You're quite correct Rojo in that few of us like change, especially at my age, although my grown children embrace it readily enough.

In the end, I suppose we all do the best we can for our children and their off-spring. Personally, I'm attempting to set up a small life raft in an area well away from the the large city in which they reside in the event that skyrocketing oil prices will totally alter they way in which we all live. The only way forward in a situation like that is to grow what you can from organic seed. I too hate chemicals and let nature do it's work of cleaning up insect pests. My little patch is chock full of frogs, birds, stinging ants, lizards and probably dozens of creatures I don't even see. None of that was here when I took over what was then a barren patch of land with no top soil and lots of clay and rocks, yet today I have no problem growing things, so you can perhaps see why I'm extremely cautious about GM cropping.

Thanks to everyone for their posts. I wish you and you family's well, both for now and the future.

eftfnc, my children have an X-linked recessive disorder that affects hair, teeth, skin and bones. It is potentially lethal in infancy, but with modern medicine children in Western nations now survive. As the children get older it becomes easier to manage the consequences of their condition. Diagnosis is physical and usually uncertain until children were about 2. Now that the underlying mutation has been discovered, it would be possible to test for the condition, although I don't think there is a test available yet. I often wonder whether if gene therapy were available at the time, would we have chosen to use it. The answer is probably yes.

There seems to be mixed opinions on this issue.

Some say that GM herbicide canola is a good thing. Others say that they are worried by this development.

Those that say it's a good thing say it's:
1) Safe to eat.
2) Better for the natural environment because glyphosate is less toxic than other herbicides and is not washed into waterways.
3) Helps to minimise tilling and soil degradation.
4) Enables farmers to have a choice on the weed control strategy they use.
5) Saves farmers some of the time and labour costs of spraying.
6) Improves profits because farmers get better crop yields, since the crop is not competing with weeds.
7)It's better for company shareholders, because company profits are increased. (Although Monsanto is the company that most people associate with GM food, there are in fact more than 20 other companies currently producing GM seeds, such as Bayer, Pioneer, Dow, Advanta, Novartis, and Syngenta).
8) It is better for the seed merchants, because they can sell higher quality seeds at a higher price.

There are of course many arguments against this development. Some of which Aimee has listed. One needs to examine the evidence to decide whether or not each of these for or against the use of GM seeds is valid.

It may be that opposing points of view are valid depending on the circumstances.

Although I suspect if there's greater profit to be made, and if it saves the farmers time and labour costs of spraying - the opposition doesn't stand much of a chance

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS – AN INEVITABLE

The Christian Democratic Party, has supported the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007 that was before NSW State Parliament. Rev Nile argued that genetically modified food was inevitable, would increase crop yields, reduce the need for pesticides, improve international trade and play an important role in maintaining an efficient food supply for the State of NSW.

The Christian Democratic Party supported the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2003, They also support the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007, which will amend the 2003 Act. This was after seeking expert organisations to give us advice on legislation when information was not otherwise available. Fred also had discussion with Jock Laurie, the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and asked for his advice or recommendation in relation to this bill. He urged Fred to vote in favour of it.

"Since the original Act was introduced in 2003, market conditions have changed. GM canola is now responsible for 70 per cent of the world's trade and increasingly is being accepted by the farming community. GM canola offers increased yields while simultaneously reducing the quantity and severity of pesticide use. International experience supports the proposition that the adoption of GM canola will not result in a loss of market share for Australian canola. Other States, including Victoria, intend to lift their moratoriums on growing GM canola while Queensland has never imposed one. Having national consistency is important in maintaining an efficient food supply chain and also gives our farmers maximum opportunity to compete on a world scale. All of the existing strict health and environmental assessments will be maintained at a national level through the Office of the Gene Technology RegulatorThe bill will establish an Expert Committee to assess whether an industry is prepared and is capable of segregating GM and non-GM food crops

The bill restates the objects of the Act and continues a blanket moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM food plants, except as permitted by the amended Act. It establishes a scheme for approving a GM food plant or class of GM food plant for commercial cultivation in New South Wales. It will ensure that the industry meets certain criteria addressing market requirements, including segregation of GM and non-GM food plants where relevant.

This bill was supported because in recent years the growing of GM crops has expanded dramatically throughout the world. The acceptance of GM crops is inevitable. In 2006 GM crops were grown globally on more than 102 million hectares by approximately 10 million farmers. It is the fastest-adopted crop technology in recent history. Major GM crops are soya bean, corn, cotton and canola. The crops have been modified to resist insect attack from major pests and to exhibit herbicide tolerance. The global market production of GM crops worldwide was $6.15 billion in 2006 and is projected to reach more than $6.8 billion in 2007. Globally the United States of America dominates GM crop production ahead of Argentina and Brazil while other countries are less involved. The global productivity ranking is 54 per cent in the United States in America, 18 per cent in Argentina, 12 per cent in Brazil, 6 per cent in Canada, 4 per cent in China, and 1 per cent in South Africa. Australia, along with 12 other countries, produces less than 0.2 per cent of the global GM crop. Some of those other countries are Romania, Mexico, Spain, Colombia, France, Iran and Germany. GM crops are being grown in Europe. Spain has been growing GM insect-resistant corn for the past six years, and the GM crop represents 7 per cent of that country's total corn crop. In reality, there is no total ban on GM crops in the European Union.

.

Canada, which has been both praised and criticised, dominates the world canola export trade with a market share of 71 per cent over the three-years to 2005-06, whereas Japan is the main importer of GM canola, taking 42 per cent of local imports in the three years to 2005-06. Further in the traditional import markets for canola, Japan, Mexico, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh, GM canola is generally accepted as readily as is conventional canola, and both products sell for a very similar price. Against that background, Rev Nile said "I reiterate the Christian Democratic Party's support for the bill",