|
Why NSW was right in not accepting the 3,000 ha coexistence trial proposal
The Federal government has approved GM canola on the understanding that "industry" is to manage coexistence issues. All canola growing states have introduced legislation placing a moratorium on the cultivation of GM canola. This legislation is in place while issues surrounding trade, liability, segregation and market access are considered.
A backdoor commercial release was being proposed by the GM companies with a request for 3,500ha "commercial" trials in NSW.
NSW has a promised moratorium to ban commercial release but they were considering a commercial trial which is almost identical to a commercial release. The difference with trials between pre and post OGTR approval is major (see here). Because there is little restriction with post-OGTR approval trials, it is considered a commercial release.
Last November, Minister Ian McDonald advised the NSW Parliament that "this trial was designed to test the stewardship program and protocols developed over the past year or so to ensure that genetically modified [GM] canola can be segregated from non-GM canola in the on-farm and post-farm handling and transport chain."
But there are no industry approved protocols!
We have our self appointed industry committee (the Gene Technology Grains Committee) that have prepared a principle document claiming coexistence is possible but are in the process of forming a different committee (the Canola Reference Group) to prepare the "how to" plans to manage outstanding issues of coexistence. Governments are wanting to test these non-existent management plans for trials but because they do not exist, the crop management plans prepared by Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience will be used instead. We have our Federal Government giving significant funding to this unformed committee run by the Oilseeds Federation claiming to police these unprepared management plans but in reality will be policing the GM industry crop management plans.
Somewhere in the confusion, industry forgot to prepare the industry accepted coexistence management plans. This will allow the GM industry to have a free run and receive government funding to police their own plans to collect their own royalties.
The coexistence plans are based on definitions that are illegal. To label a product as "Non-GM" or "GM-free" means no GM contamination and yet the GTGC are claiming that 0.9% contamination is acceptable. Unfortunately, the non-GM grower will be liable under the Trade Practices Act for delivering a contaminated product under an uncontaminated label, for recalls and for contamination cleanup.
There is no intention in the existing GTGC coexistence principles framework or the available GM industry crop management plans to segregate efficiently and it appears the aim of these trials is to contaminate and place all costs and liabilities onto those farmers not wishing to grow GM which will remove the choice of both farmers and consumers.
There are 300,000 canola seeds/kg or 300 million seeds/tonne. If 3,500ha trials are grown in NSW by Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience at an estimated harvest yield of 1.4t/ha then 1,470 billion seeds will be harvested. 147 billion seeds will remain in the paddock (usually 10% seed is lost) and at least 0.01% or 147 million seeds will be lost through spillage/leakage throughout the supply chain. Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto refused to take the liability for the implications from the expected damage to markets due to contamination. Farmers will not accept this risk to our non-GM status.
Who should be liable when every lost seed could spread and produce thousands of seeds the following year? Farmers will not accept this risk and Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience have a condition of license to prevent planting in GM-free zones (effectively no contamination).
How will they comply with this condition? Will testing procedures be available prior to approval? Who will compensate farmers for the loss of the GM-free status? Can the governments be confident that their state can return to status quo?
Before Australia proposes to progress with their first large scale commercial release in the guise of "trials", the question needs to be asked, "Is industry prepared?"
The answer is a very clear NO... as evidenced from the following debate recorded in the Senate Hansards.
-------------- | 
