18 September 2004

Links to other issues

Key issues: 1. There is no scientific reason why (and no independent trial evidence available that confirms the claim that) GM canola would yield more than conventional non-GM hybrids or chemical resistant canola. There is insufficient data available to show the exact additional costs expected for growers choosing to grow GM crops. 2. If introduced under existing principles, it is impossible to segregate GM and non-GM to the zero contamination tolerance level required by markets and legal definition. 3. If introduced under existing principles, there will be additional costs to both GM and non-GM farmers and a range of commody markets will be affected as consumers are rejecting any contamination with GM crops. 4. Under existing principles, the non-GM farmer is expected to be liable for economic loss caused by contamination but non-GM farmers refuse to compensate the GM industry. 5. In order to advance, the coexistence principles must ensure the GM industry is legally liable for any adverse economic impact caused by the introduction of their product.

* Globally, many GM farmers are being paid to grow GM crops through subsidies or direct payments (more here). There is no intention for the Australian government or the GM companies to pay Australian farmers in similar ways, therefore GM varieties need to perform as a productive crop for the GM farmer plus have the ability to fund any adverse impact on other industries (if reliant on common law, the GM farmer will be liable for losses to others and this may be uninsurable).   There is no evidence that GM crops will be competitive economically as there is no scientific reason why GM crops should yield more than non-GM hybrids or non-GM chemical resistant crops, therefore we need to compare the costs for chemical, seed and management. It appears that contrary to what is promoted,  these additional GM costs exceed the costs for non-GM alternatives.  - Invigor canola seed is far more expensive than conventional seed. Bayer Cropscience's glufosinate ammonium (the chemical the plant is bred to be resistant to) appears to be far more expensive and possibly less effective than the chemicals that we currently use on our non-GM chemical resistant crops (see below).  - Although exact costs are unavailable, Monsanto's technical user fees charged in Canada are well beyond the costs farmers expect to pay for seed royalties and are proportionate to what we (as a Newdegate, WA farmer) would expect to pay if leasing someone elses land. Because of the end-point royalty collection method proposed, Australian farmers are more vulnerable to spiralling costs and unwanted contamination triggering unwanted deduction of royalties on delivery. ** If costs are higher and returns the same or less (market resistance), there is NO economic benefit for GM crops. There is however, a huge economic risk and unfair liability impositions that must be addressed fairly prior to any plantings as already Australian farmers could be liable for any economic loss. Farmers can not afford and should not be expected to subsidise the GM industry.

Did you know that now that the OGTR has approved GM crops at a Federal level, they no longer guarantee a GM-free status and farmers are required to sign to guarantee a GM-free status of their produce? Unless addressed urgently, farmers could be liable for economic loss caused by trials.

Benefits are doubtful: Farmers need facts! eg. How can farmers make a decision to want to grow GM Invigor Canola without adequate information?    Benefits: Q1. Is there any scientific reason why GM canola will yield more than non-GM hybrids or chemical resistant canola? (A: Promotions claim increases in yield to 30% and one pro-GM activist even claimed visual evidence of 300% yield increases) *there is no scientific reason to support these claims.   Q2. What benefit? Where is the hard data showing yields in tonne/ha for independent trials and for previous trials to enable comparison between this information to the area average for the same season? (A: not available - despite Bayer Cropscience having over 300 trials covering over 1200 ha this information remains commercial in confidence and yields are not provided publicly in tonne/ha.) The best yield Monsanto had on their website was 1.055 tonne/ha which is 17% below the national average. WA Ag Dept testing showed Invigor yields similar to triazine tolerant varieties which are known for their yield penalties. Both Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience have declined from participating in independent trials.   Q3. Is there proof that there is not a yield penalty using glufosinate or glyphosate post emergent? (A:not available yet it is claimed that there is no yield penalty) -  The Scientist magazine reported a yield penalty for post emergent applications of glyphosate. We need independent data showing unsprayed/one/two applications of glufosinate or glyphosate to check this (with alternative weed control to ensure weeds do not influence results.)     Costs: Q4. What is the price of GM canola seed? (A: not available "commercial in confidence") *it was revealed in the WA parliamentary hearing that Bayer Cropscience's Invigor canola "seed will sell for about $16/kg. Details are not available from Monsanto.   Q5. What is the price of glufosinate Ammonium (Liberty) per litre. (A: not available "commercial in confidence") *it was revealed in the WA parliamentary hearing that the recommended retail price for Glufosinate ammonium at the recommended application of 2 passes (no residual) at 2 litres/ha would be $74/ha which equates to $18.50 / litre.   Q6. What spray regime and rate is needed to kill our most common weeds in Invigor canola? (A: label not available on APVMA site and Bayer Cropscience refuse to issue label. Freedom of Information request has been lodged with APVMA) the Basta label (not registered for use on Invigor but it is the only label available on glufosinate ammonium) is available on Bayers site (*here) ) Note: The same pre-emergent chemicals (Trifluralin and glyphosate) plus an additional 2 separate post emergent applications of 2 litres/ha of glufosinate ammonium was recommended to WA parliament. Many weeds and crop volunteers listed on the Basta label as requires more than 2 litres/ha to control weeds (eg. wheat and radish require 5 l/ha, Turnip, Mintweed and Wild Oats 3-5 l/ha, Ryegrass and Silver Grass 2-5 l/ha, Capeweed and Wireweed 1.5 - 5 l/ha, Brome grass 2-3 l / ha. If the Liberty glufosinate label is the same as the Basta glufosinate label and 2 applications are necessary, post emergent weed control costs could be as high as $185/ha)   Q7. How effective is control, will additional post emergent selectives be needed on some weeds eg. radish? (A:information not available as radish has not been grown in OGTR trials to date) Note: the following was included on label "Notes: 1. Well established clumps of Prairie grass and Brome grasses may only be suppressed at these rates. Follow-up treatments may be necessary to control regrowth. 2. Good control will be achieved on small and medium sized plants only in non-crop situation."   Q8. What is involved in the crop management plans and what is the additional cost? (A: not available "commercial in confidence") Bayer Cropscience have question/answer response on their website but details are limited to "The CMP (crop management plans) deals with important issues including neighbour notification, control of volunteer canola, machinery hygiene and buffer zones." The additional costs for segregation and identity preservation estimated by ABARE was 10% of the farm gate value of the product, Susie O'Neill claimed in the WA parliamentary hearing that 5% was Bayer Cropscience's estimation for the GM grower. These costs are considerably more if less than 1% contamination is required. *it was revealed in the WA parliamentary hearing that Bayer Cropscience would only charge a $10 fee for license, however Monsanto will not give details of their costs but significant user fees are expected to be recovered by end-point royalties.   Q9. What details are in the contract GM farmers will be expected to sign. (A:not available "commercial in confidence")   Q10. Farmers intending to grow GM must also gain legal liability advise:  If a farmer is to grow GM crops, are they liable for economic losses caused by contaminating neighbouring crops (This has been confirmed and considered acceptable by Bayer Cropscience in their parliamentary hearing) and is this liability insurable (not likely at this stage)? Because of this liability, will growing GM canola affect a GM farmers land values and equity? (This has been confirmed)   Isn't it strange that farmers have not been told these basic facts yet are supposed to make the decision to grow it? How can farmers claim Bayer Cropscience's Invigor canola or Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola will benefit them economically when there is no information available to come to this conclusion?   Significantly more non-GM canola is being grown in Canada than GM Invigor canola, yet the pro-GM activists claim "everybody else is doing it" which is not a good enough reason to adopt GM crops. Australian farmers have far better alternatives in our existing non-GM varieties.

Risks are real: The GM industry is pushing for coexistence trials to test if GM, non-GM and organic can coexist together. However, it is being ignored that it can be scientifically proven that coexistence plans will fail. Issue: Questions Have you looked beyond the Yes/No stance of the GM debate? Do you think the principle of responsibility for coexistence for GM crops with non-GM crops should be based on ; the GM grower to keep GM crops contained ; or for the non-GM grower to keep GM contamination out (as proposed under current protocols)? Should trade definitions in the coexistence plans comply with law? (The ACCC and lawyers have confirmed that under the Trade Practices Act, in order to make a positive label claim of either "non-GM" or "GM-free" there must be NO trace of contamination present. However the committee that have prepared coexistence plans claim that contamination is impossible to control so will be accepted.) Prior to accepting coexistence plans, should there be proof of widespread education and acceptance, that no sector of industry is faced with unmanageable problems and that no sector of industry is faced with additional costs and liabilities without approval from that sector of industry? Do you expect non-GM farmers to sell crops mixed with GM canola if crops and stock return a lower price or meets market resistance (as proposed under current protocols)? If non-GM farmers must guarantee no contamination on delivery (as per receival point delivery dockets), should they accept any GM contamination in the Non-GM canola seed they plant (The seed industry currently allows a tolerance of 0.5% GM contamination in non-GM seed)? Do you support the retention of the right for non-GM farmers to replant their own seeds (this right is denied in the proposed coexistence plans)? Should there be risk management to ensure detection of an unwanted trace of GM contamination at delivery points does not trigger a deduction of a patent user fee from the non-GM growers income through end-point royalties? If GM canola is introduced and contamination or loss of GM-free status causes economic loss to others, do you think farmers should be compensated? Who do you think should be liable for any economic loss caused by GM contamination or loss of GM-free status: the non-GM grower (as proposed under current protocols); the GM grower; the owner of the patent (ie. Monsanto / Bayer Cropscience); and/or the government who approved GM release?  Would you support a strict GM liability regime in legislation to ensure farmers are protected from unfair liability under law? Should states allow GM crops to be grown if market and economic risk can not be managed?

