End of ban on genetically modified canola

To: "Chris Charles" <>, <>
Subject: End of ban on genetically modified canola
From: "Alan Gillanders" <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:37:06 +1000
Charles said, " However if the Monsanto shareholders, politicians & licensing farmers are convinced of the benign properties of their crop then why not offer a non-expiring indemnity."

Hear, hear! Well said Charles. I think this should be the requirement of those who import anything into this country. the problem is that companies can go bust or restructure to avoid meeting their obligations.

So what I suggest is that they have to lodge a bond which goes into the future fund. This is not the limit of their liability and there could even be a growth factor for them as well as the community. Their money could then be released when we are confident that they have not introduced another weed species or caused other harm. Maybe this could even be linked to the success of the biosecurity mechanism so as to give those who have 'invested' in this way an incentive for strict controls rather than their diminution.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU