| 
| Coexistence & Segregation |
| How trustworthy is decision-making? |
|
|
Who do you think should be liable for the economic loss associated with GM crops?
1. The GM grower? Unfortunately governments have refused to adopt a strict liabilty legislation that would have made this option workable.
2. The non-GM grower? Unfortunately governments have refused growers fair risk management and non-GM growers are likely to carry the burden of losses associated with a GM crop we do not want and do not need. The GM industry has been permitted "industry self-management" allowing them to impose all responsibilities, costs and liabilities for contamination on to the non-GM grower.
3. The GM grower? Governments have recommended that non-GM growers take legal action against GM growers for any losses that would occur. While this is not a preferred option, it is not unreasonable to claim some of the non-GM farmer losses from GM farmers.
It is recommended that the following letter be sent to all GM growers to strengthen the legal case against them and to warn them of the implications of growing GM and not containing their product:
Dear .......,
Although names were not submitted with locations growing GM canola crops, I have reason to believe you are or may be planting GM canola on your property this year. Accordingly, I would like to advise you to seek independent legal advise considering the legal implications of possible economic loss to West Australian farmers as a result of your decision.
After extensive research, the Network of Concerned Farmers has lobbied to prevent non-GM farmers being liable for any economic loss caused by GM crops by the introduction of strict liability with the intention the GM patent owner would compensate farmers for losses their product causes.
Unfortunately this has failed and both Federal and State governments have recommended that common law is sufficient to deal with GM liability. Under common law, the non-GM farmer can take legal action to recover losses against the GM farmer under Tort law, which is the same law as spray drift. The difference however is that insurance companies will not cover GM economic loss as it is considered inevitability rather than a risk. While this is not a desirable outcome, it is the only defence we have, as we should not be expected to accept economic loss from a product we do not want.
On behalf of growers wishing to remain GM-free, I wish to notify you of our intention for our properties and produce to remain GM-free and of the risk that the planting of any GM crops on your property poses to our properties. Accordingly, we are also notifying you that we will not accept the burden of any damage, or loss, which may be consequent on any decision by you to grow GM crops. Should you wish to grow GM canola or other GM crops, you must ensure none of your GM crop or residue escapes and contaminates our land holdings or otherwise causes damage or loss.
Therefore we will be seeking legal recourse if GM crops result in any costs, damage or economic loss including, but not limited to:
- Testing costs or additional contractual requirements required due to market perception that your choice to grow GM crops will cause contamination of our crops and/or produce.
- Segregation costs over and above what is currently required.
- Loss of market access or market premium due to detection of GM in our produce or an inability to prove a GM-free status. (ie. Currently WA’s key market is Europe, which is GM sensitive, and Australia’s key market is domestic which dominantly requests GM-free produce.)
- Loss of organic certification if applicable.
- New control measures required to remove canola from grain sold, including any grading at outturn.
- Any payments due or deducted as end-point royalty or user fees from GM companies for unintentional GM use.
- Any fines associated with any adventitious presence of GM crops.
- Any costs associated with destroying unauthorised GM crops on our property.
- Spray drift from post-emergent glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium.
- All associated and consequent costs and all legal costs.
We emphasise that this list is not closed, and the nature of GM technology means that the scope of potential damage and downstream effects may be far-reaching and significant. We accordingly are putting you on notice so you are aware that these and other scenarios and losses are fully foreseeable and not remote from any action taken by you to plant GM seeds.
While it is our preferred option to ensure the company selling you GM seeds is liable for any economic, environmental or health losses, we regret to inform you that as a GM grower, you will be held jointly and severally liable for any loss we experience. We suggest that you ensure that your insurance covers you for any future claims made against you.
Please be advised that following crop management plans or coexistence principles will not provide sufficient mitigation or afford you an adequate legal defence as these plans are based on an assumption that non-GM growers will accept contamination and unrealistic impositions. Management impositions NOT accepted include, but are not limited to:
- A "tolerance level" of GM contamination which will not be accepted in either seed or produce for market as these limits are set on labelling requirements for GM if applicable, not for non-GM products. As GM canola oil escapes a label for GM in Australia, to give consumers the promised choice, a "GM-free" or "Non-GM" label will be required. Any grower whose produce bears a "GM-free" label can be in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 if any amount of GM is detected in the product, even if unintentional. (eg. Action has been taken successfully against a company for false and misleading labelling when 0.008% GM was detected in both "GM-free" and "Non-GM" labelled products.)
- Acceptance of liability for contamination and recall as stated in the CBH delivery conditions.
- To market produce co-mingled with GM produce if there is any sign of market rejection for GM. Any loss of markets or premiums due to GM contamination will be recovered, including losses from delays in ability to market GM contaminated produce compared to non-GM produce.
- Providing buffer zones on non-GM properties where produce derived from these buffer zones are not to be marketed as "GM-free" and to be kept separate from "GM-free" produce.
- Responsibility for notification to the GM companies if unwanted GM plants are found on our property, following recommendations for volunteer control at our expense and allowing the GM companies access to assess if contamination was suitably controlled.
- Any fines, fees or end point royalties applicable for growing GM contaminated crops if contamination is not controlled.
- Sowing crops any differently to what is current best management practise (eg sowing crops off-season to avoid coinciding flowering times).
- Application of additional chemicals or tillage to control unwanted GM plants on our property.
- Routinely testing for GM if required.
- Cleaning out machinery more than is normally required.
- Compulsory quality assurance or identity preservation requirements.
- Loss of ability to save crop seed for replanting.
As a precaution, we may retain seed samples pre seeding and post harvest and will collect evidence of economic loss we have experienced. Legal action will commence when loss is considered substantial.
Thank you.
|
** NEW ** Referenced Research document
"GM Crops: Risks and Risk Management Needed" (click name to download. If failed to download, try right clicking the mouse and click "open". If all else fails, please email me at newseeds@treko.net.au and I will send you a version without the pictures.)
1.1 Executive Summary
Farmers will bear the brunt of the collision between industry with agendas to promote GM to increase profits, against consumers with genuine concerns wanting to avoid GM food. Farmers will also be faced with rapidly increasing costs and reduction of choice due to the change from "public good" plant breeding to "corporate profit" research and development.
GM canola is promoted as a benefit to farmers yet it can be proven to be a potential financial loss with little agronomic gain and far higher costs. The drive stems from multinational corporations, such as Monsanto, manipulating control of seed supplies and food supply. The research industry is trading knowledge and germplasm in exchange for funding and alliances with multinationals, enabling corporate companies to own patents over farmers’ crops.
Competition is currently retained in the food supply because farmers have the choice to buy and sell from their business of choice. If plant breeders have agreements with Monsanto to add a Monsanto gene to all new varieties released, and farmers are required to purchase new seeds every year, all farmers could be locked into being a contract grower for a single supply chain. This would effectively remove all opposition, as no alternative supply chain will be able to access food. What will be the choice and price for food if controlled by a single supply chain?
With government and industry support, the GM industry has been promoting a path to market for GM and have permitted to introduce GM crops under self-management guidelines that reward the GM industry for the problems their product causes. Coexistence plans are based on accepting contamination rather than preventing it, which will remove the promised choice for consumers and farmers.
Increased costs and lower prices for produce due to market restrictions and lack of premiums will leave farmers in an unaffordable funding vacuum that is not sustainable.
Risk management is required and must not be denied.
Risk management and law reform must include:
- Independent performance trials to assess agronomic and economic claims of GM canola;
- Fair risk management to ensure non-GM farmers are not liable for the economic loss caused by GM crops;
- A requirement that a minimum limit of contamination is proven (eg. 90%) prior to deduction of royalties for GM contamination;
- Investigation into any anti-competitive practises adopted by the seed industry;
- A full investigation to the behind-the-scenes corporate alliances and conditions formed with public plant breeders;
- No restriction to be imposed on farmers or gardeners rights to replant non-GM seeds and no restriction of new varieties available in an alternate non-GM form (without an unwanted GM gene).
- Strict liability legislation to ensure the GM Company is liable for containing their product and any economic loss caused by their inability to do so.
- Independent health testing to allay consumer fears or to identify and address any problems found.
- Support for improved GM labelling allowing consumers a choice to avoid GM if desired; and
- Compulsory public registration of GM growers.
It is not unreasonable to insist on the truth and fair risk management to ensure those not wishing to take the risk associated with GM crops are not adversely affected by them.
|
Jeffrey Smith: Seeds of Deception
"The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world's food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.
Integral to the plan was Monsanto's influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, "The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender." |
Thats all folks! The "advantage" of RR is over as the canola has reached 6 leaf stage.
