| Liability
(Extract from "Meeting of the Minds" Canberra, July 2005)
You wouldn’t believe your luck if your company was given government approval to release your non-recallable, self replicating patented product and given permission to increase costs to your oppositions customers and devalue their products. You wouldn’t believe the government would also exempt you from any damages your product caused.
On the other hand, imagine how angry you would be if you owned a successful business that sells products that your customers want when you find your government has given permission to allow your opposition to vandalise your merchandise making it less saleable and you must give a proportion of your lowered income to pay for allowing this to occur.
This anti-competitive practise wouldn’t happen in any other business, so why are GM crops so different?
Farmers don’t have to be too smart to want to avoid market rejection. If Non-GM farmers don’t want GM contamination, have no way of preventing it, no practical or economical way of detecting if it is present, or removing it if it is … why should we be liable for economic loss caused by it?
Already we have Australian Non-GM canola contaminated by GM canola and everyone is running around saying “she’ll be right mate” but expect farmers to pay for losses.
Farmers will not accept the liability for economic loss caused by a GM crop we do not want and do not need and this issue must be resolved as a matter of urgency.
Who's liable for misleading and deceptive promotion? GM canola has been promoted to have far more qualities than the single gene technology giving chemical resistance and there have been many attacks on the preferred non-GM alternatives. We will have pro-GM supporters waving the flag claiming anything from higher yields to drought tolerance but evidence of adverse performance is suppressed and independent trials have been denied.
If introduced, GM farmers will regret not insisting on independent trials as they will be expected to suffer the economic loss associated with giving GM crops a try and finding costs, not yields, are higher.
We have seen how the supposed “informed debate” has lead to risks being ignored, trivialised or understated and the risk management proposed being inadequate and leading to poor industry and political support.
Production is market driven, which means farmers can not dictate to markets, markets dictate to farmers. Markets are demanding a Non-GM product and non-GM means no GM. It is not 1% contaminated which is the trigger for a “GM” label and not 2% contaminated which is the “same as other grains”.
The ACCC has confirmed that legally no GM is accepted in Non-GM labelled products or in stock fed GM products.
Our own Federal FSANZ was involved in successfully suing a company for misleading labelling for as low as 0.0088% contamination… yet those pushing GM have the audacity to ignore the fact that tolerance levels are not accepted simply because they know contamination can not be controlled to this level.
Setting a “tolerance level” is not the hurdle, the hurdle is to set a tolerance level that is accepted by law and by all of our markets. Industry representatives can not continue to lie to farmers and expect us to pay for the consequences!
Who's liable for coexistence failing? Our industry is not prepared for GM crops as there are no approved coexistence protocols.
Coexistence principles must comply with the aim of coexistence, must comply with law and market demand, must be widely understood and accepted and must not impose unacceptable costs and liabilities on those that do not approve of this imposition. The responsibility for the control of contamination and the liability for failure can not rest with farmers not wanting to be negatively impacted by GM crops.
The Gene Technology Grains Committee principles fail on all counts and deny coexistence. It is very clear that the real aim of the biased GTGC is to ensure farmers lose our ability to market as non-GM without farmers realising it until it is too late.
These outrageous GTGC principles are not practical, fair or ethical and have not been endorsed. Farmers are owed a duty of care and will not remain complacent.
Another imposition of the “coexistence” plans were that both non-GM farmers and GM farmers lose our right to replant our own seed as even non-GM farmers must buy new seed every year. (An additional cost of around $300,000 for our farm alone.)
Buying new non-GM seed is an even worse problem when the seed industry has set an “allowable” GM contamination tolerance level of 0.5% in non-GM seed.
Planting the crop from this contaminated seed could result in thousands of GM plants/ha and therefore crops derived from this seed will not be able to be marketed as “non-GM”.
This is only an attempt to transfer the liability to non-GM farmers.
When delivering our grain, we will need to indicate if our load contains any GM.
There is no accurate field test available as strip tests will only give a maybe Yes or maybe No answer and will not detect the low levels demanded by markets.
Already, grain receival points and supply chain participants have GM clauses integrated in their contractual agreements. Farmers are signing to say that our grain does not include any trace of GM grain and that we indemnify the company concerned if they cause any contamination of our produce. This is how the supply chain will deflect liability to the non-GM farmer.
In effect due to signing this agreement, the non-GM farmer is liable for any actions, claims and demands arising from any GM contamination throughout the supply chain, and traceability through quality assurance schemes ensures this guarantee is enforceable.
The non-GM farmer is expected to be liable for the price difference if grain is downgraded to GM, for recall and contamination cleanup if caused, for the GM testing costs throughout the supply chain, for the additional closed loop segregation costs, and in some cases even expensive GM user fees due to end point royalty arrangements.
This is an outrageous imposition and non-GM farmers should not be expected to accept these costs and impositions.
There is no problem with biotechnology, it is only with GM technology but GM is being pursued by our government because millions of dollars have been invested by governments in GM technology in the hope that the scientific sector will be self funding. No real benefits have been forthcoming and market risk is rapidly worsening.
No government should sacrifice a viable industry in order to prop up a high risk, failing, fledgling industry and if they do, somebody other than farmers or taxpayers should be liable for the consequences.
Why should we believe those pushing GM crops when they say there is no risk if they expect us to take the liability if they are wrong?
The market reality is that much of our produce is threatened by GM contamination. A $12.25 billion/year industry is at risk and Australia must take this risk seriously. We must ensure no legislation imposes unfair risks and liabilities to the existing industry.
GM crops are the biggest threat to the agricultural industry we have ever faced and industry leaders have no right to accept GM contamination and industry sabotage on behalf of farmers that can not afford to accept it.
Companies must be liable for economic loss caused by their product, not the farmers who want to avoid these risks.
As recognised by the Federal report titled “Liability Issues Associated with GM crops in Australia”, common law does not adequately address liability issues as there is little chance for legal recourse by non-GM farmers. Legal action will be very expensive and the outcomes will be doubtful.
Contamination will occur and economic loss will occur but who do you think should be liable?
The non-GM grower as proposed? Nobody should expect Non-GM farmers to compensate the GM industry.
The GM grower? Friends against friends? No as our social structure is reliant on each other.
The Governments… that means you, the taxpayer? If liability is not addressed governments have clearly neglected their duty of care and farmers will be insisting on compensation.
Or the GM companies? GM companies know their product is uncontrollable and has the potential to cause economic loss. Like any other company, they must be held accountable for any losses caused by the introduction of their product. If you think liability is an unfair burden to the GM industry, why do you think those farmers not wanting to grow these crops should accept this liability?
If GM crops are to be introduced, work out a way where they do not impact negatively on others.
Australia must integrate a strict liability clause to both State and Federal Acts.
Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers |
