*New*
 Rigged trials
 Legal Letter
 GM Crops: Risks and Risk Management Required
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

1. Key issues
 Summary and Overview
 10 main NCF concerns
 Farmers misled
 Q & A for school projects
 What is the drive for GM crops?
 Links to other issues
 Scientific concerns summary
 The future - 2020?
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Beyond the Bulldust
 *Unfair liability*
 Pressures in GM debate
 Questions regarding risk management
 Genetic engineering – a crop of hyperbole
 Agronomics and Economics of GM canola

2. GM crops banned
 Monsanto Crop Management & Resistance Management Plans
 Why Australia is not prepared for commercial trials
 Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready canola
 Bayer Cropscience's GM Invigor canola
 Where to now?
 State legislation - moratoria

3. Market issues
 Canola markets
 Zero tolerance of GM contamination is market demand
 Wheat will be impacted
 Higher prices for non-GM canola
 Contamination scare affects market
 Japanese requirements
 Consumer polls & market rejection
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 EU will not tolerate acceptance of tolerance levels
 What our marketers say
 How and when non-GM premiums started

About us
 Network Policy & Objectives
 NCF Funding
 NCF History
 NCF profile: Julie Newman
 NCF profile: Juliet McFarlane
 Early work

Canola
 What is canola?
 Statistics - yields
 GM Canola Factsheet
 Canadian farmers nervous about GM canola acceptance in Japan
 Letter from Japan

Coexistence & Segregation
 Crop Management Plans for non-GM grower
 Farmer to farmer Hypothetical
 Segregation and coexistence plans
 Seed industry allows 0.5% contamination
 Canadian grain segregation
 Zero tolerance is market demand
 European coexistence report
 Identity preservation and segregation
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Testing protocol
 Labels for GM contamination
 EU will not accept contamination
 Proposed Stewardship Program for Canola
 Contract harvester problems
 Crop management plans
 Industry avoids the truth about GM segregation

Consumer concerns
 Is GM food safe?
 Churches - 10 reasons against GM
 Scientific concerns
 Cross Kingdom Breeding
 Food safety testing inadequate
 Environmental effects
 13 Science based reasons for GM-free
 Myths about the Digestion of Proteins and DNA
 5 part series covering issues
 Health Risk
 Reason for Schools to ban GM Foods
 Monsanto's feeding studies
 FSANZ answers regarding food testing
 Scientific report on safety testing
 Trespass report
 Scientific concerns
 Consumer concerns summary
 GM food lecture
 Monsanto
 Seeds of Concern
 Public attitudes to GM food
 Scrambling and gambling with the genome
 L-tryptophan - A Deadly Epidemic
 Protestors (photos)
 GM health concerns in brief
 Inadequate health testing for GM canola
 Russian study showing high death rates in offspring
 Pusztai debate
 Hidden uncertainties - risks of GMOs
 Study shows GM eating Americans sicker than non-GM eating English
 Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies
 Latest GMO Research: Decreased Fertility, Immunological Alterations and Allergies
 Key health papers of concern
 Do we really know what we are doing?

Contamination
 Contamination is uncontrollable (photos)
 Gene transfer & cross-pollination
 GM product recalls
 Environmental contamination (photos)
 Confronting contamination & co-existence
 Invigor canola outcrossing
 Gene Stacking = Super Weed
 AOF contamination report
 History of how Bayer Cropscience caused contamination of non-GM canola in Australia
 Fighting GMO contamination around the world

Corporate control
 Corporate control
 Corporate Engineering in Public Debate
 Commercial influence on science
 In (Seed) Bed Together
 The drive behind GM Crops
 Cartoon
 IP And Genetically Modified Organisms: A Fateful Combination
 Commercial influence on science
 Made by Monsanto

Costs and liabilities
 Costs to non-GM farmers
 Non-GM Liable for Contamination?
 Liability issues associated with GM crops - AFFA
 Supplying non-GM requires certification
 Liability questions answered
 More on liability
 *Farmer liability*
 Liability and GM crops

Economics
 No economic benefit for farmers
 Economic Recommendations
 Economic Critique
 Why has the OGTR ignored economics?
 Australian farmers can not afford GM crops
 What benefit?
 Higher plant yields better or worse for farmers?
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 Global seed industry concentration
 Canada versus Australia comparison
 No farmer economic gain for pharmaceutical crops
 NCF: Economics of GM canola ***
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

Farmer attitudes
 Australian farmer surveys
 Farm lobby group policies
 Victorian ALP policy
 GCA farm lobby group policies

GM / Non-GM difference
 What is GM / Non-GM?
 GM plant breeding not faster
 Will the industry be in crisis without GM?
 Why GM is different
 Non-GM biotech is the future

GM canola
 Will GM canola yield more in Australia?
 Comparison between Canadian and Australian canola conditions
 Are GM chemicals safer, cheaper or more efficient?
 How much GM canola is grown in Canada?
 Canadian and Australian canola statistics
 Economics of GM canola

GM crops
 Public good or corporate control?
 Misleading claims over GM
 ISAAA GM crop areas misleading
 Use of GM crops
 GM crops and chemical use
 Multiple spray applications vs yield penalty
 Yield problems - links
 GM cotton failures
 Global yields
 Pharmaceutical crops
 Global Trends in GM Crops
 Who benefits from GM crops?

GM crops experience
 Canadian Farmers viewpoint
 American farmers viewpoint
 American Corn Growers experience
 Argentina faces serious problems
 Report on North American Experience
 Canadian organic farmers
 Argentina & GM soy - success at what cost?
 How is industry managing non-GM now?
 India, Bulgaria, Indonesia
 Monsanto vs US farmers
 Global GM adoption
 US farmers warned of GM Liability
 Farming news links
 GM-growing US faces agricultural trade deficit
 GM soy in US not considered food grade
 Monsanto in Argentina
 GM soy war in Paraguay
 Violence in Brazil
 12 Years of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

GM wheat
 Learn more about GM wheat
 Marketing systems for GM wheat
 GM Wheat submission - food health
 Report - Farmers lose with GM wheat
 What our marketers say
 Canadian Wheat Board position
 GM Wheat impossible to segregate

Honey issues
 Apiarist briefing
 The impact of GM contamination
 SA Apiarists briefing
 Map SA & Vic
 Honey tests reveal GM contamination

How trustworthy is decision-making?
 Vested interests revealed
 Why trust the regulatory process?
 Sue Meek profile
 Federal government pro-GM
 Scientists influenced
 Liability, GCA and legal action
 Research manipulated
 OGTR does not assess economics, segregation, chemical resistance, food testing etc.
 Three faces of science fraud
 Misleading GM language

Insurance
 Insurance Council submission
 Insurance avoid GM risk

International Protocols
 World Trade Organisation
 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
 Free Trade Agreement
 Farmers right to replant seeds
 International agreements
 GM labelling
 WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GMOs
 Biotechnology Policy Documents of FAO Members

Legal Issues
 Law
 Copy of Technology User Agreement
 2003 Monsanto contract
 GM Patents
 Monsanto shoot themselves in the foot (cartoon)
 Will law protect us from contamination?
 Summary of Supreme Court hearing of Percy Schmeiser
 NSW Minister guarantees farmers are protected
 AFFA-liability issues
 US farmers sued
 US farmers warned of GM liability issues
 GM Crops and farmers Liability
 Why is the non-GM grower liable for contamination?
 Innocent farmer sued
 Federal judge's opinion shows understanding of patented gene spread
 Liability for non-GM farmers
 More on liability:
 Liability and GM crops
 Farmers prepare for legal fight over GM
 Legal letter from non-GM to GM
 Liability issues - Duncan Currie

Legislation & Regulation
 Trials vs Commercial Release
 Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola approved by OGTR
 States impose moratoriums in role to protect economics
 OGTR role
 Gene Technology Act
 GM canola trial locations
 Victorian Moratorium
 Australian GM status by States
 Federal candidate views
 OGTR unapproved GM canola trials
 Gene Technology Act Critique
 South Australian Act
 WA proudly GM-free
 *State moratoria legislation*
 Gene Tech Act reviews denies compensation
 National Biotechnology Strategy
 Chronology of genetic engineering regulation in Australia: 1953–2008