What a joke!
Farmers are now realising the limitations of GM canola.
Roundup Ready canola is bred by transferring a gene from soil bacteria to the DNA of canola to make the canola plant resistant to glyphosate. Although this can be done very easily by non-GM means (our weeds develop natural resistance to glyphosate with overuse) GM allows Monsanto to retain a patent over the crop and its progeny. Farmers become contract growers to the patent owner.
For the first time, Roundup Ready canola has been grown commercially in Victoria and New South Wales.
The first year is to be the honeymoon phase but costs are already excessive:
- Roundup Ready seed has cost at least twice the price of non-GM.
- An upfront stewardship fee of $1,000/property is charged (half price this year).
- A "discounted introductory fee" of $10.20 per tonne on all canola delivered for the 2008 season (in the form of an end point royalty system).
- Legal fees if required to assess two contracts before signing.
In the following season, the farmer will also need to
- regularly scout and control unwanted volunteer canola plants
- must add further chemicals to glyphosate in order to kill unwanted GM glyphosate tolerant canola volunteers
- will need to limit glyphosate use in following rotations and tillage or the more toxic paraquat/diquat chemical is recommended as alternatives.
So what is the benefit?
Only broadleaf control for 6 weeks?
Glyphosate (for which Roundup Ready is bred to be resistant to) has no residual weed control and because good weed control is essential to control grasses on emergence, an alternative chemical (trifluralin) is recommended to control grasses. This gives residual grass control for the season.
Broadleaves will be controlled by the application of glyphosate but can not be applied after 6 leaf stage (around 6 weeks after planting and the plant is as high as your workboot).
Makes a mockery of the pro-GM public relations exercise of painting GM farmers up to be "progressive" doesn’t it? |
http://www.naturalnews.com/022754.html
Extract:
From agriculture came the recognition of the value of seeds, and it wasn't long before power-hungry men began patenting the seeds they discovered in nature. Corporations like Monsanto even began performing dark experiments on those seeds, inserting "Terminator" genes that caused second-generation seeds to self-destruct, thereby ensuring their continued ownership and control over those seeds.
Now, as the U.S. patent office has allowed corporations to patent life forms and human gene sequences, we are entering a new age where human beings no longer control their own genes. Corporations currently own 20 percent of the human genome, and in the near future, couples who wish to reproduce may be forced to pay intellectual property royalties to wealthy corporations in exchange for the "rights" to copy their own genes through sexual reproduction. |
Monsanto has released their crop management and resistance management plan. Note that apart from a trivial 5 metre buffer zone, it is up to non-GM farmers to provide the buffer they feel is necessary to provide produce for their market. Note also the health, environmental and economic problems of introducing increased tillage, stubble burning, introduction of additional chemicals to control glyphosate volunteers and the use of paraquat as a knockdown alternative.
Click here for the Australian Roundup Ready Canola Crop Management Plan.
Click here for the Australian Roundup Ready Canola Resistance Management Plan.
GRDC single vision heavily funded report supposedly offers choice of marketing GM and non-GM yet no choice is offered. The only solution to deal with segregation is that GM farmers follow the inadequate crop management plans and that non-GM farmers are to sign declarations declaring a GM-free status when it will not be possible to deliver or even test for GM. "Coexistence" is offered although the definition is skewed as the principle is to pool GM and non-GM canola together and sell as GM. This denies both farmers and consumers a choice. The coexistence plans are designed to accept contamination, not prevent it.
Click here for "Delivering market choice with GM canola" |
Why oppose independent health testing?
GM companies will not allow independent health or performance tests on their patented products. Tests to date have revealed:
1st generation:
damaged immune systems and increased allergies (2, 4, 6, 7)
development of lesions and/or pre-cancerous growths (2, 5, 7)
unusually enlarged or damaged organs (2, 2, 7, 9)
temporary infertility (9)
unexplained death (1, 5,10)
2nd generation and/or developing animals:
smaller brain, liver and testicles (7,8,9)
immune system damage and metabolic change (7,9)
organ damage ( 7, 10)
abnormal anxiety and aggression ( 8)
precancerous tumour findings ( 7,10)
infertility up to 100% permanent male sterility in offspring ( 8, 9)
abnormally high death rates ( 8)
GM paid compensation: Syngenta / Bayer Cropscience) (1)
GM companies own test data: Monsanto (2 ), CSIRO( 4 ), Calgene (5)
Statistics: UK statistics 1999 (6)
Independent scientific studies: UK Arpad Puztai (7), Russia Irena Ermakova (8), Malatesta(9), Fares(10)
Ref: Jeffrey Smith – Genetic Roulette + OGTR
Is infertility the result of feeding GM and the reason why there has been a collapse in bee colonies in USA?
