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.