Agronomist, you sound like you have a vested interest in dominating this forum. We know that people get paid by the big companies up to $5000 for comment. If only you would inform yourself of the largest growing group in farming who have no use for chemicals to grow their crops. I'd love to have you repeating the facts and figures of the resultant food that has been grown in a biologically active and mineral dense soil. What you are supporting so clearly is for crops that are highly likely to cause human health issues down the track. And who will then be there to fix them up? Those very same companies that caused the problem in the first place. Stop being a parrot for these companies.

Have you noticed how any essay on a significant forum by a writer with a knowledge of the biotech industry agenda, attracts a brigade of GM attack dogs?
It is clear that the industry mantras have been crafted by their spin doctors to create the images they want - these images are designed specifically to conceal their actual agenda.
Think through the practicalities of any of the mantras and it is clear that it is a nonsense. The long-standing "we must produce GM food crops to feed the starving millions is utter nonsense! Predictably, the industry has pounced upon climate change induced drought to claim their shotgun genetic manipulation is ready to enable the growth of food crops with little if any water. Sure . . . And even if it were possible, commercial application would be at least a decade away.
Given that Monsanto is far and away the giant of the industry, I put it to readers that it is essential to look at that corporation and ask yourself, "Can they be trusted to control global seed and food supply?' Their record make the answer very clear - it is NO!!
Anyone who doubts this is advised to obtain a DVD entitled The World According to Monsanto. This brilliantly produced French TV documentary is compelling. Those who blindly support the biotech industry are advised not to see it - it will shatter their illusions.

Regarding comments on Greg Revell's essay. Quite a few are from pro-biotech types - regurgitating worn out discredited nonsense.
One comment claims, GM foods have "never been shown to be deleterious."
Oh really? How about the GM apologists getting courageous and reading Jeffrey M. Smith's Genetic Roulette. In this powerful book, Smith sets out a list of scientific evidence and questions that cast a dark shadow over GM food crops.
He challenges GM scientists to set out any scientific grounds that show that any of his arguments are in error. All the industry has done is to attack the messenger!

Trust the biotech industry??
SURE CAN'T!!

Its worth knowing a little about the drive behind GM. Why someone like a director of cotton seed distributors suddenly represents farmers as national spokesperson for the pro-GM Producers Forum.

1999: Senate/CSIRO
"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."

Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Monsanto’s relationships with commercial seed distributors – Cotton Seed Distributors has two licences. It has an exclusive license from CSIRO for its cotton varieties and a separate licence from Monsanto to use the Bt gene promoter contained in these varieties."
Monsanto’s relationship with CSIRO – "In Australia, CSIRO is Monsanto’s main research partner. It has R&D contracts with Monsanto to undertake research using the Bt gene and promoter sequences. CSIRO needed to negotiate a separate arrangement with Monsanto to be in a position to commercialise the R&D through its business partner, Cotton Seed Distributors.

Top 2 Australian Agribiotech Players:
Federal - CSIRO:
Quote: "Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies." 1992 ABC- John Stocker, CSIRO's former CEO
Bayer Cropscience: April 2003 – The same day the Federal Government approved GM Invigor canola, Bayer Cropscience announced it was"extending its lucrative investment in CSIRO".
CSIRO has a joint venture with Monsanto in GM cotton (since 1992) and uses Monsanto’s patented technologies free of charge under confidential agreements.

State Govt alliance - Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre: R&D consortium of 120 government, academic and commercial researchers.
"The breakthrough came when the CRC for plant science started to take out patents. Patents are property; Property is valuable and therefore it can be traded. .(Buller and Taylor 1999)

Margery, do you take money to write things you don’t believe on a public forum? Why do you then think I might? As my moniker states, I work with farmers. Some of these farmers grow GM crops, some don’t. I have even in the past provided advice to organic growers. I don’t much care which system a farmer wants to use, that is up to them. I am much more interested in helping them getting the best out of the system employed. Given my wealth of experience, don’t you think it might be possible that I have made up my own mind on the usefulness or otherwise of the technology without having to be paid?

tassiepaul, I don’t believe that Greg Revell is in fact all that expert on the biotech industry. He made some obvious errors in his piece that someone with any expertise would not do. I don’t particularly trust Monsanto, after all they are a company interested in making profits. That doesn’t mean their products cannot be usefully used. Also there is no obligation to use their products. I do trust the food safety assessments because they have been reviewed by specialists in regulatory agencies around the World. It is also not good business practice to poison your customers.

I have actually read some of Mr. Jeffrey Smith’s book. I find his scholarship to be haphazard. He frequently misquotes his sources, which is always bad form. Dr. David Tribe of the University of Melbourne has done quite a good job at dealing with a few of the issues raised by Smith. You can find them here: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/rats-fed-bad-diets-have-lots-of-changes.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/misleadind-and-innacurate-claims-by.html http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/good-news-about-glufosinate-liberty.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/teaser-for-genetic-roulette-caper.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/gmos-and-movement-of-genes-between.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/do-gmo-crops-promote-food-allergies.htm

Lets look at Brazil... All farmers pay a royalty to Monsanto unless farmers prove they have no GM content. Considering GM was spread widely before it was legal, that some contamination will occur and the testing is extremely sensitive and expensive, it would be unlikely that farmers can avoid payments which is why the number of farmers has escalated in reports. Its to do with the ability of collecting the royalty, not on the willingness or ability for farmers to pay the cost.
Lets look at Argentina. Only a few years ago a GRDC levy style tax deduction on grain produced was arranged with the government of just under 1% to pay Monsanto. The export soy tax is now over 40% which is why farmers are protesting.
Paraguay and Uruguay farmers are being driven from their land and some even shot to make way for the soy monoculture. It is difficult to grow a non-GM crop when glyphosate is being sprayed by air.

Agronomist, why don't you reveal who you are?
My guess is Scott Day, from the border of US and Canada and farmer, no till pusher, agronomist and part of a government committee to promote GM. I recognised your terminology, tactics and debate when we debated in WA.

Agronomist, You say that you work with farmers and go on to say that you don’t much care which system a farmer wants to use, that is up to them. That you are much more interested in helping farmers getting the best out of the system employed. So what does that mean? Does it mean that despite how wonderful you think GM is that if a farmer wants to farm organically that you will let him miss out on all the wonderful so called opportunities provided by GM? I don't believe you to start with and nor would I pay you if you just go along with what the farmer wants. Any decent advisor would know what works and would advise accordingly.