| As Individuals:
Farmers have always been divided on GM. While some farmers believed most of what the pro-GM industry said about GM crops, some of us did our own research and developed serious concerns.
Farmers that were feeling unsettled with the GM issue started contacting each other to chat about the issue, to share information, to compliment a letter that may have been written or to give reassurance after an attack by the well orchestrated pro-GM lobby group. It was common that for every letter written against GM, there was a flood of letters singing the praises of GM and slamming the letter writer as a "luddite" or something similar which was in line with their concerted campaign to paint those pushing for GM as progressive and those with concerns as "radical greeny luddites". Many stopped writing letters because of this while others of us were driven to research more to verify our facts more accurately. We networked regularly with other concerned farmers.
NCF formed: During a phone conversation with Juliet McFarlane, she suggested that we start a group of informed farmers in order to give a more united recognisable voice for media. Other farmers were also supportive and we toyed with names before going with my self explanatory suggestion of the "Network of Concerned Farmers".
Tour 1: We decided to launch our group with a tour of overseas farmers that could explain their concerns. Percy Schmeisser had achieved international acclaim so was the obvious choice. As we had no funds, we relied on donations to fund this tour. It took some organising but we managed to run a highly successful tour between the 2nd to the 10th of July 2002 in NSW, VIC, SA and Western Australia. Speakers included Mr Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian canola farmer who was ordered by the Canadian court to pay Monsanto for breaching their patent when GM canola was found in his 1998 crop and Gail and Tom Wiley, North Dakota grain farmers, who lost a major export contract to Japan through GM contamination of their crop. At each meeting, local identities were invited to speak.
Network targeted: This tour opened the debate up. The pro-GM activists were desperately trying to discredit this tour and to discredit the newly formed Network of Concerned Farmers. We appeared to be under attack but it was far less concerning as we were now a united group rather than individuals. The attacks have been constant since, particularly claiming that we are misleading (despite fully referenced articles) and funded by Greenpeace (which we are not). We enjoyed the chance to respond as this allowed us more opportunity to give more factual information and to ensure there was a little more fairness in the debate.
Media response: The media appreciated our group as we could verify our facts and we became the first port of call for a response to many pro-GM statement. We noticed a considerable change from the pro-GM activists almost immediately. Outrageous pro-GM claims were being curtailed as we insisted on accountability. The main Network founders involved at this time were Scott Kinnear, Juliet & Donald McFarlane, Graham Strong, Geoffrey Carracher, Arthur Bowman, Nick Kentish, Sam Statham, Felicity Martin, Steven English, Michael Eyres, Pennie Scott and myself.
Networking: We continued the same work some of us were doing as individuals which included writing letters, writing submissions and contacting politicians. It was very helpful having others within the network to proof-read written work. We were regularly invited to speak publicly and we realised there was a need to be sure that we were all speaking a similar message. We started our own email group to share information and made more effort to keep in contact with each other. We regularly contacted pro-GM groups and we regularly contacted anti-GM groups such as Genethics, GE-free Victoria and Greenpeace to keep abreast with issues they were following.
Website: I had become good friends with George Kailis, a WA businessman as we often shared information over the GM debate. He invited a few interested parties to meet in WA to share information and when I asked how much information he wanted, he asked me to "bring what you’ve got". He was shocked that it needed all of us to carry my expander files, boxes and books in to the meeting room and he suggested a website to store the information. Soon after I was told that a couple of farmers had set up a website skeleton for me and I did not realise until recently that it was George Kailis that arranged and funded the site.
I prepared as many referenced articles covering the key issues of the GM debate. It was not unusual to spend over 15 hours/day during this time as I am the sole person responsible for putting information on our website. Currently there are around 1,400 referenced news stories and 100 fully referenced research articles on our website. It has taken many years to gather this information to share and our website is now internationally acclaimed.
Our newsletters with updated news and current issues are very popular and although we had problems when numbers went beyond 500, we seem to have ironed them out since.