2004 summary (here)

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.

Key issue for the Network of Concerned Farmers: Non-GM farmers do not, and should not be expected to, accept liability for economic loss caused by GM contamination. LIABILITY See (*here) for more details

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)

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."

Yes... farmers do want risk management! We launched a survey at the Newdegate Field Day and found no farmers were against risk management for the risks we identified.                Farmers do not approve of the existing coexistence principles, they want principles that will ensure non-GM farmers are not affected, are protected by legislation and compensated for financial loss. More details (here) Coming soon... website survey. Your chance to have your say.

Australia remains GM free! Thank You. Please thank your state government for taking action to protect our industry by refusing GM food crops. Even trials have been restricted with both Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience refusing to participate in independent performance trials. 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.

For farmers, the GM debate is not about a Yes/No for GM crops It is about a Yes/No for risk management. A NO for GM crops is logical if risks can not be managed.                                 The Network of Concerned Farmers are "for risk-management" and "anti-farmers-being-lied to". (see here) What does the Network of Concerned Farmers want? (See here) To prevent adverse impact on others, we believe the GM industry must be liable for GM containment and all associated risks with GM release. The NCF will not support commercial release until risks can be managed fairly. We strongly support GM being used in the laboratory to fast-track non-GM plant breeding varieties with selected traits as this will provide benefits without the risks. For more details on our NCF banner & flyer (see here)

TRIALS: There appears to be a little confusion around regarding trials and implications of trials. Any varieties approved by the OGTR are approved and the OGTR has nothing more to do with them unless they are the tail end of a long term trial that the OGTR started. What that means is that commercial release is accepted on a Federal scale. It also means the OGTR no longer issues certificates that guarantee a "GM-free" status for Australia to quarantine if requested for export consignments. The exporters need some sort of guarantee of GM free status and they are asking the farmers selling as GM-free to sign guarantees of GM free status. These contractual guarantees are legally binding and have no tolerance of contamination in a GM-free consignment and the liability falls back on non-GM farmers if contamination is found and if samples can prove who caused the contamination. State governments have called moratoriums and are considering trials or allowing trials. Unless there are specific conditions imposed in the exemption from moratoriums, any "trials" can be any size and under the same conditions as commercial release.

The pressure is on to introduce "coexistence trials" in order to test the canola stewardship protocols. These protocols can not comply with their promised aims, are based on definitions that are illegal and have not been approved by farmers that are expected to tolerate unacceptable costs and liabilities. The Gene Technology Grains Committee (GTGC) principles are a farce and have only addressed how GM canola can be integrated to gain priority over the existing supply chain NOT to provide a principle for coexistence for GM and non-GM. (more here) Farmers do not mind other farmers having a choice… but we DO mind if it impacts negatively on our income. Coexistence trials will jeopardise our GM-free status.

"If the GM industry believed their own propaganda regarding risks and benefits... they would not be refusing to participate in independent trials and they would not be refusing to accept liability for the consequences of GM introduction." Julie Newman NCF

Australia has approved GM canola crops on a Federal level because Federal does not assess economics or agricultural related issues. States hold responsibility for land use and State Acts include the role to assess economics and agricultural issues. Accordingly, all suitable canola growing states have declared a moratorium or ban on GM crops due to market risk. Since Federal approval and state bans, trials can only be grown under specific "exemption of moratorium" and each state differs in conditions. Some trials are still under the umbrella of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) on a Federal level.

