Following successful segregation trials, GM cannola has been approved for WA.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-approves-gm-canola-20100125-mu6i.html
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/progm-groups-welcome-wa-decision/1735790.aspx

Tasmanian and South Australian farmers, however, are still being penalised by the greens who hold sway over the Labor states.

With the successful cultivation in three states, the agricultural ministers in the respective states are running out of justification for continuing their moratoriums.

Yes, but this does not mean that those states who have ignored the wishes of non-GM farmers or concerns of consumers are necessarily correct.

Have you considered that they may be wrong? If it is proven thus, we may be glad that some states held out unless of course cross pollination does not make any discussion on that moot.

SM
Almost right try a 't' in front of the 'r'.Your blind faith in conservative dogma would be sweetly naive if the probable consequences of it here didn't have such moral and national significance.

Let's be clear I doubt that the technology is dangerous in simple terms ...it is unlikely to poison any more than current practices.

It's the corporations I don't trust the life science corps are in reality simply the re-branded chemical ones.

In either guise they aren't exactly the most honourable institutions.
First they raid poor country for the plant stock's DNA fiddle with it, patent it and sell it back to same farmers with onerous licensing arrangements.

All the time knowing that under these terms and their financial political power they will dominate(control)the market. They force farmers to use their brand of chemicals. they have unrestricted access to farmers fields...ya that can better target the farmer and of course control next years extra profit.

They get it on the seed, on the chemicals and grain at the end, yup, vertical marketing and eliminating competition at the same time in three markets. Oh yes, did I mention their tie up with processor and cross ownership in retail.

If a country doesn't like the terms, the corps get the USA government to pressure the uncooperative one. ie if they can't sell their seed in a country on their terms, they claim restraint of trade then off to the WTO (US influenced). If you can't compete in an open competitive market. Force it to change so you can control it. That's vertical marketing (monopolizing, manipulating more honestly)

Even in their own country they eliminate competition controlling 60% of seed outlets.

Fair trade, good for competition, good for local species, great for cash cropping and external market manipulation, the poor, the country the environment not likely.

Now it's Australia's turn just what we need more pressure on the farmers and the land to grow monoculture for overseas markets while we become less independent every day.
Dawn of reason? dawn of treason via the farmer more likely.

The Greens now look so stupid when it comes to gw that they have to find some other cause to protest about.

Runner, you are very tragic.

It has scaped your attention that the Greens have always opposed GM crops, and pollution of all sorts on the clear grounds that we don't know what they'll do when let out.

I personally don't have a problem with genetic engineering, but it is trivial to do a better job than Monsanto was happy to settle for. Unlike many types of crop enhancement, we know glyphosate resistance can tranfer to weed species by several means. That is rather self-defeating.

As for global warming:
Do you deny that burning lots of coal releases Carbon dioxide?
Do you deny that adding extra Carbon dioxide to normal air increases capture of solar radiation?

if you accept these first principles, the problem is then: where does the extra "heat" go?

Does it get removed by convection to the upper atmosphere? (wind and climate are rather related)

Does it get conducted to a heatsink which raises in temperature? (ocean temperatures and climate are related)

Your flatulent interjections merely make you look dumb.

Do get that education I once mentioned.

Rusty.

*It's the corporations I don't trust the life science corps are in reality simply the re-branded chemical ones.*

Ah Examinator, like them or not, yours is hardly an unbiased opinion!

It cannot be denied, that those who risk their money, should gain
some reward, if their risks pay off. For they also stand to lose
100s of millions, if they get it wrong.

I'll give you a classic example of where farmers can only blame
themselves, if companies make a quid from them.

Frost is a huge problem for WA farmers, each year we have tears,
when frosts wipe out huge acreages of crops at flowering.

Some agronomists put together a team, which found genes that could
tolerate frost and could be spliced into wheat, using genetic
engineering. They asked farmers to join in on the ground floor,
10 grand each, to get the ball rolling.

Suffice to say, the venture failed, as not enough farmers would
take the risk. All very sad and these days Govts won't invest
in agriculture either.

Now if one of those "evil" corps comes along, ploughs 20 million
into the venture, and makes a go of it, it is only fair enough that
they should charge those who benefit, and who refused to put their
money on the table in the first place.

Unless of course you think that its better that the work was never
done in the first place, in which case we just shrug our shoulders
and accept hundred million dollar losses, due to frosts, as we have
in the past. That is hardly progress.