Tour 2: The Network of Concerned Farmers organised another speaking tour on the 2nd – 13th March, 2003 with the following speakers:
Bob Willick, a Canadian farmer who grew GM canola and is now suing Monsanto & Bayer for losing the ability to market canola as GM-free. Dr. Judy Carman from the Public Health Association of Australia. Judy has a PhD in Medicine (Nutritional Biochemistry/Metabolic Regulation) and a Master of Public Health. She is the former Senior Epidemiologist, SA Department of Human Services and is a Senior Lecturer in Public Health, University of Adelaide. Judy spoke on the health risks and regulation of GM foods. Scott Kinnear, spokesperson for the Biological Farmers of Australia who outlined the current political situation regarding the release of GM canola, legal liability and marketing issues for GM free and organic. And myself, Julie Newman. I outlined the practical impacts that the introduction of GM canola will have on Australian grain farmers.
The coordination of this trip was ably and professionally managed by Penny Townley. Although Penny works full time, she has been willing to help out at times on a voluntary basis.
Network Strategy: Juliet and I tended to take the lead in any wider Network strategy involved and are in touch almost daily. We mainly discuss what new information came to hand, shared what we were doing and what could be changed to ensure farmers were protected. The difficulty was finding how we could achieve this when the GM industry was virtually allowed to prepare their own rules for introduction. We knew that the only way that we could reverse the process was to ensure States called a total ban under their power to assess economics and farmer protection could be integrated in any exemption from the bans.
Official meeting: Although the Network of Concerned Farmers had regular phone linkups, some of us (including Juliet and I) met for the first time as a group at a meeting in Canberra organised and my trip funded by Bayer Cropscience in June 2003. This was an excellent closed debate between the Network and an expert pro-GM panel. We asked Bayer Cropscience to withdraw their application until they found someone to accept liablity for the consequences. They refused.
We had our first Network of Concerned Farmers face to face meetings starting on 24th July, 2003 which was ironically the day the Federal regulator approved the first GM canola on a Federal level. Juliet (NSW) and myself (WA) were nominated as national and state spokespeople and Geoffrey Carraher (Vic) and Felicity Martin (SA) were nominated to represent their state. We constantly contact each other by phone and email to share new information and bounce ideas for letters or action needed. We meet quite often to accompany each other in presentations or political representations.
GM pressure: As Non-GM farmers, it was understandable that we refused to accept liability but our concerns were ignored because it became obvious that Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto would withdraw from commercial release if they were to be liable for the consequences of the introduction of their product. It also appeared obvious that they would not want independent trials because it appeared their varieties were performing well below their promises and below the performance of popular non-GM varieties.
Trials: When it became obvious that commercial release was not going to be an option due to States promised moratoriums, the GM industry came up with "commercial coexistence trials" proposal for NSW and Victoria. These were a backdoor release under the guise of the word ‘trial’ as they were almost identical to the proposed limited commercial release plans and coexistence trials did not test for coexistence and were not a trial. These were not trials as trials generally mean there is an opportunity to return to the status quo after the completion of the trial and there was no chance of that.
Juliet McFarlane was on the NSW advisory committee and information relating to these trials was strictly confidential and the media and the public were not aware of details.
If farmers had known the details of these trials and known that the non-GM grower would be liable for contamination, only the most pro-GM activists would have supported them.
Although expected, we are disappointed that Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto were not made to participate in small well contained independent trials as we felt this would have confirmed that the drive for GM canola was based on false promises.
Advertisement: We lodged a full page advertisement in both NSW and Victoria to encourage others to express their concerns and write to their Premier saying why they did not want their GM-free status "blown away." The preparation of this advert was a real team effort with many giving critical feedback on the wording and design.
Now: Thankfully, all major canola growing states have called bans and farmer protection is integrated in exemption to state moratorium Acts. We have not yet had time to celebrate as a group as we are trying to prevent negligent decisions being made by those with a vested interest or those that are more interested in their pride than our industry. We are still trying to ensure our concerns are addressed and not ignored as moratoriums may be lifted prior to risks being managed.
Farm lobby groups: It is disappointing to see a real push for GM introduction without risk management from our farm lobby leaders who seem to be more interested in following the wishes of the Federal Government and GM industry than listening to grassroots farmers and the policies of the groups they claim to represent.
The debate is gradually turning from being a "pro GM" or "anti GM" debate to a more appropriate "pro risk management" or "anti risk management" debate.
If the GM industry believed their own propaganda, they would not be refusing to participate in independent trials and they would not be refusing to accept liability for the consequences.
We are what we say we are, we are a network of concerned farmers and we are still working to ensure risks are accurately assessed and managed appropriately.
Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers
NCF meeting at Wagga, 2003. |