Is GM the reason why there has been a global increase in allergies? There was a doubling of allergies to soy when GM soy was introduced to UK.
Regulatory process is nothing more than a public relations exercise. GM canola was approved as "safe" for human consumption yet the oil (the part consumers eat) was not tested and the remaining meal is not under any regulatory authority.
Monsanto however does warn farmers not to graze stock on GM canola: "It is recommended that Roundup Ready Winter Canola not be grazed."... "at the present time insufficient information exists to allow safe and proper grazing recommendations."
We need further independent studies.
Julie Newman Ph 08 98711562 |
Storage and handlers believe they can segregate GM canola from non- GM canola and other grains providing farmers sign a declaration accepting full responsibility for all costs involved.
This is a photo of canola accidentally dumped onto a grain stack in a very reputable Australian storage and handling facility.
Photo: courtesy of the Countryman WA December, 2007 Thank you
Accidents do happen but what if it was GM, what impact would that have on sales? What costs or losses are involved and who will pay?
Contamination will occur on-farm by numerous causes including wind, seed, animals etc. If delivering non-GM canola, Non-GM farmers are required to sign a declaration claiming that we do not have contamination over 0.9% and that we indemnify the storage and handler if they cause contamination. Farmers are liable. There is no field test that detects contamination to that level for Bayers Invigor canola as field tests need over 9% contamination to be considered accurate. This will force farmers to market as GM as the costs and liabilities for marketing as non-GM will be too high.
While Monsanto's Roundup Ready field test can detect as low as 0.5%, we have no risk management to prevent a positive field test triggering an end-point-royalty where Nufarm can deduct their user fee from grain payments. While other countries are facing legal actions from multinationals for patent breeches, Australian farmers will be required to sue multinationals to recover our money for a user fee for contamination from a GM crop we do not want.
Who is the biggest storage and handler in NSW and Victoria? Graincorp - a company with alliances with Nufarm - the owners of Roundup Ready canola. Vested interest in claiming there is no problem with segregation? Of course! |
... And just when you thought the GM debate couldn't get any sillier...
In Western Australia, pro-GM lobby groups are pushing for the lifting of the moratoria to allow the commercial growing of GM wheat!
There are a few problems that they are forgetting to consider:
- There is no market for GM wheat or GM contaminated wheat. Wheat is a food consumers are expected to eat directly, not indirectly as food for stock or as oil and it will be required to be labelled as GM.
- No country in the world is growing GM wheat commercially. Even US and Canada refused to allow GM wheat commercialisation due to the economic risk.
- If GM wheat is released commercially, all farmers will be expected to market as GM unless they participate in a rigorous identity preservation system to prove there has been no chance of GM contamination and no GM in the final product. Any I.P. system is considered price prohibitive if there is no tolerance of GM allowed.
- There is no tolerance of GM wheat in non-GM wheat.
- There is no workable field test available to ensure there is no GM wheat in non-GM wheat. There is no advanced test that does not involve destroying the grain in the process of testing.
- Anybody pushing for lifting of the moratoria claiming a potential economic benefit could be classified as either lying, negligent or plain stupid. Any government would be negligent if they ignored their legislated role to assess economics by allowing GM wheat to be commercialised.
According to the Australian Wheat Board policy (*here)
"GM Wheat
At present there is a clear market signal from international and domestic customers that strong reservations exist concerning GM wheat. None of AWB’s National Pool customers are prepared at present to purchase GM wheat. Based on AWB Group’s experience in managing the National Pool we believe there is currently insufficient capability within the supply chain to ensure complete segregation of GM and non-GM grains. Due to this lack of capability, the introduction of GM wheat in Australia could jeopardise many of our existing export markets. AWB believes that GM wheat should not be released commercially in Australia until market preferences change and/or supply chain technologies and protocols are developed that will ensure that customer requirements can be met."
Why the pressure? Because a local company has developed what they claim is salt tolerant wheat. The preliminary trial results showed better performance in 180 millisemens per metre, however conventional non-GM wheat performed better in 67 millesemens per metre.