Yabby,
excuse my ignorance but, re frost damage to certain crops what is the reason for keeping on growing crops susceptible to frost ? I find it very much like the cotton industry. On one hand we scream about lack of water yet on the other hand we grow cotton. Isn't there a degree of senselessness ? I mean we import just about everything else to this country why not do away with stuff that doesn't work here & concentrate on what does. Is it it really so beneficial to Australia to let a handful of businesses ruin it for the masses ? I can't grow certain vegetables where I live due to climatic condition so guess what ? I don't plant stuff that is not suitable for my latitude. We desperately need brains in this country but is anyone focussing on producing them here ? NO !

Individual, if we only grew crops, where there is no risk, you
would frankly starve.

Agriculture is a risky business. From a seedling onward, plants
are at risk from drought, diseases, insects etc.

West Australia grows around half of our wheat, but every year
crops are wiped out for one reason or another, some partly,
some completely.

If you want complete security, do what Pelican does and go and
work for the Govt :)

So we try to minimize risk, by taking calculated risks. We
delay seeding, so that flowering does not occur at a highly frost
prone time. We grow more frost tolerant crops in more frost prone
areas, low lying country etc. But of course nature does not
always cooperate, climatic systems come and go and if nature
throws up a really frosty night in the middle of flowering,
boof, there goes the crop.

My suggestion to you is, don't ever try farming, if you are not
an optimist who is prepared to take a calculated risk. Be thankful
that others do, or you would starve.

Not only that, but you and other Australians still rely on farming
and mining to generate export $. Without those industries, how
would you pay for your imports?

Yabby,
I am highly appreciative of farmers. I am fully aware of the commitment, faith, hardships & perpetual fleecing by the taxman & the interference by those insipid greenies. It's usually those who condemn farming practices who complain bitterly when prices go up or there's a shortage of supplies. I guess I was to vague in my cynicism but what I meant was why are many grops which with a history of failing still being planted. Also, I'm led to believe that many farming products are in over supply & when the prices drops they simply go to waste. Would an australian farmer not be well advised to grow produce that is not so vulnerable to australian condition & if people want them badly enough they can be imported. On the other hand I don't see how GM can do any more harm to Australia than the thousands of hangers on academics & bureaucrats. I mean we're changing everything else when its convenient to the do gooders so why not create flora which is of benefit to many & may even improve the salinity problem in many areas. Again, I'm raving on mainly on ignorance but it seems to me that much of Australia's farming produce is geared for supply & quite often waste rather than plain demand. It appears that many farmers try to emulate the manufacturing industry which we know is at times grossly of a frivolous nature aimed at a frivolous market when times are good.

individual, with all due respect all crops have some susceptibility to frost. Some are more susceptible than others. Very susceptible crops are simply not grown in areas where frost is common. The only choice farmers have to risking frost is to not grow anything.

Crops are also susceptible to drought, hailstorms, floods, to disease and to insects. Farmers manage these threats as best they can, but occasionally suffer damage. Frost is particularly difficult, because by that stage the farmer has committed resources to grow the crop. A failure as a result of frost means all those resources are wasted. At least with a drought, the farmer has the option of not continuing to put resources into growing the crop. Famers who have land in frost-prone areas have to take on the risk more often.

What would you suggest as a produce that is not so vulnerable to Australian conditions? Wheat and barley are well suited to the Australian Mediterranean climate. I can think of few food products that are as well suited.

Yabby,

Absolutely old son, those who risk their money "should" get a reward if the product can compete on a level playing field. But how much, and should they be able to change/pervert the market to suit themselves to the over all detriment of the system (precedents spirit of the law)
I understand the view of some farmers (you) and Agronomist's view that they need to maximize their investment.(if a little self interested)

However, I believe in the principals of capitalism specifically a level playing field. Their behaviour is anything but this.

I have crossed swords with Agronomist before and I understand his and your self-interested position well. I simply disagree that one perversion of the principal of capitalism justifies the creation an intended corporate club.
Likewise, any multinational (vertical marketing or not should be able to dictate to sovereign govt (albeit by proxy). *This end doesn't justify the means*.

Evidence suggests the methods and the oppressive methodologies they use are geared to make an otherwise uneconomic (uncompetitive?)product dominate.e.g. IF I were to invent an obviously better car but to recover its costs It became uncompetitive unless I perverted the level playing field bought up most of the petrol manufacturers, end petrol stations, selling that specific fuel at a premium, forcing all the car owner to only use genuine parts and serviced by my business, would you or would you not regard that as contrary (a perversion) to the base principal of capitalism.

I would suggest that both you and agronomist aren't interested in the wider consequences. You are entitled to be shallow in your reasoning and wrong.....He he He Ho Ho (a joke old boy):-) (don't take the last sentence seriously you both should know me better by now.

