The comment about GM-free being "impractical, unrealistic and unachievable" comes from a minister in Australia's *federal* government, which is permanently in pursuit of a bilateral trade deal with Bush and co, and pushes GM. By contrast, all the Oz states, bar one which doesn't grow canola, have looked to the interests of their farmers and consumers and placed moratoria on GM food/feed crops.
Note also the federal minister's claim that "Europe which is anti-GM accepts 0.9. and 0.5 %" contamination. This just isn't true, as Julie Newman, a conventional farmer and vice president of the Western Australian Farmers Grains Committee, as well as the WA representative on the Grains Council of Australia's Seeds Subcommittee, has pointed out before to the guy who forwarded this comment to GM Watch, Roger Kalla (Roger's the director of 'Korn Technologies' - a company that describes itself as "Innovators in ag-biotechnology").
Julie writes, "The pro-GM activists have lied to farmers and decision makers by claiming between 0.9% and 1% contamination will be accepted in non-GM knowing full well that this is not correct (I submitted legal advise to the GTGC and government hearings over 3 years ago and constantly since)."
For what Julie's getting at see the article: 'EU will not accept tolerance levels: Certified non-GM ingredients a must to avoid GM labeling in EU'
Our response to the comment Roger forwarded is immediately above his.
inevitably one's mind goes back to the days when industry people liked to tell us the two would not get mixed up and everybody would have the right to choose. if only people on your side of the argument had alerted us then that such claims were 'impractical, unrealistic and unachievable'.
To provide some balance in your reporting from downunder I would encourage you to inform your readers what the Federal Minister of Agriculture said that caused the comments from the OZ anti GM voices
Here is a good quote for you :
Australian Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran says the agreement will provide surety for growers who are not responsible for GM traces in their crops.
"There was a recognition a zero level was impractical, unrealistic and unachievable and why not move to the international market level, Europe which is anti-GM accepts 0.9. and 0.5 % and these are the standards the major states have adopted in Australia."