Julie, it seems to me that quite a few of your so-called “members” are organic growers: Sam Statham, Nic Kentish, Gavin Dunn, and Felicity Martin (the last two biodynamic), Then you also have Scott Kinnear (organic retailer and employee of BFA (organic certifying group)) and Pennie Scott (on the BFA board) from the organic industry.

Eftfnc, do you only want uninformed opinions them?

The vast majority of agricultural produce in Australia is not GM and you don’t see the world attempting to beat the doors down to get it do you? It still needs to compete in the international marketplace and much of that marketplace is not discriminatory.

As for the “new research” from the Greenpeace Press Release, we have known about these regulatory agents for many years. What is new seems to be how many of these elements there are in the genome and the fact that they have overlapping functions. Many also appear to be redundant and not well conserved by evolution. This has little bearing on GM products, because at the moment all that is going in is a single gene, or two, driven by its own promoter and not controlled of other regulatory elements.

I'll say it again oh professor,I don't give a hoot how much you are involved in this pro-GE stuff,your next thing will be nano-tech GE/GM applications.
It is customers, consumers, eaters and wearers who have to cope with the survival of their progeny.
No matter what you discuss in other learneth blogs, the majority will rule and we the eaters are the majority. The quickest way to distruction of our system is manipulating it, as the saying goes if it ain't kaput don't effen fix it!

Agronomist , as I understand it the older conventional variety of bi - product cotton seed meal and waste could be fed to livestock .

However I believe the new GM variety cannot, because of the insecticide component in it.

That is probably a regressive step for the producers of this sort of cotton .

Wasn't this consideration worth worrying about .

http://www.proxyinformation.com/monenvrisk1.html Studies that have come out in 2004 and that should be considered for the current shareholder resolution and proxy vote include:

A National Academy of Science report on "Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms" found that preventing contamination of non-GE crops or wild relatives by GE was not possible in most cases with current technology. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309090857/html/

A EPA study showed that GE turf grass had a much greater extent of contamination then Monsanto had predicted. The resulting first-ever full Environmental Impact Statement on a GE crop, currently in process at USDA, and opposition from other U.S. agencies may scuttle this product.

A Union of Concerned Scientists study "Gone to Seed" found that GE DNA is contaminating US seeds of corn, soybeans and canola. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=1315

The organic and conventional papaya industry in Hawaii and Thailand reported widespread contamination from Monsanto's GE papaya.

A recent study showed that the non-Bt refuges designed to prevent Bt resistant insects from developing, was itself found to be contaminated by Bt genes. This could reduce the ability of refuges to prevent resistance.

A study of United States Department of Agriculture data found that pesticide use on GE crops increased by 4% over the last 9 years.

Peer reviewed studies show Roundup-resistant weeds are developing at increasing frequency, and will likely begin to make Roundup Ready crops less attractive. In 2004 Roundup resistant ragweed and hairy fleabane were confirmed and Roundup resistant morning glories reported.

Just last month, 10 university weed scientists issued a statement saying that since 2000, Roundup resistant horseweed has increased from one reported field in Delaware to 11 additional states so far; infesting over 1.5 million acres in Tennessee alone. The scientists also recommend that roundup be rotated with different herbicides. That would likely mean less Roundup used/sold on those crops if followed, because roundup is often now used continuously on RR crops.

Farm Scale studies performed in England determined that Roundup Ready sugar beet and Roundup Ready canola reduce food sources for birds in crop fields. This could imperil approval for planting in Europe.

Why should Australia take on this Biohazard?

As consumers we can do everything to alter the situation by not buying GE suspected products.
You watch,"is it really safe" the info you provided will be bagged!
Soldier on anyhow. For the GE FREE consumers out there here is a great start you can put in your pocket when you are shopping, it is called the TRUE FOOD GUIDE and you can download it here:
http://www.truefood.org.au
It gives a good idea which products are GE free and which company needs prodding.

No, consumers will have very little choice to avoid GM products because it will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to market our produce as non-GM.
If GM canola is introduced, all canola is expected to be sold as GM and canola oil does not need to be labelled as GM.
Don't believe the misleading claims that GM canola has been rigorously tested, the oil (the part consumers eat) has not been tested. Yes, the meal has but even after a few weeks feeding Roundup Ready canola meal to animals showed an increase in liver weights of around 16-17%.
Farmers want to market what consumers want but because of extremely unfair coexistence proposals, non-GM farmers are to bear the cost of trying to keep GM from contaminating our product and to accept full responsibility and the economic loss when we fail.
The pro-GMers are refusing to accept the liability for losses and expect us to believe them when they promote the "no problems mate" mentality.