Ah Examinator, my reasoning is simply more thought through then
yours :)

Anyone can join the corporate club, if they are prepared to risk
their hundreds of millions. We do have monopoly regulators,which
ensure competition in the marketplace. If they are not doing their
job, that is the fault of Govt, not of corporations.

Now look at it this way. Monsanto spent their mega millions inventing
Roundup, years ago. They sold it at a high price, but one that the
market could bear, otherwise nobody would have bought the stuff.
Now its off patent, made cheap as chips in China.

You/we all benefit, by that, in terms of cheaper food in the marketplace. Had Monsanto never invented Roundup, we would all be
worse off.

So my point is, Monsanto are far more useful to this world then
you are, who has invented absolutaly nothing, taken no risks,
just stockpiled your pennies in a bank. So there :)

.

I don't know what other arid countries grow but from memory I believe Israel is one such country wich has established quite a successful agriculture. It obviously has highly technical ability but I think their mentality & approach to land is quite different to others. In Australia it would not be acceptable to put in place such infrastructure to grow produce. It is however, quite acceptable to use good farming land to put suburbs onto it. I think in order to make the so-called environmentalists living on good land wake up, the farming community should introduce selective produce shortage. It would mean better prices & less waste & create an awareness of food production other than furry fish & seaweed sandwiches & warm wine in yuppy bars. I mean why can't the vital food producers do what Australia Post & the Airlines do at holiday time.

rather than one of conspiracy theories. I find tinfoil hats a little uncomfortable.

Has it ever occurred to you that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready trait dominates world soybean production solely because it is far better than anything else on the market? If you bothered to speak to ordinary soybean growers from the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay they would tell you this. I know because I have spoken to them. This reminds me of a story of a lawsuit in the US. An civil society organisation was trying to sue Monsanto. One of their farmer witnesses gave evidence saying he was being forced by Monsanto to grow Roundup Ready soybeans because it made no economic sense to grow any other soybeans.

Sometimes a product is so good that everyone wants to use it. No conspiracies needed. Sometimes a product is not good enough and it disappears without trace. Have you ever heard of Navigator canola? Perhaps it is worth looking up its history.

The US has strong ant-trust legislation. When Monsanto wanted to buy Delta and Pineland, they had to sell off some of their other business to their competitors so a monopoly situation didn’t arise.

individual, I agree that the urbanisation of good agricultural land is a problem. The solution would be better planning laws. Unfortunately, urban interests dominate most of politics and they make the rules to suit themselves. Israeli agriculture is massively dependent on irrigation. They are currently over using their (and other nations) water resources. It is uncertain how long this can continue. I see that the urban population of Australia is not in favour of water being used by agriculture for irrigation (except it seems for wine grapes). So I don’t expect Australia can head down the path that Israel has taken.

Examinator,

The greens' position is that unless anything is tested in mass trials in every possible scenario, it should nor be released. This is patently ridiculous. If this was applied to medicine or other technologies we would still be using leaches and riding horse drawn cabs.

Given that these crops have been tested to degrees far far exceeding any other modified crop introduced, and more than a decade of cultivation and consumption have yielded none of the dooms day scenarios that the greens have been proclaiming, the nay sayers are starting to sound like flat earthers.

The farmers in Canada with their higher and cheaper yields are beginning to dominate the market, and the besieged farmers in Aus who are losing $100ms a year as their produce becomes uncompetitive (given the small non gm market and premium) want to be freed from the burden of paying for city dwellers' ideals.

What exactly is it that many object to GM ? Isn't just about everything GM by now ? Isn't GM part of evolution ? Aren't the minds of so many GM by now ? Is mankind somehow not deemed to be part of evolution ? I mean enen JC himself who's dad created this godforsaken lump of water, dirt & stupid people, turned water into wine. Does that qualify as GM ? Why is when a natural disaster turns the place upside down it is God's will but when well intentioned people try to make better & more food than it's condemned as destructive ? Wich way are we going to have it ? Let nature do its thing & let millions starve or do we make GM food & feed people. What has been discussed on OLO to the fullest is population growth. Whenever I hear some drongo raving on about "growth" I get the jibbers. Do these idiots actually ever think that the planet doesn't get any bigger ? Maybe the opponents of GM are right because a shortage of food will control this population growth. Where does that leave the god botherers ? Have no birth control so we can have more people starving ? Medicine too, could keep many more alive to starve & live a life in misery. We could have more "Growth" & pollute the planet a lot more. I think it is the agricultural industry wich holds the key to this planet's control room & not the technos. Food supplies are the ultimate bargaining tool so all you producers out there start exercising your powers. You're our only hope if we are to have a dawn of reason.

