Thanks for the dummy spit comments.
I am very sure that if the results were more favourable of GM canola, they would have been promoted as being a higher yield no matter what.
The trouble with scientists is that they think this debate is only about their little field but its not.
We don't care what you play with as long as you don't adversely impact on our choice or our livelihoods and that is what this debate is about.
We as farmers do not want to be involved in growing or selling as GM. Scientists are so keen to make money out of GM and their alliances with GM companies that they don't care about the impact on others.
Have more respect for others rights and stop trying to force others to compensate you for a product we don't want.
Work out a way where choice is not denied and unfair liability is not imposed on farmers not wanting anything to do with the product.

As usual , non GM Farmer makes perfect sense. Sure GM Pundit, I am no geneticisist but you dont need to be, to be suspicious of anything sold by Monsanto when you know their history of knowingly poisoning people with their products such a sPCBs , DDT, agent orange and lately roundup. Yes, good old "biodegradable roundup", oh it is safe to drink you know, no trace of it in the soil after 24 hours. Truth is after 28 days only 2 % has broken down. It gives you cancer.More than one judge has found Monsanto guilty of false advertising and ordered them to remove the word biodegradable from the label.Not a Monsanto judge that time was it?
We've dealt with mutagenisis before GM pundit,if you look back over the comments. It turns out to be irrelevant.
Some 600 learned people calling themselves Scientists for Global Responsibilty , deem G.E. to be extremely imprecise and unpredictable, and likely to have very harmful effects on any consumer.They have carefully evaluated the research by independent scientists.. Monsanto science on the other hand seems to have bad science down to a science.And as Non Gm Farmer says, its all about peoples right to choose to eat it or grow it or to give it a wide berth .

As usual , non GM Farmer makes perfect sense. Sure GM Pundit, I am no geneticisist but you dont need to be, to be suspicious of anything sold by Monsanto when you know their history of knowingly poisoning people with their products such as PCBs, DDT, agent orange and lately roundup. Yes, good old "biodegradable roundup", oh it is safe to drink you know, no trace of it in the soil after 24 hours. Truth is after 28 days only 2 % has broken down. It gives you cancer.More than one judge has found Monsanto guilty of false advertising and ordered them to remove the word biodegradable from the label.Not a Monsanto judge that time was it?
We've dealt with mutagenisis before GM pundit,if you look back over the comments. It turns out to be irrelevant.
Some 600 learned people calling themselves Scientists for Global Responsibilty , deem G.E. to be extremely imprecise and unpredictable, and likely to have very harmful effects on any consumer.They have carefully evaluated the research by independent scientists.. Monsanto science on the other hand seems to have bad science down to a science.And as Non Gm Farmer says, its all about peoples right to choose to eat it or grow it or to give it a wide berth .

Dear Meri bee
So risks from random changes to DNA are irrelevant?

If so, we can dismiss a lot of objection to GM because they are mostly about risks of random DNA changes.

For any readers are who think ionising radiation induced mutations are the only random disruptive DNA changes in non GM plants consider natural mutants caused by insertions of mobile DNA into soybean genes that make plant chemicals.

I document them here.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/natural-gmos-part-48-worried-about-grey.html

The item explains a 20,000 base DNA insert that disrupted a chemical pigment gene of mutant soybean that sprouted up in a soybean field.

Similar DNA inserts are seen in maize, sorghum, carrots and other flower crops. This shows yet again that Julie Newman's comments that mutations don't have disruptive insertion of DNA are plain wrong in the case of mutations seen in many crops, and the plain wrong when it comes to the 3000 varieties of radiation induced mutant crops that are on the market. All of these crops can be used by organic farmers.

I guess that's what meri bee means that about them being irrelevant. We don't have to worry about them because they aren't a problem. But why worry about them in connection with transgenic crops if they are not a realistic worry?

It would help the debate if those who hate Monsanto would concentrate just on that, rather than irrelevant red-herrings and untruths about genetics.

Something I’ve noticed from an early age is that un natural food makes us sick, un natural chemicals make us sick, radiation from elements that remain buried in the ground in nature but have been dug up and processed by man make us sick. Man’s inventions make us sick.Thats why 1 in 3 people will get cancer these days.
I’ve never liked wearing polyester, its a man made fibre that is a danger near fire and stifling to wear compared to natural fibres like wool and cotton.Luv my organic cotton.
Haven’t you noticed that nature knows best GMO Pundit?
I am appalled that man has played around with our food, (whether by radiation induced mutations or by genetic engineering),not told us about it ,and put it in the marketplace masquerading as natural food.
I wish you’d stop playing with our food.
I wish we who want to eat food as our creator intended it to be would just be allowed to grow , sell and eat natural food.
Hundreds of generations of farmers have done wonderful breeding work on plants using natural processes, the simple act of selecting the best fruits , grains and veges to save seed from has brought us a wonderful array of food plants all round the world.
Haven’t you noticed that nature knows best GMO Pundit?
Are you not in awe of nature and do you not realise man doesn’t know much at all? None of us do.The best scientists realise they don’t know much at all.
Up until these trial results came out you might have had farmers believing in your higher yield ,lower input, GM canola that would grow in lower rainfall areas with less fuel inputs. This is exactly what you have got the W.A. Agriculture Minister saying about GM canola in letters to those who write to him expressing their concerns. These trial results have blown all this out of the water haven’t they? Thanks to Non Gm Farmer for printing the results here.

Non-GM farmer, “Victoria: 0.73tonne/ha GM versus 0.82tonne/ha for non-GM. 12% less yield“ . Julie, why then did you say in your press release it was 17% less when it was 12% less?

The lsd in this trial was 0.12 t/ha. Do you know what an lsd is used for in statistics? It is used to separate means and determine which might be significantly different. 0.82-0.73 = 0.09. The yields of these two varieties were not significantly different in the trial. Therefore, the difference observed could have occurred by chance. http://nvtonline.com.au/_literature_34796/GM_Canola_Trial_Update The same is true of the Forbes trial where the lsd was 0.23.

I will be the first to admit that the GM canola did not yield more than the non-GM in these two trials. I am not convinced that is the end of the matter though. These trials were droughted. Later-season varieties would have suffered most and hybrid vigor would have little opportunity to show.

Merri bee, it is one of those interesting quirks of fate that many authors on the IAASTD report were not scientists, but members of NGOs and other organisations. In fact, there were relatively few leading agricultural scientists among the authors. They are entitled to their opinion, which was that GM crops could contribute, but may not be that useful in third-world countries. To some extent this opinion flies in the face of reality where BT crops in particular have proved very useful in countries like China, India, Philippines, and South Africa. The report you cite rather spins the IAASTD opinion.

Merri bee, I have told you how to access the Lancet paper. But because you can’t understand directions, here is another link to the abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1053386