An excellent article Bob, particularly the exposure of the government R&D sector. It is for this reason that those of us who reveal the pro-GM propaganda are attacked so vehemently.

With the introduction of the TRIPS and UPOV agreements, Australian research was able to patent techniques and intellectual property from the research undertaken. Unfortunately, research institutes were also faced with increased costs and restricted access to plant breeding technologies because technologies normally freely traded are covered by expensive patents. This led to the requirement to attract corporate investment and alliances to plant breeding, particularly for biotechnology where numerous patents were involved in each variety produced.

In 1999, CSIRO responded to a Senate question: “How best can Australia capitalize on its publicly funded biotechnology?”

"In most cases, Australia alone does not have the resources or market access, or often the total required intellectual property, to take successful discoveries in biotechnology to the global markets these products can command and need to recoup investment in R&D.“

“The multinationals recognise that this country has some of the most effective plant gene technology research teams in the world and that these are likely to be of consequence in the development of their own business systems. They are willing, in most cases, to consider trades with some of their intellectual property.”

The regulatory process was set up as a public relations exercise to promote biotechnology investment, not to find a problem. GM canola oil was proven as "safe for human consumption" when the oil was not tested at all and the remaining meal escapes regulation because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed.

Governments are promising segregation and choice when there is no intention to deliver it. Lying to the public is only a short term solution.

To adequately feed and NOURISH the world's ever-growing population - yes - we do need more food than what is available now. The burning question is WHICH foods? Is the answer more of what is currently being produced (Yield) or is it an increase in varieties to ensure a nourishing diet rather than simply a calorific increase - two VERY different arguments.

The disconnect between humans knowing how their bodies function and the on-going reduction in the number of foods available to nourish them is continuing to rocket along.

Three generations ago, the varieties of foodstuffs was in the tens of thousands; according to recent calculations (and I'm sorry I don't have the source at my fingertips) this has diminished. Now, 90 per cent of all food consumed across the planet is derived from around 30 species.

This is as a result of industrialised agriculture deliberately selecting certain breeds (animals and plants)and growing them in monocultures to the exclusion of any other species. (Think of the advertisements for herbicides - Terminate / dominate / eradicate...)

The developers and proponents of genetic engineering are wrapped up in the paradigm of 'more-of-the-same'. In the context of changing climates, we need an expansion of species diversity - already developed through natural selection to cope with the vagaries and varieties of differing climates and weather patterns BUT..... there isn't much income to be generated through this strategy.

With the notion of INNOVATION high in government policy, the current definition revolves around the development of a technology or process which can be commercialised. Yes, GE seeds can be on-sold BUT the process of halting the use of patented biocides and allowing the natural biodiversity to establish and strengthen improves only the landholders income.......

When will the Departments of Agriculture cease supporting Agri-business and instead become the Ministries of Food?

Cheers and much feasting on Low Human Interference Foods,

the Bush Goddess

Bernie writes: "Another typical anti-science rant". People who question the value of GM technologies are calling for more science, not less. More rigorous testing, and so on.

Many senior geneticists, toxicologists and health scientists have warned of hazards of GM foods. Just a few examples: Professor Gilles Eric Séralini, Emeritus Professor Richard Strohman, Professor Patrick Brown, Emeritus Professor Richard Lacey, Dr Rosemary Stanton, Dr Judy Carman, Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, Dr Mae Wan-Ho, Professor Barry Commoner, Dr Michael Antoniou, Prof Stuart A Newman, Nobel Prize winner George Wald, Dr David Suzuki... on the list goes. Are these scientists "anti-science"?

Katherine: thanks for your post. As a scientist, I have found over the years that some scientists will come out in support of or in opposition to an issue for a host of reasons: they may be genuinely concerned; they may be seeking funding for research; they may be trying to raise their standing in academic circles; or, if opposed, they may be nothing more than conservatives who are inherently cautious about change - any change, even for the better.
I do not recognise many of the names in your list of scientists who have spoken out against GMOs but I could just as easily provide you with a much larger list of scientists who support GM technology: those who work for agri-businesses; academics who are doing research; and so on.
The important point is not WHO is opposed but WHY they are opposed and ON WHAT GROUNDS. To date, I am unconvinced of the vast bulk of claims made in opposition to GM food, although I support stricter food labelling laws and on-going rigorous research to ensure the safety of GM foods. To date, and Phelps article is a typical example, there are numerous emotional claims made against GMOs, most of them not backed up by scientific research but by people's concerns about "what if....". The reality is that it is almost impossible to prove a negative and, with millions of people eating millions of meals every day containing GM foods, the evidence of adverse impacts simply does not exist

I'm a dairy farmer and member of the VFF and Landcare. I oppose GM crops because I support sustainable farming of my soils and pasture.
GM crops are a dead end, and they are NOT tested on soils, other crops, or humans.
So my question to Bernie and the other supporters is, what is your job, and why are you so keen on this stuff. There are plenty of other ways to maximize production.

Wozza: I've been a member of a south west WA landcare group since 1991 and an a board member of the local catchment management group. I'm not a farmer but a trained scientist and a former state MP. In 2001, I was the opposition spokesman on biotechnology when legislation was introduced into the WA parliament so I went to a lot of trouble to research the issues, concerns and claimed benefits of GMOs. The bottom line is that the multitude of emotional claims against GM technology are overwhelmingly without foundation.
As for the affect of GM plants on soils and other crops, they remain plants (they're not a new type of organism after all) and they will have impacts that will be essentially no different to other similar plants. I can't see how resistance to a particular herbicide can cause a GM plant to have any adverse impact on the soil, for example, if the overall use of that herbicide is reduced by 60% compared to non-GM plants.
If there are plenty of alternatives to GM plants, can you supply links to information on the salt tolerant wheat that WA farmers would love to use in the salinised sections of their property, to request just one example of an alternative.
Overall, I'm comfortable with the use of new technology to make the world a better place to live and, in my view, GM should be part of our future.