Recent comments by: Larry
A shame the Minister forgot to mention that industry/growers pay for much of this in field testing, market research and in collecting consumer feedback. Nice oversight.
I've been reading this rather interesting statement about the annual differential of "less than 800 graduates for more than 4000 jobs" for four or five years now. Interestingly, its only ever uttered by people or organisations with a vested interest in talking up enrolments in tertiary ag education. If there was such a differential, surely then each weekly rural newspaper, or online employment service must be overloaded with tertiary qualified jobs in the ag sector. The reality however is vastly different!
A meeting to discuss how "industry and DAFWA can continue to work together"? Pretty simple, industry will pay more whilst DAFWA will continue to shrink!
That's a headline that could have been used every year since before 1999. How often has a move or upgrade been promised at ag HQ? So much for the brave new world of the Economic Development Agency?
Wasn't it only a few years ago that the Department of Water was running around telling water users in the Manjimup area that their resources were badly over allocated? Seems like they were wrong!
Really John Newton? Which world is that you are referring to, can you provide some evidence to support your statement?
You're correct NonGM, it is not an original comment, further it is not a realistic or valid comparison. The issue here is about tolerance at a production level and the contradiction in the organic standards that allows tolerances in some aspects of production, and not in others. The proposed compensation insurance scheme does not address your concerns. On a related matter however I'd be really interested in you sharing with us the peer reviewed published data regarding GM Canola that supports your comment that "in fact there's lots of evidence that it's very bad for our health".
The organic industry had a chance to deal with this issue, but refused to introduce tolerances for GM, despite having tolerances for other 'non-organic' farm inputs. As such, the Greens are just playing politics with this issue, as they know that their fanciful "insurance scheme" wont get the required support to get up.
Oh do tell us more Darwin, your stunning repartee is something to behold!
A wonderful case study on why we have real troubles! Farmer groups everywhere bemoan the lack of 'young people' getting involved, and having a say. Yet when they do, the likes of Chick, Hilda and Darwin, doing their best to channel the old muppets 'Statler and Waldorf' roll out the "its not for me" line. The motion intends a move away from fossil fuels, and not a complete replacement of. No doubt when fuel gets expensive again these three will be in the front of the line asking for a subsidy or increase in their tax break. Well done to the forward thinking NSW Farmers members on this one.
If "the Seasonal Worker Program is one of agriculture’s great success stories" then perhaps we should reset the bar a little higher.