Wheee 3 of my favourite sparring opponent at once.
Gentlemen
The point I'm making to all is it's the companies' practices that I object to.
Not necessarily the product if it can be *independently* assessed as such (not arm twisting by either side).

I still hold that entities are entitled a *fair* profit if the product can be marketed on an *equal* playing field. (Capitalism theory 101).

I posit that the product is too costly or else the *life science* Corp wouldn't have to indulging in uncompetitive, unfair practices to regain their investment . Unless.....
their intentions were to control guaranteed money for nothing. (See intellectual property law changes).

It's their licensing restrictions , 'me too patents" , anti competitive vertical marketing, bullying tactics in short uncompetitive methods that's the problem.

SM. If it's ok for these corps to play get around the system games why isn't it ok for others to respond in kind by using other legal methods?

Agronomist, >"... because it is far better than anything else on the market? "<
Yes I considered it, But......
Do you equate popular with better?
Like telling Africans that Baby formula is better than mother's milk.
Cigarettes
Dumping/selling products that are banned in western Countries?
Raiding poor countries plant DNA etc. via Botanic Gardens to avoid royalties?
All of you should know I don't believe in grand conspiracy theories but I do recognise corporate bullying, predatory, immoral practices when I see them?
The mega corps aren't the only culprits but they're the biggest and best .

“If it's court arguable or can be gotten away with, then the end justifies the means” is their mantra.

Yabby, Since when is big always good, or fairest to guarantee the best.

US Banks, car Companies, the arms manufacturers, Oil co, Chemical co, Drug Co
Mega Electronics companies tried to bluff ,out spend CSIRO from its WiFi royalties,
Clearly it isn't just industry unique it's systemic Corporate size issue that engenders the lack of respect for the people and governments

Examinator, you are clearly quite naive about the business world,
especially big business.

Business is not the Salvation Army, neither is it "Examinator's
Home for unmarried mothers" or any other charity that you can
think of.

So the question is not, what is moral, but what is legal?
That is the reality.

If society thinks that some things are so immoral or bad that
they should not be happening, society is free to create laws, to
make things legal or illegal. If society fails in this role,
don't blame business, blame politics.

When the Chinese reneged on their iron ore contracts with BHP
recently, during the GFC, do you think they were having moral
qualms about this?

If you don't understand these fundamentals about business, don't
ever run one, or you are likely to go broke! Or open a business
like a church, where you can pretend to be moral and gullible
people will pay you for it.

Looks like the first line of my last post got deleted in transit.

examinator, I said better and meant better. It is popular because it is better. This is how the farmers who grow the Roundup Ready soybeans describe it. It provides better weed control and allows them to sow their crop without having to till the soil.

Once a product is on the market it is independently evaluated by those who buy it. They might initially get suckered in by advertising, but at the end of the day if the product doesn’t do the job they won’t be back to buy it again – or at least most won’t. In the case of GM crops they are intensively evaluated before they get to the market. No other crop grown is subject to nearly the same level of scrutiny.

With respect to GM crops (and several other areas) there is no choice but to have big business involved. The costs of regulation imposed by Governments are so high that only corporations with large financial reserves can afford to bring a product to market.

Examinator,

The farmers still have the option of buying standard non GM seed for the same price as previously.

"I posit that the product is too costly or else the *life science* Corp wouldn't have to indulging in uncompetitive, unfair practices to regain their investment." Assumes that farmers are idiot businessmen far more interested in "new / popular" products than ones that generate them money.

The level playing field is that the farmers still have the choice of the old product.

Monsanto have a patent on the new gene, as do drug companies etc, and have 10 to 30 years of protection before the technology can be copied legally.

No pharma company or other tech company would spend millions or billions developing new technology if they couldn't make a profit from it. Your argument that patents are uncompetitive is ludicrous.

>>...why not create flora which is of benefit to many & may even improve the salinity problem in many areas.<<

individual,

Saltbush fits the bill very well. While it's not a crop as such, it certainly can be used as feed for sheep, goats and cattle etc as well as helping to keep the topsoil intact in salty landscapes. Based on what I've seen on the Landline program (ABC), it is a good protein source (if my memory serves) and results in much better meat.

The irony is that saltbush was routinely cleared from farming properties ever since the early settlement days. Some farmers are trying to get it growing again on their properties.

