Wow, is 'Agronomist' an employee of Monsanto or just a scientist (or politician) deriving income/advantages from GM?

The stakes must really be high when a GM opponent's proof of undesirable consequences must silenced immediately with the full force of pro-GM scientific data, which is, strangely, always just at hand.

This closed-mindedness to anything negative about gene technology is not in the realm of normality. All the anti-GMers want is to not eat it - a reasonable request which elicits an 'all fury of hell' response from GM proponents.

It's unnatural and, dare I say, unscientific. Aren't scientists open to, and revel in, finding new information - or was that BF (ie, Before Funding)?

As for labelling, it's only an interim step. As authorities and grain handlers cannot, or are unwilling to, ensure a GM-free food supply then removal of GM from our food supply is the goal.

'Agronomist' and 'Shadow Minister', you are limiting the public's concerns about GM to health & the environment. These are the main concerns. But others include the cultural, religious and ethical violations which gene technology poses.

You may not have appreciation of these values, but millions/billions of people do.

Whether you understand or not, many hold that there is a pre-ordained mode of expression in every plant and animal and that this expression cannot be fully and safely expressed in an organism genetically altered by humans. There will be flow-on effects throughout nature, including to humans - if not immediately, then in time.

(At this point don't bring up the line that genetic manipluation has been going on for thousands of years. Species barriers weren't crossed till now nor were there the scientific capabilities to do so.)

Take away the income and advantages that GM-proponents are enjoying and how evangelical would they be about GM food?

From Diane K. D.

*All the anti-GMers want is to not eat it - a reasonable request which elicits an 'all fury of hell' response from GM proponents.*

In that case Kesha, you should be willing to pay a premium for
food guaranteed to be GM free and no doubt it will be provided
by somebody.

The fact is that GM is now used to produce commodities at
commodity prices, which means cheap. Some Japanese pleaded
with WA farmers to not use GM technology, but to my knowledge,
they were not prepared to pay anything extra for that. Canola
from WA was worth not a cent more, then Canadian GM canola.

Anything is available at a price. Its up to you to choose.

Farmers will use the most cost effective way to produce el
cheapo commodities. If you want extra, so cough up. That
is fair enough.

Yabby
Why should anti-GM consumers pay more for something they once enjoyed at a non-premium cost.

There is obviously a huge market for non-GM food so why would it production costs increase more than in the past (ignoring usual crop price fluctuations).

There are already labelling requirements associated with food content, country of origin/manufacture so what is the big deal with GM labelling if given market demands and expectations.

*Why should anti-GM consumers pay more for something they once enjoyed at a non-premium cost.*

Quite simple Pelican, because agricultural technology has changed,
that is the reality. Hundreds of millions of consumers are eating
GM foods every day, we don't hear of them falling over and dying.
Farmers use whatever is legal to produce el cheapo commodities, if
you want extra, then the consumer is free to pay.

Its no different to so called organic foods. Some people have
a problem with Roundup, which is now used throughout agriculture
and saves billions of tonnes of topsoil blowing away, from previous
overcultivation to kill weeds.

Those who want organic foods, are free to pay the price. Years ago,
all food was so called organic, because modern pesticides had not
yet been invented. But then technology changed

Dear Yabby,

I already "pay a premium" for food as I buy organic. The costs I save further down the track in fewer doctor's bills and medicines mean my food costs are probably lower than for synthetic chemical-based & GM produce.

Of course you'll decry such a statement as every GM proponent won't countenance a word against GM or in favour of organics.

So I am "coughing up", as you so delicately put it, by paying a premium for organic food.

You to say "It's up to you to choose." Yes and no. If I want to eat home-cooked organic meals every day, then yes. But I don't. It is not always practical or desirable. So restaurants receive a bit of my patronage each week.

There my freedom to choose my preferred foods ends. Restaurants & cafes use dairy products, oils and so on, from, or processed by, GM technology.

From Diane K. D.

kesha,
"The stakes must really be high when a GM opponent's proof of undesirable consequences must silenced immediately with the full force of pro-GM scientific data, which is, strangely, always just at hand."

so the opponents "proof" isn't open to scrutiny? One should just believe their claims?

What I see is an attempt to character assasinate agronomist but no attept to refute said evidence. Wonder why that would be?