Network of Concerned Farmers

Contamination of GM canola will occur and yet no contamination is acceptable in many markets. Zero tolerance of GM canola contamination is a market reality and yet a 1% tolerance of contamination is claimed as acceptable. This 1% limit stemmed from the labelling of some GM products and has little to do with the market reality.

Extract from the ACCC 'Genetically Modified Organisms and Foods' Produced by the ACCC Publishing Unit-12/01 "A 'GM free' claim leaves no room for ambiguity. The word 'free' is a very powerful marketing word with a precise meaning. In relation to content a 'free' claim is absolute and indicates that the product does not contain a particular attribute"

The Australian Oilseeds Federation (AOF) has defined non-GM canola to have a level of contamination of 0.9%. 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“.

Food Labelling:

A "GM" food label is not required unless there is more than 1% of DNA in finished product and is not applicable with canola oil but is applicable with canola meal. Farmers do not sell canola oil but canola seed and as GM is detectable, the product must be differentiated for market definition. Although 1% is claimed to be acceptable, this is not do do with market access, only food labels.

A "Non-GM" or "GM-free" product label is declaring the product has no GM contamination or was not produced using GM products. A declaration of guarantee of a non-GM status on selling produce may be required from farmers and is understandably preferred by marketers to avoid liability issues and rigorous testing regimes.

If labelled "non-GM" or "GM-free" "it is reasonably open to ordinary consumers to expect that the product does not contain any novel DNA and/or protein and that it had no contact with novel DNA and/or protein during the production process. If thye product does in fact contain novel DNA and/or protein or had contact with novel DNA and/or protein then in our view there is a real chance that the claim "non-GM" will be misleading, or likely to mislead and deceive and would therefore be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. This is so irrespective of whether the product falls within an exception under the mandatory labelling provisions."

A "may contain adventitious presence" Some markets allow a degree of "adventitious" presence of GM in a product presumed to be non-GM providing it does not need labels. This may require proof that all necessary required steps were taken to avoid contamination but accidental contamination to a specified percentage may be tolerated. A rigorous quality assurance system and traceable and auditable identity preservation system will be required to provide evidence of farm management practises taken to avoid contamination.

"Adventitious"definition : Adventitious means accidental and contamination can not be considered accidental if it is known and scientifically proven that contamination will occur and insufficient precautions have been taken. For instance, a 5metre buffer zone will not prevent pollen and direct seed spread and may not be considered as precautionary to prevent deliberate contamination, whereas a 3-5km buffer zone would be certainly considered the precautionary steps required as this distance is recommended by scientific studies. Using the same harvesting and storage and handling equipment to manage both GM and non-GM can not be considered as precautionary in preventing contamination if studies show contamination occurs. If there is reason to believe there is contamination, this no longer becomes "adventitious".

The Gene Technology Grains Committee (Australian "industry" committee charged with the responsibility for preparing coexistence protocols) gives the definition of "adventitious presence (AP) " as "accidental, unintentional presence of 'off-types'. The words "adventitious presence" are commonly used for characterizing unintentional presence of grain containing approved GM events in a non-GM grain. A certain level of adventitious presence of GM grain in non-GM grain is unavoidable with respect to the crop reproduction biology and the production processes. Although certain countries have begun adopting AP policy guidelines, widely recognized standards on the level of adventitious presence of GM grain in non-GM grain are still in the process of being developed. Where such standards do not exist, market specifications within a grain contract between the customer and the supplier of the grain are utilized to set limits on levels GM grain containing approved events in non-GM grain."

The Victorian government undertook an independent evaluation of GM crops and ACIL Tasmania and Farm Horizons presented a table (page 66) showing "Estimated average potential rates of adventitious presence at various stages of farm production." This table showed in one year alone, 0.83% contamination is expected based on the use of good agricultural practice and following the systems outlined in the Crop Management Plans. This included contamination of seed, cross pollination, volunteers, harvesting, transport and storage. (Report here) It does not take into account adverse conditions such as wind, flood and human error.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international trade agreement where consignments are to clarify if a load is GM/non-GM. This involves 110 countries that are signatory to the protocol and was introduced 11th September, 2003. Countries must document if there is a likely contamination in their produce with a "may contain GM" clause which could cause concern for markets. (If not documented as GM and over 5% contamination is detected in a consignment, this could cause rejection or major delays of the export of any produce to non-GM countries.) (more) This is already causing concern with the Canadian canola industry (more)

Supply chain indemnities and guarantees (such as WA Cooperative Bulk Handling) are requiring a guarantee of no contamination and a statement to indemnify the company if they cause contamination through their supply chain. (more) It will not be possible to test for low levels of GM contamination at receival points as there is no cheap, quick and reliable testing facility available. Although samples will be taken, this will be to deflect liability to the farmers that unknowingly delivered a contaminated sample but signed to accept liability for recall and contamination cleanup. It will be doubtful if this liability will be insurable as contamination will occur and markets are testing for GM content.