Julie Newman (08) 98711562 |
Farmers are not being told the truth. If we analyse GM canola what have we got?
BENEFIT:
Trait benefit? Chemical resistant canola: Bayer Cropscience Invigor varieties are resistant to Glufosinate Ammonium, Monsanto Roundup Ready varieties are resistant to Glyphosate.
Effectiveness? Australia's most critical weed control phase is pre-emergent and the "advantage" is only applicable to post emergent control. Radish is our worst weed in canola, Glufosinate Ammonium does not control radish and Glyphosate is not very effective either.
Yield? GM canola doesn't yield more than non-GM.
Cost? Bayer Cropscience - costs far higher than conventional. Monsanto - costs still secret.
ALTERNATIVES:
We have non-GM chemical resistant canola, Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield and non-GM hybrids and soon non-GM chemical resistant hybrids.
Non-GM biotechnology will fastrack breeding desired traits.
RISKS:
It is too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM products.
Unfair costs and liabilities will be imposed on Non-GM farmers.
All farmers are to sell as GM.
Consumers will be denied GM-free products.
Market loss and penalties will apply to GM.
RR will exacerbate resistance to glyphosate (our most commonly used herbicide)
Increased use of herbicides for resistance management and volunteer control.
GM is not recallable.
RISK MANAGEMENT NEEDED:
Strict liability regime where the GM industry is legally responsible for containing their product.
Ignore the hype and get the rules right. |
The truth is being modified far more than the genetics.
We are told GM is more profitable and beneficial for farmers when it is not, as costs will be increased for both GM and non-GM farmers and there is no advantage that can not be achieved in non-GM.
We are told GM food is rigorously tested for health when it is not and the GM technique is an unperfected imprecise science that could have serious implications to consumers.
We are told farmers and consumers will have a choice to avoid GM crops and food when we will not as it is not possible to segregate to legal and market demands.
We are told common law will address unfair liability problems when it will not as the non-gm farmers would be liable for economic loss associated with GM crops.
We are told the future for GM crops will be better when it could be the biggest threat to food and agriculture we have ever faced - what consumer in their right mind would accept any trace of raw pharmaceuticals in food crops?
The drive is more to do with the patent associated with this plant breeding and the corporate investment opportunity for the scientific community, not for the supposed benefits to either farmers or consumers. |
Welcome to the Network of Concerned Farmers site:
Who are we?
We are a network of conventional and organic farmers from around Australia sharing a concern regarding genetically modified crops.
What is our goal?
We want to inform others regarding what is really involved in GM crops, what the non-GM alternatives are, what the real risks are and what risk management is needed.
What is our key issue?
We are pushing for fair risk management, particularly a strict liability regime to ensure the GM industry is liable for any economic loss associated with their product, rather than the non-GM grower as proposed.
What is our key aim?
To ensure non-GM growers are not adversely impacted by GM crops.
Why do we want to do this?
We want to ensure non-GM growers are not negatively impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need. We do not like farmers being lied to regarding the benefits of GM crops when our livelihoods will be negatively impacted by the introduction of GM crops.
Who are our supporters?
We have farmers, supply chain participants, key decision makers and consumers supporting our work locally, Australia wide and globally.
Who funds us?
We are volunteers and mainly operate on self funding but we have had some donations (mainly from other farmers) to cover some costs.
|
|
There is a belief that a tolerance level will be accepted in non-GM produce but it will only be tolerated at a cost. There are 3 classifications of grain:
- GM Free - must be guaranteed. Until released on a Federal level these guarantees were covered by certificates provided by the OGTR to quarantine (AQIS). Since Federal approval, guarantees are now given by our marketers based on the signed declarations farmers provide on delivering GM-free grain at receival points. Legally to sell as GM-free or non-GM in Australia, there must be no trace of GM detected in the produce (ACCC confirmation).
