The Network of Concerned Farmers concerns about GM crops are based on:
Farmers are being misled as to benefits
Although farmers are being promised the world with this technology, the evidence of performance to date for Australian GM canola has been below average. Contrary to the threats of being left behind, there are non-GM biotechnology alternatives using GM in the lab to fast track selection of desired traits in non-GM that gives the advantages without the risks in future plant breeding.
Lack of restrictions to the GM industry impacts negatively on others
The GM industry has been allowed to self-regulate their integration into the cropping system. They have taken full advantage of this situation which will result in the agricultural industry not having the choice to avoid the negative impact of this crop on their business' and not being able to sign contractual agreements from markets requiring GM-free produce.
Contamination will occur and coexistence is impossible
Contamination of GM crops into non-GM crops is considered uncontrollable and scientifically proven to be so. If GM crops are introduced, the non-GM farmers are expected to keep contamination out of their crop rather than the GM farmer keep it contained. When unsuccesful, farmers are at risk of being sued under the Trade Practises Act or contractual agreements for delivering a contaminated product, or under Patent Law for growing a patented crop. Contrary to what has been promised, coexistence is impossible when many markets are demanding guarantees of no contamination (rather than the 1% tolerance claimed).
Costs and Liabilities
In order to market on the preferred non-GM market, the costs and liabilities are prohibitive. Costs are estimated at 10% of product value or conservatively $35/tonne to maintain an unacceptable 1% contamination. Costs include buffer zones, time spent for rigorous cleanup regimes, separate segregation, testing etc. Liability for rejection of product and supply chain contamination cleanup could extend to millions of dollars and may be uninsurable. If it is not viable to market as non-GM, we are faced with a serious economic problem when Australia can only market a portion of our produce on the GM market
Marketing
Australia has a clean green image which we need to preserve. Many of our export markets, and much of the domestic market does not want to buy GM crops or GM contaminated crops and as growers we have both a right and a responsibility to continue to grow and market products consumers are demanding. As it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate these crops, conventional farmers are expected to market on the GM market, yet markets are rejecting the product. Organic farmers will not have the choice and will be unable to maintain organic status as no GM is accepted in organic produce.
Legislation
The existing Federal legislation does not adequately address concerns and economics is not considered by legislation as reason for rejection of GM crops on a Federal basis or as reason to prepare adequate risk assessment and risk management plans. Decisions regarding industry preparedness and coexistence plans are dominated by the GM industry themselves and plans are unacceptable and will not enable coexistence to be possible. Although States have the authority to impose bans, there is vulnerability to political pressure.
Patents
The unique major patent rights that accompany GM crops will undermine the independence and the rights of farmers and will create increased dependency on a small number of agribusiness corporations. In Australia there is a concern that end-point royalties will be used to collect patent royalties as there is no indication as to what level of contamination triggers patent royalty deduction from our payments. The patent right over GM is very different to the normal plant breeder rights of conventional varieties.
Herbicide Resistance
Many of the GM crops that have been developed and commercialised are genetically modified to be herbicide resistant. These crops will undoubtedly lead to problems of herbicide resistance and to on-farm management problems, particularly with the gene-stacking properties of GM crops creating duplicate resistances in crops. In the case of glyphosate tolerance (Roundup Ready), we risk losing the effectiveness of our most commonly used herbicide and as yet, there is no replacement available.
Environmental Risks
We are concerned that there has not been adequate testing of the environmental impact of GM crops and that due to the crossing of the species boundary (and crossing genes between kingdoms), GM crops pose risks that are not clearly understood. The product is not recallable. The increased use of more toxic chemicals (such as 2-4D and Paraquat) to control unwanted glyphosate resistant volunteers is both of health and environmental concern.
Health Concerns
As farmers we are concerned about growing safe, healthy food for our customers. There is still some concern about the safety of GM foods and this is leading consumers to be cautious about eating them. Although considered to be the worlds leader, our regulatory system does little to address health concerns when neither the OGTR or FSANZ does their own health testing. They rely on the GM industry themselves to provide information of health testing and the longest animal health test appears to be under 6 weeks and does little to allay consumer fears. Consumers do not want to be guinea pigs and as farmers, we need to grow food that our customers are confident in and that we know is safe. When there is no recall strategy, it is irrational to be in a rush to permanently contaminate the worlds food supply with a product that has had reports of adverse health findings.
------
While the Federal government has approved GM crops, the State governments have imposed moratoriums on market and economic grounds. This decision shows good governance - one sector of the industry should not have the right to impose unacceptable risks, costs and liabilities on to others.
For those few not happy with State decisions, they should be asking themselves why they refused to accept liability for the consequences and why they expected those of us not wanting to grow GM crops to do so.
It is detrimental to polarise the industry. We must be working towards a fair, accurate and unbiased risk assessment and risk management strategy prior to progressing further in this debate. The GM industry must accept responsibility for the consequences of GM introduction.
Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers
www.non-gm-farmers.com
Updated: 29th April, 2004
