And does he really think China isn't going to look at the issues?

80% of the world markets are GM free;

The cost of prouction of GM grains is not "cheap".

Rural News reported last week that "Farmers who paid $85 for 20-litre drums of Roundup CT in March are now forking out $195 for that same quantity";

the functionality of GM variants of wheat & barley are different so processors have the extra cost of learning how to make acceptable products from them;

the side effects of some GM crops in the US are only being appreciated as off-farm waterways are contaminated.

It would be helpful if pro GM advocates such as Mr Sewell supported their broadsweeping statements with actual facts e.g. MARKET DATA

Rob

What he failed to say is that the non-GM farmer must take the steps and pay the costs to prove our product is non-GM.

That includes signing a declaration on delivery stating that our product has no GM contamination (or under 0.9% contamination) and that farmers indemnify the storage and handler if they cause any contamination.

Non-GM farmers will be liable for all costs and liabilities associated with segregation, proving a GM-free status or recalling the product if it is contaminated beyond limits.

Who is going to sign that declaration when there is not even an accurate field test to detect GM Invigor unless it is almost 10% contaminated (well over the limit).

If the test for Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene is over 0.5%, will this trigger a deduction of their user fee as an end-point-royatly?

Rather than introducing fair risk management to place the responsibility on the GM industry to keep their product contained and be responsible for associated costs, we are told to trust those with a vested interest and to pay if our concerns are right.

For those wanting to learn more about the real drive behind GM crops, please visit www.non-gm-farmers.com . GM is about making money out of farmers, not for farmers.

There is only a small band of pro GM people out there who are willing to peddle the Monsanto lines.

Common people who have read extensively on this topic are opposed to it while ever we have inadequate labelling and zero liability on the producers of this technology against future shocks.

If it is so safe, and contamination is fool proof, the proposers should be advocating significant penalties for breaches, and severe penalties for future health liabilities.

That is the only way we can know they are willing to stand behind their prejudicial "science".

Organic wheat is fetching 700$ a tonne.

Figure it out - no university education required !