Links
 Genome Scrambling Links
 Links
 Top 10 books on GM
 Religious links

Network action
 Invigor canola submission OGTR
 GM Zone proposal submissions
 GTGC submission summary
 NCF Newsletters
 NCF Media releases
 GTGC full submission
 Roundup Ready Submission OGTR
 Network tours
 pro-GM lobbyists attack NCF
 Pro-GM tantrums
 Advertisement
 Victorian farmer survey
 NCF banner & flyer
 Field day survey
 Community monitoring of GM Crop Trials
 Letters to farmers
 
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt1
 Gene Tech Act Reveiw Pt 2
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt3
 Bayer Protest
 Bayers Response to NCF
 NCF submission released

Organics
 Canadian organic standard
 American organic standards

Trials
 Victorian maps
 Victorian sites - photos
 SA trial photos
 Trials summary
 Topas 19/2 contamination
 South Australia 2006 GM Trials

 

22 August 2004

Catholics speak out against GM crops

- As an agency working for sustainable international development, CIIR is especially concerned about the impact of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries. We believe that the introduction of GM crops in these countries will endanger small farmers' livelihoods, undermine poor people's ability to feed themselves, and increase the pressures on already damaged and vulnerable environments.
We believe that an alternative approach to agriculture that is environmentally, economically, culturally and socially sustainable will help reduce poverty and help protect the environment. In contrast, growing GM crops will do the opposite.

