State governments should reimpose their bans on Genetically Manipulated canola. They have failed to resolve the many problems with the crop's rollout. Fewer than one in a thousand farmers grew GM canola and a majority do not want it. Monsanto's GM 'show' day at the Wiedemann farm last week was a flop. Monsanto's claims about the success of GM canola promote a flawed, stalled and failed technology. In the USA in 1996, Monsanto launched four GM crops - soy, corn, canola and cotton - with just two traits - herbicide tolerance and Bt insect toxins. In 2008, Monsanto has only the same four crops with two traits available! If we were still using Windows '95 we'd also wonder! Australian GM-free growers and other rural industries are unprotected by any liability laws. Yet in September the State of California passed a law to stop Monsanto suing farmers because GM contamination is inevitable. See: http://www.gepolicyalliance.org/action_alert_support_ab541.h tm We need similar laws here but our governments decided that affected growers must seek compensation from Monsanto for contamination through the courts. Much of Monsanto's GM canola will be cut for hay as it is no more drought tolerant than conventional varieties. Monsanto's documents say the hay will contain GM seed. Growers are required to report who buys it so Monsanto can collect royalties. GM-free farmers have no protection from GM contamination. But Monsanto's own documents say GM canola pollen can move 2.5 km. Farmers are supposed to have 5 metre buffer zones between GM and non-GM canola but pictures show no buffers at all. Grower Barron says he will grow GM canola again. But the Monsanto documents say it should not be replanted on the same site for at least four years. The problem of Roundup resistant weeds arising from repeated use is unresolved. The prices for GM canola seed and chemicals will double next year - $1,000 accreditation fee and $20.40/tonne end point royalty. The patented seed also costs more and the Roundup Ready formulation too. In Canada, the farmers got 6% of the take from GM canola and Monsanto 94%. The price of food did not fall. This pattern was repeated here with GM cotton with the fees rising from $300 per hectare to $315 this year. Market power, exercised by the world's biggest seed company, means monopoly profits - $2 billion this year for Monsanto.

Show me a RoundUp Ready Canola grower who is going to admit it wasn't a success. They were offered incentives to grow the seed, and the season has been the best in most areas for many years.

I have no faith in segregation. Wait until the headers start rolling and growers are clamouring to get their crop off at the same time.

Corners will be cut and in a few short years when GM has infested NSW,and we non-GM growers will be told 'sorry' by a multinational.

Let the consumer become knowledgeable about the pitiful amount of research done by truely independent bodies, and the fact that our drugs undergo more scrutiny than GM foods - foods we cannot avoid eating due to inadequate labelling laws.

Obviously Mr Barron doesn't know his business, because Monsanto say Roundup Ready Canola shouldn't be grown on the same site year after year owing to the risk of roundup resistant weeds emerging - weeds that infest neighbours' properties and carry the roundup resistance genes with them. Because I have no faith in the GM producers, and the supply chain's ability to segregate, I don't buy canola in any shape or form now.

“Planting Roundup Ready canola ... lowers the use of other chemicals that have strong environmental impacts like atrazine.” I wonder what Mr Barron's going to use to knock out his Roundup Ready weeds and volunteers? If you refer to this online Hansard of the ACT Legislative Assembly, you can read why Roundup Ready crops tend to increase herbicide use, not decrease it: http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2003/comms/health04.pdf Methinks GM Farmers might catch up on their research a bit once the prices for GM canola seed and chemicals double next year, along with the $1,000 accreditation fee and $20.40/tonne end point royalty. In Canada, the farmers got 6% of the take and Monsanto 94% from GM canola. GM growers are being duped!

Any grower (as I am) would of course say that it was better if you had backed it from the start. The better yield has little to do with the fact it is GM but rather that the genes have been put into a very good hybrid. Mr Barron mentions Atrazine and so one would assume that his comparison varieties are TT, known for poor yield performance. The latest Hybrid Clearfield varieties would be a much fairer comparison (these are not GM). Growers need to realize that the Monsantos of the world have close to zero interest in helping our businesses and see us as a vehicle to extract profit out of. If I sound overly sceptical then you probably haven’t seen how the Monsantos of the world behave when they deal with cotton growers and their manner with which they treat these growers. As a grain grower I don’t intend being a link in Monsantos chain and I suggest that we all think long and hard about who we want to be in business with. By the way I have not fundamental problem with GM if it is well tested. One very good reason why a great deal of Canola is GM in Canada is the simple fact that those producing GM varieties have developed the best Hybrids to put the particular gene into.

"It’s cleaner, greener technology" - what a crook claim.

GM canola will spread through other canola crops, just like it has overseas until all canola crops are tainted. Rather than Aus being able to say GM hasn't influenced our crops and remaining an island able to supply un-tainted food products, we continue to go down the path of contaminating our resources.

I disagree with farmer janet that it has been a good canola season. The south west of the state has had a very tough season. I would say that most opponents of GM canola are not farmers or are graziers in non canola growing areas. For many farmers canola is becoming high risk to grow in a tough season. If GM canola is more resilient in a dry season then farmers will try it. If it costs a lot to grow and has a small return (all canola in the last few years) then they won't. I find it amusing that most of the anti gm lobby advocate organic farming and are obsessed with carbon reduction. When organic grain production is totally relaint on multiple ploughing for weed control which means higher carbon emmissions through excessive diesel use, soil degradation, erosion and more land required to make up for low yields. We did that kind of farming 20 years ago. The future is zero till, retaining ground cover and residues, building organic matter, water holding capacity, 40% + reduction in fuel use and improving yields, and all this by never ploughing!

You obviously don't have much knowledge of GM canola, "concerned", in fact no knowledge... get your facts right before making obsurd comments. GM canola is more efficient then normal canola, with only 5 and a half inches of rain this season we managed to get a stronger outcome with the GM canola - we got 25 bags to the acre; more than the normal canola which we got 15 bags to the acre.. how is that not "green technology"? providing more canola for resources without using as much energy on machines and sowing the crop itself.

If you consult anyone who has worked in the bulk handling industry (non management) they will be quick to tell you how they struggle just to keep truck loads of wheat and barley out of the canola. Let alone trying to keep truck loads of canola out of the canola! GM is here, to stay, the only true segregation moving forward will be non GM as Australia does not have a supply chain that can adequately support segregation. Pro or Anti GM these are basic facts! For the record I am a fence sitter, GM has its obvious benefits but its future is largely unknown…? We can carry on all we like but its here now for good. Good/ bad/ otherwise? only time will tell.

bill is correct, the GM genie is out of the bottle. with responsible governance the GM industry would be regulated by independant bodies (eg CSIRO), then the benefits for growers, end users and processors could be truly followed up. currently the interests of monsanto are the only ones. a benevolent multi-national? that'll get a laugh out of folks.