So good to see our taxes are being spent in such an unbiased and useful way. Not only are the biotech companies throwing millions at something that the public don't want, they've now conned Government agencies into assisting their dead-end cause.

And what a surprise, The Land has taken the bait hook line and sinker. Wake up and listen to the market place people, and research what's happening in the rest of the world, not just USA.

Wake up to this farce. CSIRO promoting corporate greed. Shame on an esteemed science organisation for lowering itself to this level. For a balanced approach listen to what Dr. Vandana Shiva has to say on this.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, formerly the EPA's biotech specialist and an advisor on biotech to the FDA has said "Let's be clear. As of this year, there are no commercialized GE crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GE crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one. " --- --- Genetic engineering - a crop of hyperbole, By Doug Gurian-Sherman The San Diego Union Tribune, June 18 2008 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18 gurian.html

The food crisis is much in the news. It is also on the minds of the biotech industry, which is using rising food worries to suggest, contrary to the evidence, that genetically engineered, or GE, crops are needed to help the world feed itself. The recent spike in food prices is due to increased demand, drought and trade policies rather than to inadequate global production. But world population is growing, so it is worthwhile to consider the role of GE for ensuring adequate, affordable and sustainable food in the future.

After 20 years of GE research and 13 years of commercialization, GE crops have a track record that allows us to evaluate their future prospects. And so far, they have shown little progress on the biggest food production issues, such as intrinsic yield, stress tolerance and improving sustainability.

The weak performance to date raises questions about how much more of our scarce research dollars should be devoted to this controversial technology. Moreover, the lax regulation of both food safety and environmental risks from GE also remains to be addressed, especially in developing countries that often have no regulatory infrastructure to evaluate GE crops.

Most relevant for food sufficiency are properties such as yield - producing more on available land - and better use of resources, especially in the face of climate change. Agriculture already accounts for about 70 percent of human water use, so using less water to grow crops is increasingly important. And because current industrialized agriculture often degrades soil and causes substantial pollution from fertilizers, pesticides and climate-changing gases, we need to do a better job of producing food without degrading the environment.

Let's be clear. As of this year, there are no commercialized GE crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GE crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.

The CSIRO has lost all credibility as a national independent research organisation. What happened to independence in science and research? Anyway, you'd hardly call 1300 hits on YouTube a success story. Watching my beans grow is far more interesting.