What's wrong with GM?
August 2004
Catholic Institute for International Relations
http://www.ciir.org/content/news/documents/GM_leaflet.pdf
Why genetically modified crops are bad for people and bad for the environment
Why should we care?
Genetic engineering of crops is a complex and controversial issue. It is also an issue with far-reaching implications for the environment and for people, for the way crops are produced and the world s people are fed.
As an agency working for sustainable international development, CIIR is especially concerned about the impact of genetically modified (GM) crops in developing countries. We believe that the introduction of GM crops in these countries will endanger small farmers' livelihoods, undermine poor people's ability to feed themselves, and increase the pressures on already damaged and vulnerable environments.
We believe that an alternative approach to agriculture that is environmentally, economically, culturally and socially sustainable will help reduce poverty and help protect the environment. In contrast, growing GM crops will do the opposite.
What are GM crops?
People have been selectively breeding or cross-breeding plants for centuries - for example, to adapt them to a particular climate or improve their yield. What makes genetic engineering radically different from traditional breeding methods is that genes are transferred between completely unrelated species. For instance, animal genes are transferred into plants and bacteria genes are moved across to food crops.
Two main types of GM crops are:
insecticide crops: these have had genes transferred from a natural bacterium so that they can act like insecticide plants and kill the pests that eat them * roundup-ready crops: these have been made tolerant to specific herbicides, so that when these herbicides are applied only weeds and other plants are destroyed ("roundup" is a herbicide originally developed by the biotechnology corporation Monsanto).
Other GM crops include those that have been made resistant to fungal
infections and those that have had their nutritional properties enhanced
(such as "golden rice" which contains vitamin A).
What's wrong with them?
Advocates of GM crops argue that GM crops are good for the environment since they will reduce the amount of agrochemicals (pesticides and herbicides) that need to be used in crop production.
However, opponents of GM crops believe that these crops are a threat to the environment. The claim that GM crops require fewer herbicides and pesticides has been proved wrong. They require fewer chemicals than conventional crops in the short term but gradually they need significantly more.(1)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) threaten plant biodiversity. Planting GM crops is not a question of choice: once they are planted somewhere, crops elsewhere become contaminated by them. This could be especially disastrous for organic farmers.
For example, although it is illegal to grow GM maize in Mexico, in 2001 researchers found that traditional maize varieties grown by farmers in two remote Mexican states had been contaminated with GMOs from GM maize.(2) There are thousands of varieties of maize in Mexico. If contaminated by GMOs, these precious indigenous varieties could be irretrievably lost.
Some farmers whose conventional crops have been contaminated by GM material have found themselves obliged to pay fees to biotech corporations (which have patented the GM material) or face legal action. In the words of a US farmer:
"Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not
buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell".(3)
GM crops are produced for corporate profit. Seeds, and the chemicals that are required to grow them, must be bought from the multinational biotech corporations. Farmers are prohibited from saving and sharing seeds: every year they must buy more seeds and the associated agrochemicals from the corporations.
The majority of farmers in developing countries struggle to afford even the most basic inputs (seeds, fertilisers, etc). Their survival depends on the age-old practices of selecting, saving and sharing seeds from one year to the next. GM crops do not allow farmers to do this.
By patenting GM seeds and their associated technologies, biotech corporations will consolidate their already worrying control over the world food market. They will exercise a monopoly over what we eat and what we plant, with devastating effects, particularly in developing countries, for food security (people's ability to have access to safe and nutritious food at all times).
REFS:
1 Charles M Benbrook, BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 6, November 2003.
2 See ‘Mexico confirms GM maize contamination’ on the Science and
Development Network website www.scidev.net/news.
3 Tom Wiley, a farmer in North Dakota, quoted in Seeds of doubt: North American farmers’ experiences of GM crops by Hugh Warwick and Gundula
Meziani (Soil Association, 2002).
Resistance to GMOs
Biotech corporations have faced resistance to the introduction of GMOs in Europe from faith groups, consumers, environmentalists, non-governmental organisations and MPs.
In the South, several developing countries, such as Angola, India, Sudan, Zambia and Malawi, have said no to GM crops. They have also resisted GM foods as food aid. USAID, the US international agency, has exerted enormous pressure through the United Nations World Food Programme, effectively telling countries that they have no choice: accept GM food, or get no food aid at all.
In May 2004, more than 60 groups from 15 African countries, including environmental and development organisations and farmer and consumer groups, wrote an open letter to the World Food Programme denouncing the way in which hunger is being cynically used to impose GM crops and food on developing countries.
Biotech corporations and the US government present GM crops as the solution to world hunger. The reality is that there is enough food in the world to feed all of us. People experience hunger because they have no money to buy the food that is available, or because they have no means to grow this food. The real causes of hunger and poverty are social and economic inequalities that will not be fixed by biotechnology. Instead, GM crops will make these inequalities worse.
What is the alternative?
Agroecology or sustainable agriculture is an approach to agriculture that is environmentally, economically, culturally and socially sustainable. It emphasises crop diversity and rotation, conserves natural resources, and favours small and medium-sized farming rather than agribusinesses and large corporations.
Moreover, it focuses on food security (ensuring there is enough food for people to eat) and thus prioritises the production of staple crops (rather than cash crops for export). It is a key livelihood strategy for poor farmers in Latin America and the Caribbean, who have recognised that their best hope for a sustainable future is to nurture and protect the environment.
How can we promote sustainable agriculture?
We need to:
use aid to maximise the potential of sustainable agriculture to reduce poverty in developing countries
change international trade rules so that they do not force developing countries to #229# liberalise #229# their economies #229# instead, we ought to enable these
countries to invest in sustainable agriculture and rural development * free the poorest countries from the crushing burden of debt, which forces them to focus on export-led development, over-exploit their natural resources, and neglect their most vulnerable people.
What can you do?
Find out more:
www.gmwatch.org
www.soilassociation.org
www.abcinformation.org (website set up by biotech corporations)
www.nuffieldbioethics.org (see www.gmwatch.org for counter comments on the Nuffield Council for Bioethics)
Write to your MP to:
*express concerns about the forceful introduction of GM crops and food in
developing countries and its implications for the food security of poor
farmers
*ask him/her to urge the UK Department for International Development (DFID) to prioritise research on the potential of low-cost sustainable agriculture
methods to reduce poverty in developing countries, instead of unsustainable
and unsafe technologies such as GM. [Find details of local MPs at
www.locata.co.uk/commons]
If you are a Catholic:
*write a personal letter to the Vatican expressing concerns about GM crops and
the way in which biotech corporations are actively seeking the endorsement of
the church. [For a sample letter visit www.ciir.org or write to CIIR
Environmental Action at the address below]
(c) CIIR 2004 Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR) Unit 3, Canonbury Yard 190a New North Road London N1 7BJ Charity reg no 294329 Company reg no 2002500 In some countries CIIR is known as International Cooperation for Development (ICD)
Design: Twenty-Five Educational. Printed on 100% chlorine-free recycled paper by APG (APG holds ISO14001 accreditation for international environmental standards).
Produced with the financial assistance of the European Commission. The views
expressed herein are those of CIIR and can therefore in no way be taken to
reflect the official opinion of the European Commission.
www.ciir.org



Source: Agnet

Print Version
 

Seach the archive:  
or by date  

09 November 2009
Industry avoid the truth about GM segregation problems

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

News archive