Aime, unfortunately I need to point out to you that in the presentation link that you offered, one slide showed 80% of people familiar with the technology (not against it) and on another slide, greater than 50% of respondents said if it was properly authorised, shown to be environmentally friendly or used less pesticides.

That link about the heat stress induced yield loss is a good one, and is something for farmers to consider, and for the companies that sell it to research. It's a start, but it's not a good enough reason for banning a technology. In this case, I just wouldn't buy that particular variety if I was in a hot area, if I were a farmer.

I have a simple but short bit of prose for those two recalcitrent, self-righteous "know-alls":

"Shearing Sheep in New South Wales,"
"Shearing Sheep as big as whales!"
"With wooly backs and fluffy tails...."

" Baa, Baa, Baa, Baa ...............Bah!"

Aime,
When the moratorium on GM ends next year it will have provided 5 years of study, in addition to the many years prior to 2003, to show any detrimental impact to consumers or farmers alike. In the absence of such evidence GM technology moves on to the next level, a regulatory board. The lifting of the Moratorium does not give immediate access to commercial GM cropping, any GMO must meet the requirements of the Office of Gene Technology.

Beyond regulatory considerations it will then be up to the farmer as to whether or not to grow GM, based on whether or not the technology will be advantageous to them. The market will decide if there truly is a premium for non-GM produce as world trade(with GM) sets the price. Processors won't be able hide behind govt bans they'll have to pay the real cost of maintaining a non-GM supply, which may well be nothing extra. Australian farmers could otherwise be disadvantaged in a global context, forced to grow GM free produce rather than by choice.

The merits of GM aren't necessarily financial, in the case of Bt cotton in an average year the bottom line differs little. It is the reduction of spraying and consequent management simplifications that sell the product. There is no premium/discount for GM cotton or it's seed compared to conventional. Growers went through the seed segregation dilema some 10 years ago, making sure that the ability to keep GM seperate was possible in case no-one wanted GM seed. It turned out that consumers were not willing to pay more for GM free seed and had no objection to using GM seed at the same price. Result- no segregation.

Since we already segregate several categories within wheats, barleys etc, it is not a huge leap to enable seperate receival and storage of GM seed, if required. The consumer will decide.

Rojo, thanks for your level-headed reply post. As I said earlier, I still have a lot to learn about GM cropping and will also admit that my original post was a bit 'knee-jerk' in response to the Vic and NSW Governments.

I'm now beginning to find that we have more GM crops around than I knew about, but that certainly doesn't make me feel any better. I would need a lot of convincing that GM has any great potential benefits to mankind over monetary benefits for large agri-business, but I'm not about to shut my mind to such possibilities.

I suppose my main opposition to GM is in relation to the end of the fossil fuel era. Since so far, no alternative has been found to replace fossil fuels and considering what environmental harm fossil fuels are doing in terms of global warming and climate change, the future of humanity may well depend on local organic farming methods and it doesn't take much to see how both GM and suicide seed technology could harm future food supply.

Who knows! In some cases GM may well be for the better, but I don't believe that all the cards are presently on the table as far as long term testing goes and the effects GM may have on sensitive people and infants. It really doesn't matter to me at my age, but I have children and grand children. It's the future generations living in a World contrived and maintained by big business that concerns me most.
Aime.

Agro, sorry to hear about your children and if you don't mind me asking what is the name of their misfortunes and how were they diagnosed?

Aime, Not many of us like change, least of all farmers. I have to admit being dubious about mucking around with nature, but was one of the early adopters of Ingard cotton during the trial process.
I have small kids and since we live on the farm it is preferential to grow GM cotton rather than have chemicals being used regularly near our home. We also grow the GM cotton near our river lessen the risk of environmental contamination. Only specfic insects are targeted by the Bt in cotton, allowing beneficial insects to continue predation, and insects that do no harm either way can carry on their business unaffected.

Of course we don't directly eat the cotton (although the cottonseed is fed to animals and the oil used in various products) but similar environmental advantages can be expected from GM canola, and to my mind would outweigh even the unlikely outcomes. The chemicals often used currently for weed control are residual triazines which have their own environmental baggage. The way I see it is by adopting the technology we are reducing known existing risks using tools of low probable risk.

As a farmer I'm not particularly keen to send dollars to overseas corporations but realise if there wasn't a dollar in it the research and development would be unlikely to proceed. In the end there has to be value in it for me, and the developer.