lillian, so what exactlty if the field is a "pesticide factory"- isn't that the point? By having the plant protect itself the necessity to apply insecticides in the air is greatly lessened, let alone the safety and highly insect specific nature of Bt. The option isn't just spraying Bt a heap of times during the season, it's the other harsher chemicals that are the potential problem to the environment. The less they are required the better.

Nature does adapt, resistance is a real threat, which is why research is ongoing. Science can adapt too.

Kremers work is interesting, in cotton we know we have susceptable and resistant cultivars to Fusarium Oxysporum. Others have looked at this proposition.
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/5/1140
Either way Round-up does not cause fusarium wilt and appropriate varieties should be grown in infected fields.

watchful, "that tired old line about GM being no different from traditional breeding methods" you mean you were happier with gene mutation from x-rays and/or irradiation?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2218926

Rob from Canada – you are in fairy tale world if you believe that GM crops are independently tested before they are commercialized. Please supply the scientific journals they are presented in and in what forum are they debated by the scientific world? Please list these independent tests which are not funded by the bio tech companies themselves.
Rob Knowles from FSANZ(Food safety Australia and New Zealand) admitted that no independent tests have been done on GM foods before being approved and said they relied on the company’s own test results.
Currently the WA government want to fund independent testing but approval is not being given for it to proceed in any manner where an independent result could be achieved. Biotech companies are obviously afraid of the results in tests they cannot manipulate.

Rob are you aware Australia, Canada and the US are the only countries involved in the project not signed up to the IAASTD. “Green-washing machine” is very useful jargon to try to discredit the wonderful work of 700 scientists.

Rob from Canada have you visited the Canadian National Farmers Union site. GM has not been a friend of the Canadian farmers. They are now lobbying to ensure they do not have GM wheat thrust apron them. In fact representatives from the Canadian National farmers union visited Australia to try to educate our farmers against the perils of farming GM. I guess too many politicians and farmers are listening to the likes of you instead of the farmers growing the stuff.

Agronomist, the corporations are thrilled to pay for and manipulate test results. If they were happy for someone else to prove GM was healthy they would have given approval to the WA government and hundreds of others interested? Seriously what are they afraid of?

Agro,

"you seem to forget that a lot of testing is already done."

- Quality, not quantity, is the key, I'd suggest

"As to independence, you need to think about who you want to pay for the testing. At the moment regulators insist the proponents do and it is up to the proponents to demonstrate through the data that the product is at least as safe as the conventional product. If you wanted to shift the costs of testing on to taxpayers, I am sure the corporations would love it. After all it costs millions for these tests to be done.

- Yep I'd pay someone else to do the testing gladly if the corporations would only allow them to do it.
If the corporations would really love us to shift the job of testing onto someone else, let's do it tomorrow.

The studies critics claims showed abnormalities in test animals were demonstrated to be highly flawed. The Royal Society examined the report with alleged problems in test animals and stated: “The safety of GM plants is an important and complex area of scientific research and demands rigorous standards. However, on the basis of the information available to us, it appears that the reported work from the Rowett is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it... We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes.”

Is the entire Royal Society on the take?

I seem to see the same debate again. First there is no testing. Then when it is clear there is mountains of testing the argument shifts to not the right testing. Then when no difference in testing procedures can be justified scientifically, the argument goes the tests are compromised by the companies that do them. Well there is no evidence of that either.

Independent testing. Hmmm That would make it the only industry in the world that must do this. All industries do in house testing according to regulators criteria. That is the way things work. But since we are on this subject, it has been 12 years since the first commercial GM crop was available. The critics have been trying for 12 years to demonstrate harm from these crops(I would call that independent from the industry) and yet nothing. Would 20 years of no negative test satisfy your demand for longterm testing, or how about 50 years.

Please read Why the IAASTD Failed on my website and you will see the reasons for my statement on green-washing. Then I would love to discuss it with you.

The Canadian National Farmers Union is a very small group of organic farmers(perhaps 1000) and does not represent the Canadian farmers. Drought tolerant wheat trials are presently on-going in Australia and fungus resistant trials are on-going in several countries. GM wheat will soon be a standard (not the majority but significant agreage)just as with corn, soy and canola.

Cheers

“The critics have been trying for 12 years to demonstrate harm from these crops and yet nothing. Would 20 years of no negative test satisfy your demand for longterm testing, or how about 50 years.”

Rob as you well know, rats’ lifespans are short. All anyone is asking for is for GM food testing to meet the ‘gold standard’. GM Canola oil, for example, hasn’t even been tested on animals yet even though it does contain protein.

What a curious fact it is that hospitalisations for Food Associated Anaphylaxis in Australia started rising around the time of introduction of GM in the Australian food supply. What a curious fact that the rate has been rising sharply alongside the sharp rise in GM food approvals by FSANZ. What a convenient thing it is that the labelling standard doesn’t allow for traceability of GM foods. You can’t, in this country, at this time, connect a food allergy with any GM foods a person might have been eating. There are many GM-containing foods that can’t be identified easily by the consumer. Never mind that the hospitalisation rates have reached crisis point, that our health system is strained to breaking point, or that professionals in the field are calling for the initiation of a surveillance/monitoring scheme for this particular health problem.

How much evidence of ‘reasonable grounds for concern’ do YOU need, Rob?

When numerous international high profile scientists have said, there are grounds for serious concern and this needs further investigation, explain to me why any decent human being would choose to argue? Just repeat the * study and stop wasting time.

When those kind of criticisms have been raised, GM-biotech will never regain public confidence by mere talk and silly bickering, as I have been at pains to point out. All they achieve by that strategy is to undermine their own credibility

Lets look at the details of the testing of GM canola that was approved as "safe for human consumption" by the Australian regulatory process after "exhaustive testing" that is meant to be the top in the world:
1. Neither Monsanto or Bayer Cropscience did animal feeding tests on the oil which is the part that consumers eat.
2. The tests submitted on the meal or seed was related to stock feeding tests (breast meat depth in chickens, carcass weight etc)and because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed, these tests escaped regulation consideration.
3. The findings of animal feeding studies found an increase in glucosilinates and an increased liver weight of 17%. Why? It doesn't matter because they were animal feeding studies.
4. The analysis was on the protein that was meant to be produced (pre-GM process), not on the protein that was produced after the GM process.

CSIRO did the tests that consumers want but they withdrew their application because they found problems. Why are the GM companies submitting data that escapes regulation?
Consumers want the tests and analysis done on the GM product itself and on the part that consumers eat.
OK, so run it by us why the reguulatory process is supposed to satisfy consumer concern...