Backdoor commercial release trials have been refused by States as unless "trials" are restricted, they are under the same conditions as commercial release. Monsanto has since withdrawn from all trials. Bayer Cropscience refused to participate in trials in NSW due to an unwillingness to independently compare their variety in an adverse season and unhappiness at restrictive conditions. (See here for NSW exemption order) Small trials in South Australia and Victoria will be the only GM canola grown in Australia (not under the strict restrictions of the OGTR). Neither trial appears to compare agronomic performance with popular non-GM varieties and Victorian trials appear to be for seed bulking for export. South Australia has strict conditions similar to OGTR conditions (here) . Neither state appears to have addressed liability for risk of loss to the states GM-status adequately, or insisted on independent review or transparency. See Victorian conditions (here)

Contamination is uncontrollable (photos) See (here) for a pictorial to explain how contamination will occur. How a windstorm can blow billions of seeds for long distances...    =  or how a willy-willy might cause a legal nightmare for farmers.     =       The chief debate centres around a market reality that no contamination is to be detected and an industry expectation that contamination is impossible to control so will have to be tolerated. This is not acceptable when farmers will be liable for costs incurred for not being able to deliver a product markets are demanding. Contamination will occur and farmers will not accept GM contamination if we are to be liable for it, nor will we accept the loss of our valuable non-GM status. (more photos here) See (here) for what will happen when contamination occurs.

Heard the one about: "90% of Canada's canola is GM" ... when only 68% is. or "GM yields more" ... when it yields less. For these and more, see our furphies section (here)

Our aim to encourage accurate information and we welcome feedback. If you feel there is anything incorrect in our articles, please contact  julie@non-gm-farmers.com with details for verification. Thank you.

GM canola will not only affect canola farmers but all markets. eg.Half of our wheat export volume is to have no tolerance of GM canola present which will be impossible to achieve. Either farmers growing GM crops or the GM industry should be liable for all economic loss associated with GM crops.

Farmers can't benefit with the introduction of GM canola: Many are getting very emotional at GM bans and claim some want to grow it despite no evidence of benefits, depite no risk management in place and despite the selfish attitude that the non-GM growers should accept costs and liabilities in order to subsidise the GM industry. There is a real need for a full comprehensive unbiased economic report as those released to date have focussed on the benefits claimed by the biotechnology companies and have excluded incorporating the costs to the industry in their summaries. (more here) Comparisons with existing Non-GM crop (%age increase/decreased yield/price/costs): GM GROWER: Option: Must market as GM TOTAL = Minus 17% to Minus 48% Economic decision = No benefit   NON-GM GROWER: 1. Option: Market as Non-GM TOTAL – Minus 10-20% + liability extending to $millions Economic decision = Not Viable & not sustainable   2. Option: Market as GM TOTAL – Minus 10% + future risk and restrictions Economic decision = Very high Risk if all Australian farmers market as GM

Monsanto monopoly on seeds: "... a lawsuit filed last month by Basel, Switzerland-based Syngenta, the world's biggest agrichemicals company and bitter Monsanto rival, alleges that since the 1990s, Monsanto has "maintained and increased its monopoly power in multiple markets through a series of coercive tactics and exclusive dealing arrangements designed to keep out all competition."       The petition, filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, says Monsanto has set up unfair "bundling" deals that induce seed companies to make sure sales across all product lines are at least 70 percent Monsanto brands." see (here) "Monsanto today announced it has acquired the North American canola seed assets of Advanta B.V." ""This is an exciting acquisition for Monsanto Canada as it allows us to bring together two very successful canola seed companies." "The combination of DEKALB(R) and ADVANTA(R) will create a new canola seed business second to none in the market." see (here)

