OK just one more.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Non_Scientific_Document/gmo_report_feedingtrials.pdf?ssbinary=true

This entitled: Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials
Report of the EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials

Is that independant enough for you non-GM Farmer?

Thanks for that reference, it is a good reference for explaining the concerns. The report is a collection of tests which explains the need for more studies to be done.

It explains the key testing aim of checking for production measures in stock rather than health problems in humans with summaries such as " Feeding of diets containingGMmaize did not significantly influence health, reproduction and performance of quails nor did it affect DNA-transfer and quality of meat and eggs of quails compared with the non-GM counterpart."

Believe it or not, consumer concerns are nothing to do with our ability to keep egg production rolling or measurements such as breast meat depth.

Interesting that the OGTR and FSANZ claim that you can't test canola oil when the Wainwright study was done on canola oil.

"Wainwright et al. (2003) ... Differences that occurred between the groups fed GM canola oil and both other groups included a lower body weight for pups aged 26 days, which, according to the authors, relates to an effect of c-linolenic acid (GLA) that probably had greater bioavailability from GM canola than from borage oil. In addition, n3 fatty acids, including docoshexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n3), were decreased in brains from animals fed GM canola oil, whereas a specific n6 fatty acid (22:4n6) was increased. The effects on fatty acid composition of the diet containing a mixture of GM canola oil were greater than those of borage oil, although both contained similar levels of GLA. Similarly to Liu et al. (2004), these authors linked the observed effects with the increased bioavailability of GLA from GM canola oil."

Bronwyn, it is an unfortunate juxtaposition by the journalist and I don’t know if it was deliberate or not, but to conclude there were 12,000 farmer suicides in Maharashtra state in 2008. Suicides have been about 3000 to 4000 per year from 2000 through 2007. To imagine they have jumped 3-fold in one year with nobody but a Daily Mail journalist noticing is unbelievable. There has been nothing in the Indian Press indicating such a large increase.

You do know what an agronomist does don’t you? They talk a lot to farmers. Agronomists probably have more understanding of an areas farming issues than anyone else – even if I say so myself.

BT cotton does not require twice the water of non-BT cotton. In fact it can use less water. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pjr8.pdf http://cottonnews.com.au/index.cfm?sID=38&iID=305&aID=837 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ip/ooa/2003/00000032/00000002/art00008

Terminator technology does not exist in cotton (or any other crop for that matter). The Terminator technology was a patent from USDA that has never been commercialized.

Seed of BT cotton costs more, but yields are on average twice as much. Farmer income has been higher for BT cotton growers in India in every state and every year, except Andhra Pradesh in the first two years (caused by unsuitable varieties and drought).

Merri bee, the first L-tryptophan from a GM bacterium was marketed in the US at the end of 1988. I looked at Novak and Hasleberger and found no reference to L-tryptophan anywhere in the paper. In fact GM bacteria are not mentioned at all. William Crist is a writer, not an EMS Investigator.

EMS occurred before and has occurred since the Showa Denko product went to market. It also occurs with 5-hydroxy-tryptophan http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10721089

Some more http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/2/1029 http://www.springerlink.com/content/v44hl3mrpk043466/ http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/3/15

Trial results just in from GRDC trials of GM canola in Eastern States reveal that GM yields were 17% lower than non gm varieties of canola. Independent trials and investigations always show that GM is not worth the extra seed costs, nor the royalties, and puts everybodies markets and health at risk.Monsanto get out of Australia. We do not want you here.

Merri Bee, unfortunately not so. The National Variety Trials are available for all to check. In Horsham, the Roundup Ready varieties performed slightly lower than the atrazine-resistant and Clearfield varieties http://www.nvtonline.com.au/_literature_33753/PDF_Results_-_VIC_2008_-_Canola_05012009 In Forbes on the other hand, the Roundup Ready varieties performed slightly better than the Clearfield varieties and nearly 20% better than the atrazine-resistant varieties http://www.nvtonline.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=33366 David Tribe’s discussion can be found here http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/katherine-wilson-famous-quadrant.html

Julie Newman has clearly fudged the numbers in her press release. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2942 Sad the lengths some people will go to isn't it?

"GM canola trials come a cropper
16-January-09 by Heather Bennett

Genetically modified canola crops in Victoria have performed no better than their non-genetically modified counterparts as Western Australia prepares to hold trials later this year.

Results from Grains Research and Development Council showed the yields, from the first independent trial crops in Horsham and Forbes in Victoria, were 0.7 tonne per hectare for GM and 0.8t/ha ha for non-GM.

The results are not good news for those wanting to farm GM canola, as to break even with the technology, profits must increase by up to 16 per cent."
Why are all the papers saying this agronomist? Maybe its you who's fudging the figures.
And why did 400 scientists report back to the UN that GM had no improved yields, in fact they were less than non-gm in many cases? .