There has been an important element missing from this debate: the right of the individual to know what his or her is eating. As an individual I want to be able to freely decide if I consume or not GM foods. So I want to be properly informed if a certain food has GM components or not and then I can make an informed decision.

However the biotech industry, specific farming interests and some levels of the Australian Government keep denying people that right with their resistance to implement clear and informative labeling laws. Why do they do that? After all we live in a free-market society, where the customer is "king" and informed choice is an important principle. Do they have something to hide from people who want to exercise rational choice?

Shadow Minister,
"There are plenty of independent studies showing that the yields are higher and the chemical use is as low as 25% of normal crops."

For a claim like this you're really going to need to name your sources. I'm not sure how much you know about genetically manipulated crops. The GM 'BT' crops are registered pesticides. They produce pesticide which in every part of the plant. Every piece of BT soy, corn, cotton is a new pesticide into the environment. GM trash left to rot after harvest introduces new pesticides into soil and water. In respect of the GM 'RoundupReady' crops, studies could possibly manipulate data by not including the stronger chemicals that have to be sprayed to get rid of volunteers before the next rotation crop. They may track an 'official' spraying program rather than that actually applied by the farmer. Pesticide sales belie any reduction. Anyway, name the studies and we'll have a look.

"On top of that the chemicals used are less persistent than those for non GM crops."
If crops depend on residual bioaccumulating chemicals I don't think we should be growing the crops, or at least, not in the manner that they are being grown. We should be seeking non-chemical alternative crops. In the case of Roundup, it may have a persistence over many months depending on the weather and soil status. If you want the studies I'll advise them. I have ready any for the Bayer herbicides.

"The fact that GM crops are more environmentally friendly..."
That's a big call! I won't bother asking you about it. You're obviously out to sell an opinion, rather than be a part of an educative discussion.

As for this line...
"So all the farmers that want to buy these expensive GM crops are morons?"
I would deeply prefer that you refrain from attributing this sort of summary to me. I've met with many farmers, and such a statement is offensive. It surprises me that you are able to frame farmers in such a light.

You are quite right Greg, the "GM will feed the world" myth is a deviously clever piece of PR. The GM banana was declared a flop before the program went to air. But, even if it hadn't failed, the project 'hoped' to produce a Black Sigatoka-resistant banana within ten years, but the disease will wipe out the Ugandan food supply within three years because they can't afford the fungicides to treat it. However, the Honduran Agricultural Research Foundation (FHIA) has already bred four hybrid bananas that are resistant to Black Sigatoka, including two plantain varieties (FHIA-03 and FHIA-21) that form the mainstay of the Ugandan diet. Traditional breeding methods are already ahead of GM. As for the GM tomato that contains anthocyanins, nature has already provided us with the open-pollinated 'Black Russian' tomato, and anyone can save the seeds from those without being sued by Monsanto.

After many years of promised benefits from GM food crops, all we really have is herbicide resistance and plants that produce their own pesticide – both of which encourage poor farming practice. Of course less pesticides are being sprayed on GM crops, the pesticide is already in the food. Every bite you take contains not only genetically modified bacteria that kills caterpillars, but antibiotic-resistant, or virus-promoter genes so that biotech companies can claim ownership and 'technology use' fees. If GM crops have not been a financial success for government-subsidised Canadian farmers, they most certainly won't be the answer to feeding poor nations.

Biotech companies are trying to reinvent the wheel, and want the world to pay dearly for the gullibility of governments in handing ownership of our food supply to private companies. What GM really stands for is Greedy Monopoly.

It’s of grave concern that the morality of this nation is compromised by citizens who, not only condone the criminal actions of corporations who perform illegal operations in many nations, but actively encourage the infiltration of these criminal entities into their own countries.

"Monsanto (USA) was fined US$ 1.5 million for bribing government officials in Indonesia to avoid a decree that demanded an environmental risk assessment for the Bt cotton Bollgard.

“The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Monsanto with illicit payments in violation with the Foreign Corruption Act (FCAP), with bribery including US$ 50,000 in cash to repeal an decree requiring an environmental risk assessment, falsifying books and invoices, and “questionable payments” such as for the purchase of land and the design and construction of a house in the name of the wife of a senior Ministry of Agriculture official.

"Such payments of approximately US$ 700,000 were made to at least 140 current and former Indonesian government officials and their family members from 1997 to 2002 (SEC 2005).”

“I bet if you soaked your rear-end in Roundup all day there are likely to be some issues arising, but it bears no relationship to the reality …”

Agronomist, this is your second attempt at obfuscating the findings of this research. Allow me to reiterate the information:

“This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed…….Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.”

People, fortunately, have the intellectual capacity to read this paper in its proper context Agronomist despite your condescension.

And last year, Monsanto lost a bid to have France’s highest court overturn a ban on genetically modified corn in light of a report from the country’s High Authority on Genetically Modified Crops that said the corn may harm the environment and wildlife.

The USEPA recognises Glyphosate as a chemical, toxic to the liver, kidneys and blood but permits its ongoing, massive use in the US.

Daniel Sachero has highlighted the most important, and to date invisible element from 'Shadow Minister' and the other pro-GMers arguments: the consumer.

It would appear that the only stakeholders are farmers, biotech industry and government.

But there would be no GM food industry without the people who are buying & eating the stuff.

Realising the threat that the consumer poses, the pro-GM lobby will not grant full labelling - including meat & dairy products from animals fed GM stockfeed and all foods containing or processed by GM, along with notices at food outlets denoting if GM products are used in the food served.

Farmers only have a market for their GM crops on the back of the ignorance of the consumer. Instigate full labelling, as has been requested by the public for over 10 years, and farmers' income from GM crops will evaporate.

From observation, the politicians and GM scientists don't lose sleep about public opposition as it can be managed without denting biotech profits too much.

But farmers surely have a conscience about making money out of products which people wouldn't eat if they could identify them.

Posted by Diane K. D. - Sydney

As Protagoras isn't denying the only real problem with GM foods is aspects of the propuction - with some test results against roundup. That could apply to all foods. The bit about consumers is worth commenting on. Granted there will be consumers who have heard people rant against GM food and be concerned about it. I know there has been considerable discussion about the labelling aspect of it. Although I'm not sure where the labelling debate got to I'd be extraordinarily suprised if food companies were not required to put some sort of GM warning on the label. If readers have expamples to contrary lets hear them. In general terms, before I personally became concerned about the matter I would want someone to explain to me why GM technology is so different in results from plant or animal breeding that has gone on for centuries. If consumers are so worried about eating a, say, bread made from a new type of wheat the they should stop eating altogether. Messing with genetics is nothing new, it just use to be done the old-fashioned way.