Why should moratoriums put the biotechnology industry in to "crisis" as claimed? GM is only a very small part of biotechnology and GM food crops even less. We do have better non-GM biotechnology opportunities that are covered by plant breeder rights rather than patents. With end-point royalties non-GM biotechnology can offer significant investor returns for the more popular varieties. "The public argument about genetically modified organisms, I think, will soon be a thing of the past," he says. "The science has moved on." "Researchers are beginning to understand plants so precisely that they no longer need transgenics (GMO's) to achieve traits like drought resistance, durability, or increased nutritional value." article here "Finally, there is the question of whether Thailand is really missing anything if it doesn't jump on the 'biotechnology train' of genetic engineering. The government claims the country shouldn't miss this train because it involves cutting-edge technology for the future. But the fact is that much of the scientific knowledge that was used to create genetic engineering has now come under serious challenge. Far from being cutting edge, it now appears outdated and defunct. Unexpected and unintended things are happening, and the basic assumptions of GE science have been turned on their heads. Instead of being a new cutting-edge technology that Thailand should embrace, it has already become a faulty, unreliable technology - outdated and riddled with risks. So it seems that the Thai public is being asked to jump on board the GMO train without being told the whole truth." (here) "I don't think any of us would disagree that, if an alternative exists to a GE solution, it's to be preferred"  Mr Hodson QC, acting on behalf of the Life Sciences Network at the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, 8th  Feb 2001 "At the 55th Annual Corn and Sorghum Seed Research Conference Proceedings held by the American Seed Trade Association in December of 2000, Drs. Major M. Goodman and Martin L. Carson of North Carolina State University added to the growing evidence that genetic engineering is much more expensive and less effective than plant breeding." (here) An alternative does exist - non-GM is the best of biotechnology. Farmers certainly will benefit more with non-GM varieties.

It appears GM canola does NOT yield more than non-GM canola in Australia. If there is no yield benefit but there is increased costs and market risk to all farmers ... why introduce it without risk management?  Updated article (here)  GM canola may not be performing in Canada as well as claimed (here) A reason "Roundup Ready" crops have reductions in yield has been explained in an article by Charles Q Choi (here)   "The Scientist" quoting Henry Daniell, professor of molecular biology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando "Currently, Roundup Ready plants do not detoxify glyphosate, but rather overproduce EPSPS to resist lethal glyphosate levels, Daniell said. In these plants, the herbicide still accumulates in meristems, where it may interfere with reproductive development and lower crop yield." Monsanto has released their Crop Management Plans and as feared, there is no protection for the growers not wishing to grow GM crops in order to protect our consumer preferred markets. See (here)

Why were farmers encouraged to break the law? The GM industry is claiming 0.9% contamination is acceptable in a "non-GM" or "GM-free" consignment because contamination will occur. The law states a positive claim of "non-GM" or "GM-free" means there is to be NO contamination. Why is our industry ignoring legal advise and expecting farmers to accept liability and subsidise the GM industry? According to our Federal Ag Ministry (AFFA or DAFF) -Liability Issues Associated with GM Crops in Australia  "the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has indicated that "GM-free" crops must not contain any trace of GMOs whatsoever" and "A GM free claim leaves no room for ambiguity. Such a claim is absolute and indicates that the product does not contain novel DNA and /or novel protein of any percentage. To avoid liability for misleading or deceptive conduct or under Sale of Goods legislation, manufactures and retailers should exercise caution to ensure that any voluntary claims are accurate". Federal Senate estimates, 16th Feb. Hansard Chair (Senator Heffernan) "What market research has AFFA undertaken to ensure markets accept a level of contamination?" Dr Sampson "I am not aware at this point we have undertaken any research like that". Before accepting GM technology there needs to be a clear indication from markets that they will accept GMs in a GM-free consignment. To guess and hope is not a good enough guarantee for farmers when it is expected that farmers are to be liable. Australia is not prepared for proposed commercial trials. Click (here) for more details.

First visit to this site and suffering information overload?  Where to first? Welcome to our site and thank you for your interest. Overview Click (*here)   for10 reasons for concern, Click (*here )   for summary; Problem?  Click (*here )  to view contamination photos; Click (*here) for hypothetical farmer to farmer letters explaining possible problems in the future and (*here) to see possible legal outcomes due to contamination. Risks?   Click (*here )  for zero contamination tolerance is unachievable but is market demand; Benefits? Click (*here )  for "Do GM crops yield more?"; World News  Click (*here )  for news archives; Click (here) to  subscribe to our mailing list  to recieve regular GM updates involving 2-3 emails per month, mainly current news stories and press releases. (note categories are limited, please use any category if yours is not listed) For those not very computer literate: when there is a (here) or (more) or (ref...)  it means you position your pointer on those words and click your mouse and it will link on to the reference. To get back to the original article again you click on the "Back" button on the top left of your screen. To return to the main homepage, click on the "Home " button on the top of the Network of Concerned Farmers screen. The Network of Concerned Farmers is an independent not-for-profit alliance of farmers with a common interest to provide legislative protection to manage risks associated with GM crops.

