Pressures in the GM debate:
GM companies: Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience have invested huge sums of money in to GM crops and incentives to promote it and will make a loss if GM canola is not introduced. As there is little advantage in growing GM canola, the GM companies want GM introduced in a way where non-GM farmers lose their right to market as non-GM in opposition.
Scientists: Under pressure to be cost recovery based and due to the higher expense in advanced biotechnology techniques (not just GM) need more funding. Corporate companies are investing in science if GM is accepted eg. CSIRO announced a lucrative investment deal from Bayer Cropscience the day Federal approval was given for Invigor canola. No doubt there will be a similar deal if State moratoriums are lifted.
Federal Government: Signed an intergovernment agreement to support biotechnology (not just GM) and have invested greatly in to research and development of GM in the hope that the patents will return profits. US government via WTO is putting significant pressure on the Federal Government to level the playing field and remove Australia's GM-free status.
State Governments: Have invested less in to GM but have the legislated responsibility to assess economics and markets and aware that farmers may seek compensation from State governments if this duty of care is ignored.
Farmers: For GM - many have believed the propaganda that GM canola will achieve benefits not related to the GM process. eg. higher yields (unsubstantiated and unrelated to GM), drought tolerance (false), sowing dry (false) - all unsubstantiated claims that do not relate to the single gene technology of chemical resistance only). These farmers have not assessed costs or benefits accurately. eg. Bayer Cropscience chemical is far more expensive than the non-GM alternative and yet it does not control weeds as well including radish. Crp management plans are still "commercial in confidence" so costs can not be calculated.
Farmers: Not for GM - simply do not want to be adversely impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need yet if risks are not managed, non-GM farmers will be seriously adversely impacted by them.
Consumers: majority don't want GM and do not want to pay more for choice.
Markets: majority don't want GM and will insist on guarantees from farmers that GM is not present in non-GM consignments. If contamination is found, prices penalties will apply.
Non-GM farmers will be the most adversely impacted and we insist on fair risk management - a strict liability regime to ensure the GM company is liable for any adverse impacts caused by their product.
Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers
