Finally agriculture in Western Australia is progressing! GM is a wonderful, safe, highly marketable crop which offers many benefits to growers who CHOOSE to use the technology. Colin Barnett and Terry Redman (Agriculture Minister) are committed to progressing GM canola in WA by reassuring the public. This should have been done by the previous govt but they were highjacked by the knit your own underwear crowd and also had struck a deal with the Greens on GM to the detriment of the farming community. Truth always wins in the end!

Colin should have read the next story. "MAJOR canola purchasers CBH and Elders will not be buying GM canola this season."

Barnett's position defies rationality. As the following article shows, neither CBH and Elders will be buying GM canola this season, due to the market sensibilities of major customers in Europe and Japan, as reported in a Stock & Land article.

To quote from the article: Elders Toepfer Grain canola trader Felix Mueller said his company was not buying GM due to European resistance. "For export, GM is not workable," he said. "You won't get it into Europe and I don’t think the Japanese are particularly keen on it." He said Elders Toepfer was not buying GM, as there was sufficient non-GM to meet their needs.

Another key point mentioned in the article is that buyers are avoiding purchasing non-GM canola from silos handling GM material because of concerns that it may be contaminated. Segregation of non-GM and GM canola failed in Canada and there is is no reason to suggest the same won't happen here.

Last year, 91pc of WA's canola went to Europe. Why would Barnett jeopardise this market for a technology that has no proven benefits?

So Charlie Boyle is spruiking the great weed control of GM canola? Only a few months ago he was saying (in a rival publication) that he wanted to grow it because it yields more and not for its weed control as he doesn't have a weed problem!

So what way is it really, Charlie? And who will be buying it...I've certainly not heard of markets or consumers demanding GM anything! Once again, the WA government does what it wants, regardless of what we want...and let's not forget that it was a minority 38pc that voted the Libs in...the only party pushing for GM canola. So strictly 62pc of us voted against it, Colin.

If Premier Barnett is intending to take a cautious scientific approach, it looks like he'll be banning GM RR canola. "The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don't actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants." Jeffrey M Smith to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack yesterday. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting sick of politicians spinning the line that agri-giant profit taking = science.

Ignorance is not the best basis for making decisions which may adversly impact on all members of our society. Why do the technology suppliers fight so vigourously against full qualitative testing of the impacts of GM foods on mammals? Why do the GM proponents force growers to sign documents removing any avenue of recourse in the event of adverse outcomes? Why do legislators refuse to protect the rights of consumers by failing to ensure any long-term impacts adverse or beneficial are the responsability of the body promoting the technology? Big tobacco, big chemical and big asbestos all gave similar assurances to the consumers and denegrated the detractors. Who is going to be right where GM technology is concerned?

The States have the role to assess economics and markets and they are ignoring it totally. Why? As Redman explains, the government wants to slash the budget by $7.6billion over 4 years.

Redman has total responsibility for the Ag Department budget and they plan on making money, a lot of money, out of GM by attracting corporate investors who have the ability to extract money from farmers unethically.

Non-GM farmers are expected to accept contamination, market loss, additional costs and fines by CBH for testing positive for GM and even an end point royalty from Monsanto if GM is found. This is not only grossly unfair, it is anti-competitive.

The decision regarding GM should be taken away from Redman and put to referendum. If the government is ignoring their legislated responsibility to assess economics and markets, surely they should be liable for any economic loss caused by negligent decisions?

allmattergreen, you are absolutely right, the truth will come out in the end. The truth is there now but you choose to ignore the multitude of risks and dangers of GMOs. The problem will be cleaning up the almighty mess if GMOs are permitted. GMOs offer NO sustainable advantages for farmers and absolutely NOTHING for consumers.

GM crops equal bad science. In good science your testing is published and can be peer reviewed. With GM crops the results claimed by the GM corporations are never published so why would anyone believe their claims when they stand to make millions and our children are the guinea pigs. Farmers growing this crop have been seduced by the spin from the biotech companies. They need to check on the information they're being fed.

GM 1 to 8 against on this page. We need a massive referendum on GM. At least 2 WA newspapers brave enough to print the truth this week: 'Monsanto the chemical/seed company that supplies GM, looks forward to expanding GM harvests in Australia'. To many people GM seems an obvious solution to potential famine. The Agriculture Dept reinforces the message that this ‘carefully segregated tool’ will provide a great solution for our cash strapped farmers. Sadly in my discussions with opposing farmers, scientists, doctors and nutritionists the reverse seems to be the case. We are at least 10 years away from any safe and nutrition enhancing GM. American Academy of Environment states-"human antibody response to the most prevalent GM protein causes significant immune dysregulation". GM promoters have repeatedly stated that we have been eating GM food for years with no ill effects. However there have been no studies to investigate if GM food has been safe to eat or not, and this was confirmed by Food Standards Chief Scientist Dr Paul Brent at a Senate Estimates hearing. Dr Henri Darmency, INRA, Dijon lecture UWA last week -"GM "jeopardizes the transgene-based strategy of weed control" GM-NO