wants to limit R&D to things that he approves of. This can only lead to a narrowing of the R&D outcomes and this displays an anti-science mentality which his shallow, emotional article simply doesn't justify.