Who is responsible for the "claims" added to the clip? They make unsubstantiated and in truth Unsubstantiated claims! Fact is that Canola GM growers in Canada are going back to older varieties. Wheat and barley going GM will kill ALL EU/UK sales dead. The canola crops in Vic last year were a dismal failure. One only even produced oil! Wheat bred by normal means has provided increasing yields, and is far safer for the environment. No GM claims of increased yield have ever really been proven, except for cotton. And that is now having problems as the insects are also overcoming its Bt factor. I suggest anyone considering this foolish path reads Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey M Smith, or Seeds of Deception, same author. Or watch online The World According to Monsanto. If you can in all conscience ignore the evidence as to the Agri cos sheer greed and manipulation of truth feel free to go to America to farm and continue to ruin their land! Higher prices? Well yes, YOU will pay more every year for seed, fertiliser, and PVR fees. The Non GM farmers also pay for contaminated product tests, and clean Non GM storage. Vic already has NO segregation unless YOU pay extra!

Well, Peter, after having looked into GM crops, science, industry and agendas for the past two years, at the same time seeking broad scientific feedback and comment as well, I'd have to say that, if you actually genuinely believe what you are saying about GM and its prospects, then you have been insufficiently and erroneously informed. I don't believe it's possible for an intelligent mind to come up with a less than apprehensive and concerned, even scared, view on GM, let alone the very un-Australian attitude of not taking responsibility for all the unstoppable, eventual GM contamination of your farming neighbours' fields. To me, farming and regulatory bodies and GM industry contracted or funded scientists have their integrity disintegrating by the second over this issue.

This is an advertising campaign by vested interests, thinly veiled as "news" and "information". Trials in Vic. and NSW showed less yield from GM varieties. Europe is chasing our GM Free canola and purchased the majority of WA's bumper crop of GM Free canola last year. GM more environmentally friendly? Certainly not! This technology has increased glyphosate use in America and India by 14 to 15 fold. Super weeds have developed which are causing American farmers to walk off their land. GM has not delivered on any of its promises of drought, salt or any other tolerance in 50 years. It is a failed technology which swallows up billions of our tax dollars and delivers nothing but more profit for the corporations that hold the patent on the RoundUP ready seeds AND manufacture the Round Up. Hello SA, keep up your moratorium and reap the benefits. The world is beginning to cry out for GM Free food in a GM contaminated globe as the evidence of health risks mounts. Doctors groups in America, Ireland and Margaret River in Australia are calling for a ban on GM food. Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering(M.A.D.G.E.) has honest GM updates

Peter Langridge again holds out false promises to justify the waste of scarce public research and development resources on failed genetic manipulation techniques and their products. Monsanto and other corporations have worked for 25 years to create GM drought and salt tolerant crops, cereals that can fix nitrogen as legumes do, and other agronomically desirable traits. Their only commercial successes are with the single gene traits - herbicide tolerance (to spray Roundup more often and at higher doses without killing the crop) and built in insect toxins. Multi-genic traits have defied the companies best efforts as they depend on the interaction of several genes so they cannot be cut and pasted using crude and inexact GM. Any objective assessment will show that the public money already spent on GM crops has been wasted and these scarce resources are needed for the real challenges of adapting Australian farms to the end of oil and global climate change. GM cannot and will not solve these problems so let's stop the waste of taxpayer funds right now. Tell Minister Kim Carr to move on!! Redeploy Langridge and his colleagues onto something useful!!

What a joke. More PR from the Big Bio Boys to raise the image of a failed technique. GM is imprecise and unpredictable, and fraught with dangers so who is actually asking for it? It's certainly not consumers, and there are no markets actively demanding GM...the push is coming from those that are poised to gain from it. Let's label all GM derived foods and let the market decide.

What a huge sell-out our government and industry 'leaders' have become. Consumers do not want GM food. Why do these people think that they know better than their target markets? What slick ad campaign will they roll out now so they can persuade and then sell this toxic crop to consumers? How many businesses produce a good that consumers don't want, and expect to be solvent long term? Not many... so why do we get forced to have this crap when globally, GM markets are shrinking?

Th Food Challenge. Just to magnify the food challenge, the population to our north is growing at the rate of 20 million every 3 months (FAO). Over the next 40 years or so, the world will reach 8.75 billion souls. Tractors, fertiliser, water use and more widespread extension of the science of food tripled the yield since 1940. With the population increase that will be affluent and better educated, conservation of the forests and wildlife habitat and indeed, soil fertility demands that yield triples again on every hectare of fertile farmland. Some extension of improved technologies to Third Word farmers, i.e. soil husbandry, correction of soil deficiencies and crop rotation will not contribute enough. Where clear cutting of forests is now indefensible to create farms for food, we do need to reach out to the gains in yield from biotechnology including genetic engineering, emerging as the most important piece of unexploited knowledge that promises further increased yields from the same hectare of farmland.

My first-hand experience of GM canola grown in Victoria indicates that there are real agonomic benefits. Not only did the GM canola yield better that conventional (despite no claims by the seed company that this would be the case) but the improvements in management practices and reduction in chemical costs were both significant. Similarly there were no price penalties at the marketing end. Used responsibily GM technology is a great tool for our food producers and has potential to be even better if research and development can continue.

Well, seems clear this article has been posted on an advocate blog or website to attract trolls - I've never heard more disinformation in the comments! Sorry, farmers are not idiots; if the technology adds value it'll be used, so comments about "paying more for seed" etc while maybe true, are misleading. GM offer better *returns*, you'd understand "returns" if you had to work for a living; think of being more able to feed one's family. Global GM crop Ha increased about 10% last year - why? Due to being unprofitable? GM crops can have lesser yields under perfect conditions, true, but under disease or weed pressure (both very common occurrences) they offer much superior yields. GM crops are also being developed to use fewer inputs (N, water etc.) - that's gotta be good for CO2 abatement right? (crickets chirping) It's also disingenuous to say that companies have tried to develop drought tolerance and N-fixing crops but have failed, as much delay is caused by economic uncertainty actually "created" by advocates like the wallies in the comments here. Thanks for your unsubstantiated input; see you next time there's a single issue of interest to you. (Cue usual Monsanto shill claims.)

If there was any one issue with GM crops is 'choice' - GM essentially means no choice for those farmers that wish to stay GM free.