Theres always demand at a price, and the price for GM will be low since no one wants it. Hope all the silly greedy farmers who got sucked in realise their mistake?

About time someone stood up to these thugs (Greenpeace). Good on you, AFGC.

Don't worry too much, Andy - 99.9pc of farmers are well aware of the Monsanto con!! As for Kate Carnell, she would'nt know the difference between a canola plant or a wheat plant. She wouldn't have the guts to ask the consumers in the ACT if they wanted to consume GM food, they would run her out of town! Kate Carnell is an ex-politician so we can give her comments about as much credibility as it deserves NIL!!

“Substantial equivalence” has been now challenged in a US Court for the first time. Surely this basic challenge underpinning the biotech/GM food industry has to set politicians/scientists and farmers thinking.

A same-but-different dichotomy has recently been encapsulated within the US Food and Drug Administration’s ill-defined concept of “substantial equivalence” (USFDA,FDA). By invoking this concept, the genetically modified organism (GMO) industry has escaped the rigors of safety testing that might otherwise apply.

The curious concept of “substantial equivalence” grants a presumption of safety to GMO food. This presumption has yet to be earned, and has been used to constrain labelling of both GMO and non-GMO food.

It is an idea that well serves corporatism. It enables the claim of difference to secure patent protection, while upholding the contrary claim of sameness to avoid labelling and safety scrutiny. It offers the best of both worlds for corporate food entrepreneurs, and delivers the worst of both worlds to consumers.

What planet does this Ms Carnell come from? To make a misleading statement that GMOs are safe is ludicrous and irresponsible!

NEVER have GMOs been independently demonstrated as being safe - NEVER. And yet numerous independent studies and countless anecdotal experiences identify some rather horrific safety issues.

In the words of Dr David Suzuki, "Anyone who claims GMOs are safe are either extremely naive, ignorant or have a vested interest." GMOs offer NO sustainable solutions for farmers and absolutely nothing for the consumer, other than risks.

I will never knowingly eat GM food, and all food should be labelled either "GM Free" or "Contains GM". People need to get their heads out of the sand and look at the big picture with health.

Prior to The 1940s, heart disease was rare, cancer 1 in 10 (now 1 in 3), dementia, alzheimer's, depression, diabetes, immune system diseases etc were rare. Ask yourself what has changed? The composition of food is the answer.

Processed foods are full of chemicals, margarine is a by-product of plastic and is full of canola. GM food is unnatural. Canola is a man-made plant - I have friends who become very ill if they eat canola. Look at the explosion of Celiac Disease - wheat used today is a man-made type. If you want to feed the world, canola will not be the answer to a healthy population.

Where's the science that shows there is no safety issue with GM? Maybe it hasn't been shown with canola yet as it is not consumed whole.

When they take parts of plants for drugs, they go through rigorous testing to prove safety before they are released.

There is not a problem with science if it can modify crops to improve production yet to independently proven, but there must be rigorous food safety science to prove it safe for long-term human consumption.

There has been enough scientific evidence with other crops that show they present long-term food safety problems. There are many examples throughout history that show if you attempt to manipulate nature it will react and turn around and bite you.

Yes, we need to improve food production and science is needed to assist in this aim, but let's put as much effort and money in to proving long-term food safety as is spent in developing a plant resistant to a poisonous herbicide.

Little value in improving production that will help feed a hungry world that, in the long term, may cause health problems

Just how are GE crops going to contribute to doubling world food production when there is no evidence that they increase yields? And as for safety concerns with GE canola - when rats were fed Roundup Ready canola in Monsanto's own studies they resulted in increased liver sizes of 16 per cent. There have still been no studies looking at what the potential impacts on human health might be of eating the canola. Although Australian farmers may be able to find buyers for GE canola how much less will it sell for? It is already selling for $10 a tonne less than conventional canola - and it costs 15 per cent more to grow. Finacially, it simply does not stack up for farmers. However, the real concern is that GE canola will contaminate conventional canola, costing us both our domestic and overseas markets. Canada completely lost its export market to Europe as a result of adopting GE canola and there is a very real risk of the same happening to Australia.

Ms Carnell probably believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction too.

At the pro GM forum in Perth last week, (organised by the WA Dept. of Ag), one of the speakers was a farmer who grew GM canola in NSW last year, although has surprisingly chosen not to grow it again this year. He said: "Farmers are tied to a demand from end-users." Who are the end-users that are actually demanding GM crops and food? Only in the minds and imagination of people like Ms Carnell does this demand exist, and from that they are denying the majority of us what we are really want....GM free food.