The Australian Wheat Board has claimed that over half of the volume of their wheat exports is at risk as one third of their customers are demanding a zero tolerance of GM canola in any consignment of wheat. more - (SA parliamentary hearing here) and (more)

The Australian Barley Board (here) and (here) and the Grainpool of WA (here) have indicated a similar zero tolerance reaction with barley and lupin markets.

The dairy industry require a guarantee that stock have not been fed on any GM grain. While some dairies have tolerance levels, others such as Tatura Milk do not. (more)

Producers of pork, lamb, beef and yabbies have indicated there is no tolerance of their stock being fed GM contaminated grain and contracts will need to be signed to verify this. (more)

Markets of hay, clover, wine and honey have requested a zero tolerance of GM in their produce or any process used to produce their product. For example, Cappilano honey has a requirement for beekeepers to sign to guarantee their bees have not been 5km or less from a GM site. (more)

The $300million organic industry require a zero tolerance of GM in any of their produce. (more)

ABARE reported: "The extent to which import bans on GM varieties spill over to affect trade in non-GM varieties is importantly determined by tolerances for accidental presence of unapproved GM varieties. For example, zero tolerance in an importing country for contamination with GM canola would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a country producing a mix of GM and non-GM canola to address that market. Whereas a tolerance of 5 percent, for example, would make access much easier and less costly because simple measures, such as appropriate buffer zones between GM and non-GM crops, and reasonable care with grain harvesting and handling arrangements, would enable that tolerance to be met"

Even with large trials, zero tolerance is impossible to achieve and yet zero tolerance is a market reality. Why ignore it and risk our agricultural industry in an effort to mislead farmers, government and the public into believing GM coexistence is possible?

While scientifically a 0.00% test result is impossible to achieve, the current PCR tests comfortably to 0.1% which is extremely difficult to meet given the promiscuity and difficulty in segregating canola. (more) While contamination will increase in the production of non-GM certified seed making it increasingly impossible to grow uncontaminated crops, testing methods will improve that will be able to detect even lower levels of contamination.

The current West Australian storage and handling company, Cooperative Bulk Handlers (CBH) Carters Delivery Form is typical of what to expect:

Lamb: "we're members of the Casmark Alliance with our lamb production. The latest newsletter advises of an opportunity to supply a market in the US called 'Natural Lamb'. This US retail market need QA requirements fulfilled and they clearly state that there is to be no GMO's in the feeding of the lambs they secure for their market. Castricum Bros., sheep/lamb processors in Dandenong Vic, have built up this producer/processor alliance over many years and held frequent workshops with its members across the south-east region of Australia to be better positioned to supply their export markets - in particular the US and now Japan. Just waiting to see how long before Japan starts asking for similar NON-GM lamb. I'm aware also that Tatiara Meats in SA also have a requirement for certain markets to be supplied NON-GM lamb." Helen Chambers, Victoria

1% contamination acceptable - quoted by Gene Technology Grains Committee Chairmen & AFFA in coexistence principles.

Legal opinion regarding "non-GM" definition (copy can be obtained by contacting julie@non-gm-farmers.com)

Dairy industry require zero GM contamination in feedstuff
WA has a moratorium on GM crops until 2006, but dairy farmers are concerned that feed sources coming from GM canola growing areas may be contaminated and their contracts have a zero tolerance for GMO's.
But quality assurance programs for the majority of Victorian dairy farmers require dairy feedstuffs remain free from GM components such as canola meal. (more)

Australian wheat markets at risk say AWB
He says a third of the company's customers already require certification on the GM-free status of their grain. "We would no longer be able to give them that certification, that to me is a fairly significant risk for a $4 billion - $5 billion industry. We have some concerns that the supply chain isn't able to meet our market demand to deliver wheat without adventitious contamination from GM material and specifically GM canola." (more)

US maintain pressure on EU claiming 0.9% impossible to comply
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, professor of agribusiness at the University of Missouri in Columbia, thinks meeting the 0.9% burden will be difficult or downright impossible depending on the crop and exactly what type of product we¹re talking about. (more)

0.9% threshold not accepted in EU markets "Then insisted that the 0.9% contamination threshold mandated by the European Union is irrelevant, because many German corn processors and millers will not accept corn with GM contamination above 0.2% to 0.4%." (more)

Zero tolerance is market demand

New Zealand sausage maker fined for GM content in GM-free sausages