- Non-GM – In some countries there is an acceptance of a level of adventitious (accidental) amount of contamination provided that the product is not required to be labelled as GM. EU @ 0.9% and Japan @ 5%. However, the buyers rely on a rigorous paper trail showing the actions that the farmer and the supply chain have taken in order to prevent any contamination. This includes a rigorous testing regime which will be extremely difficult considering the recommendation by industry of a GM canola testing regime takes approx. 8 weeks. This cost of an identity preservation system was estimated by ABARE and the Federal DAFF at 10-15% of the value of the product ($35/tonne). While this is a legislative acceptance, market standards and buyer standards are often lower. A positive GM test negates the acceptance of GM contamination as "accidental". (more details here)
- GM - The finished product must be labelled if GM is present in levels above the set tolerance level, if GM is found in testing throughout the supply chain as part of the identity preservation system or if there is no identity preservation system and no guarantee of GM-free .
Australia has no identity preservation system and no rigorous testing regime and unless there is a guarantee of GM-free status, farmers may be effectively forced to market as GM if any contamination is found.
Non-GM farmers will not accept any GM contamination if we are to be liable for it. Accepting a contamination level when it does not comply with law or market demand and is too expensive to test for or segregate is little more than a deliberate attempt to sabotage Australia's GM-free status. Australian farmers can not afford to sell all of our produce as GM contaminated. GM contamination must be prevented and the GM company must be liable for the economic loss caused by their product. |
Quote of the week:
ISAAA "Global Review of Commercialized Trangenic Crops: 2001" section 5, page 22. "Global R&D expenditures in Crop Biotechnology and future GM crop markets."
"In 1995 the private sector viewed crop biotechnology, prior to the commercialization of the first GM crops in 1996, as an important new opportunity for markets that would contribute to lowering crop production costs, increasing productivity, provide a safer environment and a more sustainable system for ensuring global food, feed and fiber security. Later in the 1990's the private sector judged the life science concept to be an inappropriate strategy for the future. There followed a series of spin-offs and mergers culminating in consolidation that resulted in six transnational North American and European based crop protection/biotechnology entities."
The private sector is stearing the GM debate and it is clearly not in the best interests of the community. |
"A study at the University of Manitoba proved that GMO and non-GMO crops do not co-exist. Genetic pollution will eventually occur when an organism with a GM trait is introduced into the system. Zero tolerance is no longer possible." National Farmers Union / Canada. (more here)
"In most cases and for most species there is no realistic chance for coexistence between GM and non-GM farming, just as there is none between silence and noise in a room." EU Conference quote (more here) |
Pressures in the GM debate:
GM companies: Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience have invested huge sums of money in to GM crops and incentives to promote it and will make a loss if GM canola is not introduced. As there is little advantage for farmers to grow GM canola, the GM companies want GM introduced in a way where non-GM farmers lose their right to market as non-GM in opposition. GM companies want to win the debate before decision makers find out the facts and introduce risk management. While the NCF sympathise with the GM companies, we do not feel non-GM growers should subsidise their ventures.
Scientists: Desperate for funding because the industry is under pressure for government funding to be cost recovery based and there is higher expense in advanced biotechnology techniques (not just GM). Corporate companies are investing in science on the condition that GM has a pathway to market eg. CSIRO announced a lucrative investment deal from Bayer Cropscience the day Federal approval was given for Invigor canola (more here). No doubt there will be similar deals if State moratoriums are lifted but the NCF have been vehemently denied the answer to this question. Scientists appear to be more interested in winning the debate than finding out the facts leading to moratoriums.
Federal Government: Signed an intergovernment agreement to support biotechnology (not just GM) and have invested greatly in to research and development of GM in the hope that the patents will return profits. US government via WTO is putting significant pressure on the Federal Government to level the playing field and remove Australia's GM-free status. The Federal government appears to be more interested in winning the debate than managing the problems.
Farmers: For GM - many have believed the propaganda that GM canola will achieve benefits not related to the GM process. (eg. higher yields- unsubstantiated and unrelated to GM, drought tolerance - false, sowing dry - false). These unsubstantiated claims do not relate to the single gene technology of chemical resistance only. These farmers obviously have not assessed costs or benefits accurately as much of the information is not available. eg. Bayer Cropscience chemical is far more expensive than the non-GM alternative and yet it does not control weeds including radish (our worst weed) as well as the chemicals used in alternative non-gm chemical-resistant crops. Crop management plans are still "commercial in confidence" so costs can not be calculated. Farmers wanting to grow GM do not care about the adverse impacts to non-gm farmers and again appear to be more interested in winning the debate than finding out the facts. Unfortunately, those farmers pushing for GM crops are very emotive towards farmers not wanting GM crops and the debate is polarising the farming community.
