Thanks Jason and agronomist for clearing up a few things there. To be honest I could not believe what I was reading until I read that Laura works for Greenpeace, then it all made sense.

Unfortunately there are still a lot of people in urban areas who fall for this stuff, and the underlying argument that farmers are stupid (and hence can't make an economic decision for themselves). I guess that is what is driving Greenpeace now - donations, profile etc, but I really don't know.

It can't be environmental issues when there are so many proven benefits and no damage. It can't be welfare of the farmer - it really is ridiculous that Greenpeace thinks it can be a farmer's friend after kicking them in the guts for so long. I really don't know what is driving them... time will tell though and Greenpeace's credibility will be destroyed...finally!

Hi all. Thanks for engaging and apologies for the late post.

Re a lack of proof of environmental damage: The findings of international biodiversity studies have shown GE crops have negative impacts on biodiversity. The results of UK Farm Scale Evaluations, published in 2003, found there were 24 % fewer butterflies in the margins of GE canola fields, because there were fewer flowers (and hence nectar) for them to feed on. GE sugar beet and canola also resulted in depleted food sources for many farmland species including invertebrates, small mammals and birds. The UK Govt report can be accessed at http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1645.

We’ve actually never had a similar biodiversity study in Australia, so can’t say what the environmental impact of growing GE crops will be. Rather than calling for an outright ban on GE crops for environmental reasons, Greenpeace is calling for an independent study so we can be sure of what the environmental impacts are.

Regarding the feeding studies I’ve selected: there are so few independent studies where whole GE plants are feed to live animals and results monitored over a significant period that it is difficult to cherry pick! If someone does know of a feeding study not funded by a biotech company where animals were fed whole GE plants (as humans would eat them) rather than just the separate novel protein, andhave not sufferred negative symptoms, a link to the study would be appreciated

Re our export markets: Agreed, Japan does buy GE canola from Canada. But it prefers to source non-GE canola from Australia, and pays a premium for it. Soaring grain prices were the main reason Japan started buying GE and food companies still confien use to non-labelled products. With a new government promising a full traceability system, there's a real threat to canola exports and we'd lose our non-GE niche and premium. In June Western Australia’s trade commissioner to Japan, Craig Peacock, wrote to the WA government stating his strong concerns about the potential export price impact of government ignoring the preferences of such a major customer base.
This risk has been recognized by bulk handlers CBH and Elders, who aren't against GE, but have rejected it purely for financial reasons.

Re the quality of scholars / references used. The two studies I’ve quoted on yields are from mainstream sources: the World Bank and the Victorian Government. For a list of the credentials of the 400 scientists involved in the World Bank International Assessment of Agricultural Knowldege, Science and Technology for Development, visit http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713. Annex B/ Authors and Review Editors.

Interesting to see the pro-GE advocates argue that opposition to GE is akin to calling farmers stupid. Nice try - stupid argument. If you want to know who thinks farmers are stupid, look at the biotech companies - a hard hard sell of GE for over 30 years and they continue to limp along with a minor portion of world markets. Farmers aren't stupid; the vast majority continue to oppose the lies, the massive advertising. Some have bought into (like many scientists) the myths of the industry - we'll feed the world's hungry, we'll solve climate change, blah blah nonsense. You speak of all the benefits - and yet try and find peer reviewed evidence of yield increases. You speak of reduced herbicide use - but the evidence is just the opposite. And you continue to avoid the question of contamination and the rights of the smart farmers to choose to be GE free - because there are more markets and premiums for staying that way.

I have no real problem with GE but I object strenuously the tactics and the big chem corps being the world food gate keepers.

Which ever way you cut it the 'life science corps' are only interested in profit. We have seen what happens when you allow big business free reign.....disaster

Laura, perhaps it would help if you went to the sources rather than just accepting the Greenpeace propaganda about them. Like talking to the companies that sell canola to Japan, or you could consult ABARE. http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/GM_Canola.pdf They would tell you that apart from a few small niche buyers, Japanese canola buyers do not prefer non-GM canola and pay no premium for it. In fact, the buy both Canadian and Australian canola and then mix the two together. Australian canola has lower chlorophyll, Canadian canola has higher oil.

Laura, it might also help if you had read the IAASTD report properly. The report http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20(English).pdf (warning very large file) says nothing about GM crops not increasing yields. Where it does talk about yields of GM crops, it is about how GM soybeans in Latin America are allowing growers to overcome constraints and increase yields.

There are large numbers of GM feeding studies, you can find a list here of more than 270 assessments http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html of which about 90 have been produced by organisations completely independent of seed companies.

Having dealt with Greenpeace for the past decade, I don’t believe your fiction that all Greenpeace wants is a study of the environmental impacts of GM crops.

next, no amount of spin will change the fact that 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries grew 125 million hectares of GM crops last year. These farmers at least give a lie to the claims that GM crops do not provide benefits to farmers. This has been the faster adopted technology in agriculture ever. Some "limping along".

Peer reviewed research on yield increases:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Impact-China-Prey-200105.pdf
http://documentoamarillo.com/209/67316.pdf
http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/orb/pdf/Pray.2002.pdf
http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n4/v5n4a04-huang.htm
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/04-133-005.pdf