"WHY ALLOW CONTAMINATION WITH GMO's IF MARKETS DON’T WANT IT?" George P. Kailis WA - original donor for the framework of the NCF website.

Dept Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry – Australia : Draft "Biotechnology Strategy for Agriculture, Food and Fibre" pg 5. "Once GM crops are released into the commercial environment, AQIS will no longer be able to issue certificates with an accompanying statement from the OGTR verifying that GM varieties of the commodity being certified had not been released for commercial sale in Australia. In the absence of such OGTR statements, and if an importing country government has an appropriate basis for requesting GM certification, the following two options would have to be addressed, before AQIS could certify the commodity or product for export: · A traceable and auditable identity preservation system; and/or · A robust and reliable testing regime." Our industry does not have a widespread traceable and auditable identity preservation system OR a robust and reliable testing regime. Our industry is not prepared.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Director of the Institute of Science in Society:     "There is no "anti-GM brigade". There are ordinary citizens angry at the lies they've been told, and the undemocratic way in which GM crops are foisted on them."

OGTR, FSANZ (and the US FDA) approval is based on Monsanto's food safety testing that must be submitted with their application for license. “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food.... Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job” —Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communications, Monsanto, quoted in New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998 “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.” — FDA, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties” (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 22991(Note: the FDA performs the same role as FSANZ does in Australia) Food Safety Australia New Zealand approved GM corn without reviewing hard data - they trusted Monsanto's word. (more here)

Would you be happy with less for your canola? Non-GM farmers are expected to market as GM if GM is introduced commercially.We have been misled to believe there is no premium for non-GM canola but there is now clear evidence that non-GM canola does receive premiums - or more appropriately, GM receives discounts. Canada does not segregate their canola and almost all is considered GM, whereas Australian canola is currently all non-GM.  From 1990-2000 prior to more serious GM rejection, Canada averaged US$32.38/tonne premium over Australian canola  (see article here). Since Jan 2001 there has been a significant change. ABARE previously reported "There is some evidence that the gap between Canadian and Australian canola prices has narrowed in recent years which is consistent with improved demand for non–GM canola." If Australia took the GM route, we could be receiving far less for our canola. The choice of some to adopt GM should not negatively impact on others! (see here for more details) The non-GM farmers options are very restricted (hypothetical here) You don't have to be too smart to want to avoid the GM market!

More news? Click (here) for archives. Subscribe to our free newsletter for news updates. Click (here) for more details.

Australians are told we have one of the most rigorous GM health and environmental testing regimes in the world through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.         Have we ??? The following is a Senate estimates transcript with Sue Meek, OGTR. Senator CHERRY, Have you commissioned any research on impact on biodiversity in Australia of GM crops? Dr Meek, No, we have not. ... Senator CHERRY, What research have you commissioned on the issue of human health effects of GM crops? Dr Meek, Directly, we have not commissioned research. Obviously, Food Standards Australia New Zealand does a lot of work in assessing food products. Senator CHERRY, But they have commissioned no research either. ... Senator CHERRY, What does human health mean under your act then? Dr Meek, It can be things to do with occupational health and safety issues, for example...It is human health outside the food side of things. (More here) More about health - see www.iher.org.au

Recommendation to Victorian Government by Professor Peter J Lloyd (independent adviser)  "Release of GM canola for commercial production would be subject to whatever regulations and controls are deemed necessary to manage the risks. The State of Victoria, or the cooperating States as a group if cooperation among growing states is possible, would determine industry standards. Self-regulation by the industry does not adequately address the issues in an industry with systemic problems affecting other stakeholders."

Non-GM growers do not approve coexistence plans that place all the costs and liabilities on to those that do not want to grow GM crops. It will be too difficult and too expensive to market as non-GM. If farmers lose the ability to market as non-GM... Consumers will not have the choice to avoid GM.

"The total acreage devoted to GM crops around the world is expanding. That may be what eventually brings the debate to an end. It's a hell of a thing to say that the way we win is don't give the consumer a choice, but that might be it."  (Western Producer, 4/4/02) Dale Adolphe - President of the Canadian Seed Growers Association and previous president of the Canola Council of Canada.  Proposed crop management plans and coexistence principles will ensure that it is too difficult and too expensive for farmers to market as Non-GM or GM-free. Consumers will not have a choice if farmers can not market to consumer demand. See (here) for details of how the US has demanded via the WTO that the EU abandon its ban on the growing of genetically modified crops and pay at least $1.8bn US in compensation for loss of exports over the past six years.

