Letters to the editor - November 19

Letters to the editor - November 19


GM remains a hot topic while questions are raised about taxes on electric cars.



IN response to 'GM ruling prompts organics enquiries' (Stock Journal online, November 9) - farmers having access GM crops will not impact organic or conventional production.

All farming practices can and do coexist and thrive, as is happening across Australia and the world.

The GM status of a region does not impact on the trade or marketing of any other product or produce from that region.

SA farmers receive premiums because of the high-quality of their produce and farming practices, not because of an absence of GM crops on other farms.

Evidence from all other mainland states with commercial cultivation of GM crops clearly demonstrates that both GM and non-GM crops, including organic, can be grown and marketed side-by-side without impacting on prices or market access for primary producers.

Having the opportunity to grow GM crops in SA is just another option given to farmers to help improve productivity, profitability and environmental sustainability.

Some farmers will grow GM crops, some will decide not to, just like they do for any crop variety now. It's time to stop the fear and accept the facts.

Matthew Cossey,

CropLife Australia chief executive officer.


IN response to 'GM-free advocates rally' (Stock Journal, November 12), the last paragraph says it all - "It is important to note that any business who wants to be GM-free can be. There is now a choice".

Where to to start? The Minister [David Basham] misses the point completely.

GM pollen spores drift far and wide and "modify" other plants nearby.

The GM proponents have a "dog in the manger" attitude. Their crops can grow willy nilly, but the unfortunate grower next door has to wear it!

If anyone allows spray to drift and affect other crops, they are liable.

Why is "man made" pollen different?

Has no one considered other species of GM crops in the pipeline, and how cross-pollination will be disastrous?

I find the misrepresentation of GM and the misunderstanding and ignorance of the general public amazing.

This is definitely not democracy in action.

Ian McLeod,

Glenroy, Vic.


IN order to fund programs, infrastructure and services that communities want, the government must impose taxes and levies in a fair and equitable manner.

The direct link between fuel taxes and road funding occurred as a result of the Australian Bicentennial Road Department Trust Fund Act 1982.

It detailed a surcharge of 1 cent per litre on the excise of petrol and diesel, which was doubled the following year.

This act was replaced by the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988, which is still in place today, funding the high cost of providing essential road networks across the country.

SA Treasurer Rob Lucas has proposed that considering the significant growth in electric vehicles, and the probable decrease in petrol-powered automobiles, a tax will need to be levied on electric vehicles to ensure that our roads are maintained at the current high standard.

The negative reaction of electric vehicle owners, and other interest groups, to this proposal, is of great concern as it fails to recognise that ALL USERS of our roads need to make a contribution to any future funding, regardless as to whether their vehicle is electric or petrol-powered.

People can minimise the amount they pay by reducing the amount of time they drive, walk or ride a bike, but at the end of the day, all road users must pay, not just some.

Ian Macgowan,


Start the day with all the big news in agriculture. Sign up here to receive our daily Stock Journal newsletter.


From the front page

Sponsored by