Farmers: Not for GM - simply do not want to be adversely impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need. It is expected that all non-GM farmers are to market as GM because contamination can not be controlled. Markets are rejecting GM crops and there will be economic loss. If risks are not managed, non-GM farmers will be seriously adversely impacted by them and farmers can not afford to lose our competitive GM-free status.
Consumers: majority don't want GM and do not want to pay more for choice to avoid it yet will be expected to pay far more to compensate farmers for trying to avoid GM.
Markets: majority don't want GM and will insist on guarantees from farmers that GM is not present in non-GM consignments. If contamination is found, price penalties will apply.
State Governments: Have invested less in to GM but have the legislated responsibility to assess economics and markets and aware that farmers may seek compensation from State governments if this duty of care is ignored. Most farmers are very grateful for State governments taking their role seriously and imposing moratoriums based on facts about the risk to the agricultural industy.
Non-GM farmers will be the most adversely impacted and we (not unreasonably) insist on fair risk management. Australia must introduce a strict liability regime to ensure the GM company is liable for any adverse impacts caused by their product.
Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers |
Welcome to the NCF website and thank you for your interest in the GM debate. For a basic introduction of the key issues in the debate, click (here) We have over 100 referenced research articles (see left hand column) and over 1500 news stories archived (here). We hope you find what you are looking for.
Our website averages around 5,000 hits/day (1,000 visits/day).
Thank you.
|
Australia has adopted a tolerance level of 0.9% based on the EU legislation based on what appears to be a misinterpretation of the EU legislation.
EU Legislation Q & A Document: (here)
Quote re tolerance levels... accepted at 0.9% "...provided the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable. This is the case when operators demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken adequate measures to avoid the presence of this material."
Questions: Does a positive test negate the acceptance of tolerance levels? Answer: Yes. The EU legislation has been tested and any positive test negates the "adventitious" classification. (more details here)
Is planting seed known to be contaminated considered accidental or adventitious?
Are Australian farmers now required to undertake a rigorous identity preservation system (ABARE estimated $35/t or 10-15% value of product)? |
WHERE TO NOW?
The following steps need to occur to progress the Australian GM debate further:
- Open debate with both sides evenly represented with an aim to find where the truth is in benefits, alternatives, risks and risk management on a case by case basis for varieties planned for release (Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola and Bayer Cropscience's Invigor GM canola).
- Independent trials to assess information required to make an informed decision. eg. assessment for yield penalties associated with post emergent spraying of chemicals used for GM and non-GM chemical resistant varieties. Note: many farmers are being misled to believe that GM canola can be sown dry which is not true (herbicide tolerant varieties are a post emergent tool not a pre emergent tool), assessment of dry sowing of GM and non-GM canola should also be included.
- States to include a strict liability regime (the GM company responsible for economic loss) in the exemption from moratorium legislation. On Federal release the signed GM-free guarantees were withdrawn and now farmers are guaranteeing our produce is GM-free and even "trials" could cause economic loss.
- Federal legislation to include strict liability regime and coordination with State governments to ensure GM varieties are not released at Federal level if any state has assessed an economic risk (even for trials). As common law does not adequately address the liability issues surrounding GM crops, a strict liability regime will be essential (as per drug companies) where the GM company is liable for losses caused by their product. (It does not mean that the GM company is liable for the negligence of others.)
- Coexistence management plans must be prepared including the fair management of Non-GM produce as the existing plans prepared by the Gene Technology Grains Committee have only assessed by the pro-GM sector giving priority to the GM grower, have definitions that are illegal (Non-GM means No GM, not 1% acceptable contamination), have not been approved by farmers and based on the unfair principle that Non-GM growers are to keep contamination out rather than the GM grower to keep contamination contained.
- An accurate economic report be commissioned based on facts, not furphies.
Julie Newman |
GM contamination is now considered to be acceptable by our governments and unless states implement rigorous testing regimes, it will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to guarantee there is no GM in our produce. Are consumers happy to eat GM?
No, the majority do not want it. Reasons range from repulsion for cross-kingdom breeding and scientists tampering with our food to serious concern for the lack of health testing (regulatory bodies do not do health testing, they rely on information supplied by the license holder such as Monsanto or Bayer Cropscience who have a vested interest not to find a problem with their product).
