While there may be "two sides to every coin", those links of yours don't appear to be on your side. GM has nothing to do with the bees. Someone suggested a link once, along with mobile phone transmissions and global warming and on and on, however the pollen link has been disproved. Bt toxin does not affect bees, it only affects Lepidopterans (butterflies and moths), some Bt varieties (as bacteria) affect some beetles as well, but none affect bees or any other order of insects.

As for "mercury laden injections", I would suggest that you go take a good lie down. It's a bit off topic but if there were no takers, it was probably because noone knew about it. Try a google news search for it and see what you find....

New research published by an international group of scientists has revealed serious flaws in the gene theory underpinning the billion-dollar genetic engineering industry. The research findings, published in the leading scientific journal Nature, raise serious questions about the basis for GE patents and the methods that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) uses to assess the safety of GE foods.See:
http://sites.greenpeace.org.au/truefood/news2.html?mode=aust&newsid=359

I disagree with this potential biohazard coming into Australia.

From 1996 to 1999, pest management in GE corn, soybeans, and cotton was relatively simple and effective, and engineered crops needed less pesticide than conventional varieties. By 2000, however, a contrary trend appeared—an increase in herbicide use on HT varieties over conventional varieties. That trend has continued and even accelerated in the last four years. Now, nine years of data on GE crops and pesticide use indicate that a total of 122 million more pounds of pesticides have been used on engineered crops than on conventional ones over that period.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-crops-pesticide-use.html I am concerned with the increase in body weight in Monsanto's tests is because if the body weight increases with 26% GM that they tested, what happens when it becomes 100%? Would you be concerned if you multiplied the test results x 4? I have not always been a non-GM person, but this debate when I challenged (as my name suggests) "Is it really safe" then the test results that you pro GM lobby gave me, showed that they were not totally conclusive, I became concerned. When I challenged this, you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about. Well I am just a consumer but you have not shown me unequivocal proof yet.

If you do not know what you are looking for in science then you will be looking in a haystack with a fork and hoping you don't find anything as I have said before in other forum debates.

then the test results that you pro GM lobby gave me, showed that they were not totally conclusive, I became concerned. When I challenged this, you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about. Well I am just a consumer but you have not shown me unequivocal proof yet.

"is it really safe" thanks for your input.
(you pro GM lobby)
I hope you don't mean me:-)

(you attacked me saying that I did not know what I was talking about.)

I never did attack you,sorry!

I think you know what you're talking about,as I can see that you're doing your homework and try to connect the dots.
I don't think it takes a science-wizzard to see what is going wrong here with this GM stuff. Again...follow the money trail, that is what the average bloke is up against.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912 shows bribes in Indonesia November 2006 It also shows:-

The cotton’s agronomic performance is also erratic. When Monsanto’s GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other unexpected problems. Monsanto paid out millions in settlements.[4] When Bt cotton was tested in Indonesia, widespread pest infestation and drought damage forced withdrawal of the crop, despite the fact that Monsanto had been bribing at least 140 individuals for years, trying to gain approval.[5] In India, inconsistent performance has resulted in more than $80 million dollars in losses in each of two states.[6] Thousands of indebted Bt cotton farmers have committed suicide. In Vidarbha, in north east Maharashtra, from June through August 2006, farmers committed suicide at a rate of about one every eight hours.[7] (The list of adverse reactions reported from other GM crops, in lab animals, livestock and humans, is considerably longer.)

According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, Monsanto pursues hundreds of new investigative leads a year, 600 in 2003 for example, aimed at farmers.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto%27s_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers "The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments".

Eftfnc, (thanks for your input by the way) I only mean the pro-GM sector that attack me saying "I can pick organic or olive oil" which is false due to contamination. They cannot see the reality that more needs to be done and tested before this possible biohazard is even allowed into Australia.

The risks are too high for anyone to be blindfolded.

Agronomist (Ian Edwards), you are extremely misleading but I think your bitterness against those opposing GM is more about your history of losing profit making potential by losing investors in your GM wheat (since sold).
The Network of Concerned Farmers is NOT "composed mainly of organic farmers" as you claim, we mainly farm conventionally. I am the National Spokesperson for NCF and we farm 10,000ha and had a crop spraying business for around 20 years.
Most farm lobby groups change their anti-GM to a pro-GM stance because the misleading information is not countered.
Who are farmers listening to when they vote to support GM?
1. Government organisations who have promised a path to market in exchange for the corporate sector taking over the public plant breeding role.
2. Researchers who are desperate for funding and funding alliances because government is withdrawing from funding.
3. Seed industry who plan to profit big time with farmers being forced to replant our own seed with GM (USDA survey showed the seed sector was the key beneficiary of GM crops)
4. R&D institutes who have alliances and own tradeable profitable intectual property.
5. The GM industry who have formed alliances and cut deal with plant breeding institutes. Commercialisation allows the GM industry to withdraw from funding and start collecting significant returns on their investment.
Who is at risk?
Farmers because only farmers pay for the additional costs to support all the above. Those not wishing to grow GM will not have the option to market as non-GM as it will be too difficult and too expensive.
Consumers as the consumer issues have not been resolved and they will be denied the GM-free choice. Oils derived from GM canola is NOT labelled as claimed and not tested either.
Further debate regarding misleading "benefits": http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6042
GM benefits are a furphy but unfortunately farmers are being misled by industry parasites.