Does this explain one reason why the GM area is increasing? "United States farmers received government subsidies to grow Roundup Ready soybean instead of the varieties they were used to. So they were financially better off replacing their old varieties, even though they had to pay Monsanto for the seeds and the herbicide, and the yield from Roundup Ready soybean is less than that of other varieties by about 10%." Quote from scientist Dr David Murray. Author of a book called Seeds of Concern: The Genetic Manipulation of Plants. ABC transcript (here) 50% of total US farm subsidies are received by the soya and maize sector (the major GM crops) with soya being subsidised 20-25% of the market value. Emergency bills introduced to compensate for low commodity prices and market loss assistance escalated annual subsidy payments from $3billion in 1999 to $11.1billion in 2000. (reference part 3, pg 12 here)

Farmers far more cautious than portrayed Although a few farm lobby leaders portray industry support for GM crops, the farmers are far more cautious and this is reflected in lobby group policies which are more in line with the cautious NCF views than with the personal views of some farm lobby leaders. Extracts: The Grains Council of Australia has identified the need for "appropriate procecures and standards in place prior to the commercial release of any GM crops." WAFarmers has identified Key Industry Requirements including the need to ensure there is no unacceptable costs or liabilities to all growers and that no additional costs or liabilities be imposed on non-GM growers than what would be expected of any other variety. Others include protection of current systems (farmer viability), legal recourse (farmer liability) and whole of supply chain acceptance. The New South Wales Farmers Association policy has requested postponement of general release plans for GM canola "until marketing and trade issues are fully addressed by government and industry’". Some of the issues/questions identified by NSWFA were: Agronomic performance, Insurance, Liability, Segregation and Marketing and trade. The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) supports gene technology "provided the concerns and recognised risks associated with the technology are managed."... however, this has now been replaced to VFF supports biotechnology..."We also recognise the concerns associated with techniques such as genetic engineering..." South Australian Farmers Federation position included to "ensure that the diversity of our farming systems is maintained through establishing adequate protocols, to enable co-existence of GM, non-GM and organic production." They identified the need to deny commercial release "until a greater understanding of marketing, preservation strategies and robust stewardship programs are in place". SAFF also recognised "there must be no negative impact on those who choose not to embrace the technology." Agforce Queensland Grains insists that if a GMO is commercially released "producers choosing to utilise their traditional or current marketing and production system should not be negatively impacted in regard to supply chain costs or market access." There are currently no accepted coexistence plans that address these identified problems. The Gene Technology Grains Committee has ignored the impositions on non-GM growers in the preparation of their claimed "coexistence principles" and they have almost entirely concentrated on gaining priority for the GM production chain post-farmgate. Why then are lobby group leaders going against the policies they represent in order to claim a pro-GM stance pushing for no risk management? For full policies: See articles: "Farmer policies" (here) and "Farmer surveys" (here) Gene Technology Grains Committee Coexistence principles (here)

Is the Grains Industry prepared? Is the Industry prepared? - A checklist

Have you considered future risks? If health problems are confirmed, how will GM crops be recalled? If the promised future of GM crops is in growing crops for pharmaceutical and industrial use, how can other farmers grow an uncontaminated food crop when there will be no consumer tolerance of contamination with these GM traits? As more GM varieties are introduced, what impact will genestacking (common stacking of dominant GM traits) have on our food supply? We could produce a dominating "stacked" plant that has a cross of pharmaceuticals/industrials/and is resistant to multiple chemicals, diseases and seasonal variations. Can we control a hardy potentially inedible plant - if not, how will we feed the future generation? Can we integrate risk management? Are we irreversibly contaminating the worlds food supply?

Seeds of Doubt Soil Association Report - Seeds of Doubt: North American farmers' experiences of GE crops is the first comprehensive study into the economic and social impacts of Genetically Engineered crops in North America.

The purpose of our website? ... Farmers want facts not fairy dust! Contrary to what farmers are being misled to believe... benefits do not outweigh risks, risks outweigh benefits. The NCF is a not-for-profit alliance of farmers (See funding article here) This website is managed on a voluntary basis by Julie Newman julie@non-gm-farmers.com