There have been adverse health reports. See (here) for a summary of the scientific concerns and long term testing revealing serious problems. The key concern is for intergenerational impacts. How will an unborn child be affected? How will a child fed GM be impacted?
Arpad Pusztai's UK research found smaller organ development, blood disorders and immunology problems in developing animals. The latest results from a reputable laboratory in Russia (here) revealed smaller body weights and increased deaths in rats born to mothers fed GM (Roundup Ready Soy) compared to non-GM soy.
Consumers want further testing to assess if these risks are applicable to humans eating the specific GM food available. If not, they want the choice to avoid GM.
Contamination is extremely difficult to avoid unless the product is contained but the intention is to make it too difficult and too expensive for a farmer to market as GM-free or non-GM. If a farmer can not market our product as GM-free or non-GM, the consumer will not have the choice. Help us help you. If consumers want a choice, they must help farmers lobby to ensure GM is contained rather than expecting non-GM growers to try to prevent contamination. |
The intention of the GM lobby is clear:
Step 1 - Remove the ability to market as "non-GM" or "GM-free"
Step 2 - Remove the requirement to label as "GM"
Result = consumers will have no choice to avoid GM foods
Will this extend further?
Step 3 - Remove the right for farmers to replant our own seeds (more)
Step 4 - Remove unpatented non-GM varieties from the market
Result = farmers may not have a choice to avoid growing GM crops
---------
Farmers, farm lobby groups and politicians are targetted by a range of pro-GM activists promoting dreams and hiding realities. We have the GM industry wanting to profit by patenting and controlling the source that all food is derived from, the scientists and research industry wanting to profit from the advantage of encouraging corporate investment to plant breeding, the governments wanting to back out of funding research and development (one of Australia's only subsidies) and supply chain participants wanting to profit by developing closed loop marketing systems and contractual agreements to lock farmers in to specific products, production methods and supply chains.
Wake up call... farmers can not afford any increase in input costs or decrease in market access.
|
Australia is the largest exporter of non-GM canola and Canada is the largest exporter of GM canola. Canada is losing market share and premiums.
ABARE hard data reveals that from 1990-2000 before adoption of GM, Canada maintained a consistent premium over Australian canola averaging US$32.68/tonne.
Australia's 3 largest export customers are China, Japan and EU:
China: Nov 24th 2005, Graincorp Marketing Report "Recent sales to China from Canada have been at a $US30 discount to current prices being bid in NSW. Canada is expected to be a keen seller throughout our marketing campaign as they attempt to reduce potential ending stocks." Canada has dropped from a US$32.68/tonne premium to a $US30/tonne penalty.
Japan: 2004 Japans Ag Dept reported an average 5% premium for Australia's canola over Canada's canola.
EU: Last year, WA Department of Agriculture report revealed WA receives a premium of 10% for our GM-free produce to EU.
It is expected that if GM is introduced commercially, almost all farmers must market as GM as Canadian farmers do. Non-GM farmers are not prepared to accept this risk and should not be forced to. |
Latest issue:
No contamination is acceptable in "Non-GM" (here)
0.0088 % contamination in "Non-GM" Soy triggers prosecution. (here)
Stock can not be fed GM if meat is to carry a "GM-free" label. (here)
Coexistence to a zero level is scientifically proven to be impossible (photos here)
Martin Entz, professor of Agronomy at the University of Manitoba (Canada): "GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would. It's absolutely impossible to control... It's been a great wake-up call about the side effects of these GM technologies." |
Trials can cause economic loss:
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) report on "Co-existence between genetically modified crops, and conventional and organic crops". available (*here)
Extract: "Consumer caution has meant whole areas where GMO cultivation gives rise to an increased risk of contamination being effectively boycotted whether or not contamination has actually occurred. The mere fact that GM wheat was on an experimental basis in a particular German federal state caused the largest German milling group to stop buying wheat from that area." |
|
|
11 June 2009
Dupont alleges anti-competitive conduct by Monsanto
24 February 2009
Non-GM Farmers to pay for unwanted GM contamination
02 February 2009
Made by Monsanto
01 February 2009
Top 10 Seed and Pesticide companies
29 January 2009
Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola
29 January 2009
Non-GM biotech is the future
26 January 2009
12 Yrs of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment
19 January 2009
Non-GM seed preferred by farmers but difficult to obtain
16 January 2009
GM Canola a flop
14 January 2009
India: Doctors and Scientists call for GM ban
News archive
|
