Kartiya Jim, your sources must be mistaken. BT cottonseed is perfectly acceptable for cattle feed and is widely used in the industry. Cottonseed is not suitable for monogastrics, like pigs, because of the toxic gossypol in it. BT cottonseed has no more gossypol than conventional cotton.

I understand that Bt cotton is fed to dairy cows in several states of Australia, including Victoria.

Julie, you should check your sources

“The second study used only processed canola meal. This study showed a slight increase in liver weights compared to the control, at the highest dietary intake level (15%), but not at the lower level of intake (5%). However, it was noted that the processing of the canola seed from the GM and non-GM control lines was performed at a different time and place, and consequently there were differences in the extent of processing of the canola meal.

The third study was an assessment of the GM (GT73) canola meal, non-GM control lines from around the world, and rat chow as a negative control. On this occasion, all seed samples from the GM and non-GM lines were processed at the same time, and to the same extent. There were no significant differences in body weight, cumulative weight gain, terminal body weights or food consumption for animals fed GM canola meal compared to the non-GM control canola meal. Most importantly, there were also no significant differences in absolute or relative liver or kidney weights between animals fed the GM canola meal compared to the non-GM canola meal, or the population of canola varieties.”
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2004/gmcanolasafetyassess2498.cfm

Also from the same document: “It should be noted that canola oil itself cannot be fed to rats in sufficient quantities to test for adverse effects because this would cause malnutrition and other physiological imbalances. Thus no meaningful information would result from this testing.”

Agronomist ,
Are you saying that BT modified cotton is fine for feeding feedlot cattle in Australia ?

Why aren't we told about it by appropriate labelling if we are eating the beef from them ?

The latest from Monsanto's headoffice:
From now on, staff at the British headquarters of biotech giant Monsanto will be eating only non-genetically modified products on their lunch breaks. Foods containing genetically modified soy and corn are no longer available in the company cafeteria. Granada Food Services, which manages the canteen, is said to be concerned about health risks. Monsanto's press department contends the action was not the result of a boycott initiated by worried employees of the U.S. multinational.

Genetic Engineering News:http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.cfm

Also this scroll to list at: http://www.econexus.info/publications.html#genome

Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease.(a bit lenghty but worthwhile reading)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=678

Kartiya Jim, my understanding is that it is not necessary to label animal products fed GM feed anywhere in the world. I assume Australia is the same. The main reason for this is that you cannot tell the difference with any measure between animals fed GM food and those fed non-GM. No protein or DNA crosses into the products that you eat. The EU, one of the toughest labelling regimes in the world, doesn’t label either. Their report http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/gmo/statements.Par.0002.File.dat/EFSA_statement_DNA_proteins_gastroint.pdf

In fact, I think you will find it is dairy more than feedlot cattle that consume BT cottonseed. Not only that, they have been doing so for 11 years now.

Eftfnc this is old news from 2000. The cafeteria was outsourced and the company chose to use non-GM ingredients for all of its activities. I am unsure as to whether they still have the contract.

As to your other story, here is the view of an Australian scientist on it. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/teaser-for-genetic-roulette-caper.html

You can check the references given and Preston does indeed seem to be right.

More proof? Or is it again hearsay unscientific crap?
...Only 1 percent of the world's genetically modified food is grown in Europe. In contrast, 55 percent of the world's acreage in genetically modified crops is in the United States, where there is no distinction made between genetically modified and traditional varieties. Between 1998 and 2004, the EU had a moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified crops and food, so experts could study the risks involved. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United States, that was lifted.
http://iht.com/articles/2007/07/20/business/wbpotato21.php