Gentlemens

SM,Oh dear micro reading again,
I have no problems with patents per se, it's the "me too" ones and the other restrictive practices,
i.e.
- Mandating use of their other products,
- Yearly licensing on crops.
- The ramifications of being tied to their product...e.g. if a farmer goes back to non GM seed, the GM company can come in and if they find unintended GM by-product they can demand license fees. No *practical* redress.
- If it shows in the neighbour's crop same deal.
- Hardly fair for the small quasi cash cropper.
- Vertical marketing
- Biota raiding in Botanical gardens to avoid national origin royalties.
The GM companies claim all these practices are *necessary* to recoup their expenditures.
- It's also a single point failure.
- Pressuring other countries to accept their terms.

- It's the combination that adds up to a deliberate strategy to dominate. Survival of the biggest, less moral. (evolution says the most adaptable to prevailing conditions.) Equal Paying field... definitely not.

Show me where in our constitution or laws does does it give corps rights to do these either singularly or in combination? it doesn't
Its all from case law and precedents.
I would raise the issue of conservative inconsistency here i.e. They rail against court made (perverted) laws/judgments when They favour people but rely on it when it comes to corporations.

I repeat, it is this I object to not necessarily the product.
PS I note, you didn't counter my argument that if it's good enough for one side, it should be good enough for both.

The technique you three gentlemen are using is 'reduction to the ridiculous' or 'micro reasoning.' i.e. one ant in bed is ok when assessed individually but 50,000 is a *different* problem.
You are all wanting to discuss the pro of the single ant to justify the rest. Sorry but that is spin 101.

Agronomist,
By the companies justification the product can't be sold on the same basis as other grain (why?*too expensive*), so they're amortizing(?) their recouping over several "necessary" practices.
Or. Is as I posited, simply an example mega corp madness. (ref organizational theory, specifically corporate hierarchy of objectives [in practice]).

If the product is *so* good sell it as a stand alone. You and I know that it wouldn't sell (too expensive) or it wouldn't yield their mega profits or guarantee future cash cow profits. In short the corps don't want fair (equal) trade they're looking for an excuse to dominate via Market manipulation strategies.

You and I know that intellectual property rights time lengths have increased. Any bets before other mega corps like "Life Science companies" claim parity? My understanding is that they're already lobbying.

examinator, if you obtain some real information about farming practices you wouldn’t be spouting off these errors. GM crops are sold on the same basis as other grain with the exception that they are regulated by Governments. This Government regulation means that a few different things have to happen. The overwhelming majority of crop varieties, vegetables, fruit trees etc. in US, Canadian and Australian agriculture are protected by intellectual property protection. GM crops are the same.

“- Mandating use of their other products,”

The companies don’t mandate use of their products. The only herbicides that can be used on crops are ones that are registered by regulators. In Australia, GM cotton growers can use glyphosate from one of two companies, because that is all that is registered. They can and do use any other registered herbicide they please.

“- Yearly licensing on crops.”

Plant breeder’s rights allow yearly licensing of crops. This in fact is not an issue in many crops. In the US and Canada virtually all the corn is hybrid and growers have been buying new seed for more than 50 years. The vast majority of the canola is hybrid and new seed has to be bought every year. Soybeans are not hybrid, but the cost of storage and degradation of seed meant most farmers bought new seed each year.

“- The ramifications of being tied to their product...e.g. if a farmer goes back to non GM seed, the GM company can come in and if they find unintended GM by-product they can demand license fees.”

Totally untrue. The company could only demand license fees if it can show the GM was deliberately planted.

“- If it shows in the neighbour's crop same deal.”

Totally untrue. The company would need to show the neighbour had deliberately planted the crop.

“- Biota raiding in Botanical gardens to avoid national origin royalties.”

Haven’t heard of this happening.

‘If the product is *so* good sell it as a stand alone. You and I know that it wouldn't sell”

It seems that you know virtually nothing about soybean production in the US.

EX,

Monsanto won't warrantee the yields of the round up ready crops if round up type generics are used. Try getting Holden to warrantee when non Holden parts are used.

Considering that seed is produced separately from normal crops, whether GM or other wise, a farmer changing to non GM crops is unlikely to grow more than a tiny fraction of GM. Likewise Monsanto won't prosecute for tiny percentages.

The cases in Canada prosecuted had percentages so high that "accidental pollination" was possible but extremely unlikely.

As patents expire, any registered patent from a 3rd world plant will become available to all with all its research within a generation.

And in spite of all of the negative GM press the farmers are prepared to pay the premium to plant it. The increase in profits far outweighs the negatives.

Once again, everyone has the choice not to use it.