Agronomist
Looking through your gmopundit links serves only to reinforce my growing contempt for scientists beholden to the corporate dollar. Corporate control of so much of today's science is a tragedy of these times. It is dragging the once highly esteemed profession of scientist down to the level of politicians. Why do you think that the average consumer is increasingly cynical about claims made by the biotech industry and it's armies of pliable scientists and spin doctors?

Margery, some farmers don’t want to grow canola. I can’t force them to grow canola if they don’t want to do it. If farmers want to grow organic produce, they are not allowed to use GM, so there is no point in suggesting it to them. My role is to help farmers make useful business decisions within the framework they want. Usually the advice I give is how to deal with the problems within the existing farming framework and how to move towards changing that framework in order for the farmers to move their enterprise in the direction they want to go. My job is to collect the research out there and bring it to bear on the issues; that is what I get paid for, not to order the farmers about.

GM canola is only a tool for farmers, just like their air-seeder. It turns out that if used properly it is quite a valuable tool. Like any tool, it doesn’t suit every purpose. However, every farmer I know who has grown GM canola, still grows it. I think that is some indication as to how useful these farmers found the technology.

tassiepaul, Dr. David Tribe of the University of Melbourne has looked at Mr. Jeffrey Smith’s work, looked at the research and found Smith’s interpretation wanting. He even gives references and happens to quote them correctly, something Mr Smith seems unable to do. May I suggest to you that it is Mr. Smith who is spinning this one and not Dr. Tribe?

Non-GM farmer, why does it matter who I am? Do you want to try digging some dirt up and attempt to discredit me or something? I do know quite a lot about agriculture, a fair bit about extension and am literate enough to follow quite a bit of the science in agriculture. I also happen to quite like no-till. I know it allows farmers to seed earlier, to conserve moisture, to obtain higher yields and to protect their land from erosion. All worthy objectives, wouldn’t you agree?

It looks a bit like "Hate Agronomist week".

It is a pity that all you anti GM people out there don't listen to what he has to say, instead of closing your tiny minds because of the irrational preconceptions you have inflicted upon yourselves.

David

Agronomist. I agree there is no need to dig in your life your answers speak for them selves.
You still flatly refuse to discuss the base issue that concern everyone....I repeat my position again. I DO NOT OPPOSE THE SCIENCE... I oppose the AMORALITY of the WANNABE GATE KEEPERS. History shows that these Corporations and others actively seek to usurp local policies and MANIPULATE the market. Yes it’s legal (as far as we know) but is it moral?

The industry’s past behaviour is analogous to BIG TOBACCO and BIG PHARMA (a complete disregard for people, laws and the truth as long as they can make a profit.)

Your answers are simply propaganda in that they don't address the issues being raised they just attempt to obfuscate by quoting irrelevant marketing blurbs e.g. I said seed availability in 3rd world areas is limited and manipulated. You responded with the availability in the USA (hardly a bastion of corporate morality or truth)!

the nature of the concern. The implied trust me, the end justifies the means just doen't wash. Obviously you are acting as spokesperson for the GM industry.

An apt analogy is: a gun is a tool for many farmers. But in the hands of a POWER/MONEY crazed group it becomes an instrument of death and misery.

I don't blame the science but I do criticize the amorality of those who abuse it and even more those who hide their agenda to encourage it.
FTR I checked my facts it wasn't rice after all, you were right. But it was an independent farmer and more importantly the point is still valid

To prove that you havent purchased GM seeds (and therefore avoid a flat royalty) you would simply need to produce your seed invoices. In particular if you employ an agronomist to provide sowing advice, then you would have independent proof as to the source of your seed.

As far as suffering from aerial spraying by neighbours using round-up, there would be ample leeway to sue the neighbour and spray contractor for allowing drift and spraying in adverse conditions, just as exists now (try spraying ester in a cotton growing area). To pull this one out of a bag suggests that you have little experience in agricultural spraying and the restrictions and liabilities that exist.

As far as Bt washing into rivers, more soils end up in river systems than plant matter, so I am a little unsure as to why Bt resistant plants would be a problem from this perspective. Happy to review any evidence though.

Get off agronomist's back. He puts forward a logical and rational argument. Just because you dont agree with it doesnt mean you need to revert to a hate-campaign.

Hi all and Agronomist
Bt (GM)plants express the toxin in every cell. This means that there can be a sizeable ammount of plant produced Bt toxin in a field. Bt GM plants washing into streams have been shown to be hazardous to water fleas and caddis flies. Reseachers are not sure if this is to do solely with the Bt toxin or some other effect of genetic engineering. Full details can be read here
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/news19.php


Regarding Bt cotton in Australia. It is expected that pesticide use will drop for the first few years of growing a Bt GM crop. When pests develop immunity to the toxin pesticide use rises.

However I have no idea how Australian Bt cotton farmers are faring as they are forbidden to tell anyone under their patent agreements. There are reports that Bt cotton is causing a fungal disease "fusarium wilt" in the soil.

Indian farmers complained that their Bt plants (which were designed to produce their own pesticide rather than have it sprayed on) were attacked by insects other than the bollworm Bt cotton protected against. The crops failed.

Patents are a confusing and contested area. Patents have been granted over a breast cancer gene and various other human genes. Biotech companies are currently in a frenzy to patent plant genes thought to be useful in climate change. A company tried to patent the neem tree.

The details of how, what, when etc of patenting can be debated but the issue is that living organisms are being patented and this removes them from our common genetic inheritance.

Finally no GM plants are designed to increase yield. The two traits are either insect resistance (Bt) or herbicide resistance (can be sprayed with weedkiller and not die). These can have a yield penalty as the plant has to either produce or resist a poison that it normally does not have to.