eftfnc,

With the removal of the moritorium it would appear that you don't represent the majority of the consumers either.

GM cannola has been grown along side other cannola for more than a decade with no indications of negative side effects on the environment.

If you wish to inflict financial hardship on Australia's farming families you should have a strong technical reason for doing so, and there appears not to be one.

The anti GM movement is based on hypothetical scenarios, none of which have any empirical foundation, and a very effective scare campaign.

eftfnc, there is nothing wrong with being cautious about the introduction of new technologies and science. But fact is now GM crops have been grown (including in Oz) for sometime, with no records of harm. The gene's involved are from resistant types of plants - its not like we are trying to completely pervert the natural order, just speed up evolution. There are plenty of weeds that have become resistant even to glyphosate by the process of natural selection (farmers not rotating spray types), so doing the same to crops simply speeds up a process that would have been able to occur naturally over a much longer time period.

I am making a bit of a leap here, but it would also seem that the transplanted gene's might have to come from plants that of a reasonably similar genetic make-up. Take RR cotton for example. Monsanto could make a killing if it were able to come up with an ester-ready cotton variety (less general resistance to ester in other plants). But perhaps its just too far from the base nature of the cotton plant to be do-able (cotton will turn up its heels at the faintest whiff of ester, so most spray contractors refuse to put it out in cotton-growing areas, despite its effectiveness on broad-leaf weeds).

Err, does anyone smell globalisation? Climate change?

Roundup Ready crops encourage excessive use of broad-spectrum herbicides that not only destroy biodiversity in plants around the crops but also reduce soil biodiversity. We should be moving towards Integrated Pest Management and organics, not remote-control monocultures.

I dont want herbicides or pesticides on my food, do you? Cause thats what your asking for.

Herbicides are fossil-fuel intensive products (as are artificial fertilizers). What energy source do you think Monsanto, Bayer, Wesfarmers and the like are using to produce their fertilizers and herbicides? Wind power? no, dirty coal.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

GM crops seek to maximise returns at whatever cost to the environment. They may produce more in the short term but at what long-term cost? Have we learnt anything about our planet and its sacred biodiversity yet?

Hi Mule, You are aware of course that there are 6.6 million people in the world that all need feeding. If we don't seek to maximize production from agricultural land, we will need more land to feed these people. Hence the environment will be damaged to a greater extent.

GM actually helps IPM. Have a look at cotton production in China or canola production in Canada.

There is really only one way to achieve effective weed control in organic systems, it is called intensive tillage. What is going to power that in the future? Horses?

What we should be trying to achieve is a marriage of all useful technologies to maximize food production on as little land as possible, so the rest of the earth can be used for other things, such as ecosystem conservation. Equally, we should be aiming to minimize tillage, because it leads to erosion, increased greenhouse gases and increased energy use.

The mule,

Actually, GM crops allow the use of less pesticide per hectare of crop.

The point of growing a single crop in one area is not biodiversity for that area.

Bio diversity as a whole is not affected as long as only cultivated areas are sprayed.

Hi agronomist

" If we don't seek to maximize production from agricultural land, we will need more land to feed these people. Hence the environment will be damaged to a greater extent. "

Do you know about permaculture? You can actually get a huge amount of food and other products out of a small piece of land if you seek to mimic complex ecosystems, not reduce to a single species. if the goal is truly alleviating world hunger, why are the billions spent on GM not also being spent empowering poor countries to manage their land better?

" GM actually helps IPM. - cotton production in China or canola production in Canada. " I admit i dont know the specifics of a lot of GM. I think GM is morally wrong but I can't condemn all aspects. Roundup Ready crops on the other hand are corporations profiting from the environment to the highest order.

"There is really only one way to achieve effective weed control in organic systems, it is called intensive tillage. What is going to power that in the future? Horses?" im anti-climate change but didnt say we should stop automation right now.

Tillage can lead to erosion without proper farm design and green manures but the use of herbicides and pesticides and massive monocultures destroys life both in and on top of the soil and also causes erosion, pest plagues, water pollution and contamination, dust storms, .

Hi democritus

"Actually, GM crops allow the use of less pesticide per hectare of crop. "- I dont know about pesticides but roundup ready crops encourage more herbicide use.

"The point of growing a single crop in one area is not biodiversity for that area." "Bio diversity as a whole is not affected as long as only cultivated areas are sprayed." - On a micro level it may not seem bad but think about the devastation we have inflicted upon australia's landscape to grow our monocultures. Often cultivated areas stretch as far as the eye can see... how much biodiversity are you willing to compromise?

thanks for comments