|
Farmers Weekly "Legal cloud for farms"
By SHANNON BARACLOUGH Thursday, 28 November 2002
GRAIN growers could face litigation after genetically modified crops are introduced, unless the Federal Gene Bill is modified to protect non-GM growers.
Newdegate farmer and GMO activist Julie Newman is very concerned about grain grower protection and has accused the Federal Government of negligence in its legislation on GM crop issues.
Mrs Newman said existing legislation could leave non-GM grain growers exposed to a legal backlash, or the financial responsibility for a product recall, in the incident of accidental contamination of a non-GM food crop by a GM crop.
Insurance companies have indicated GM liability will be uninsurable due uncontrollable contamination.
Mrs Newman was trying to draw the State and Federal Government's attention to the shortfalls in the legislation which she claimed left farmers unprotected.
"Farmers are extremely vulnerable because of this legislation," she said.
In a bid to protect non-GM grain growers, Ms Newman suggested the biotechnology companies involved be responsible for segregation costs imposed on non-GM growers.
"It appears the biotechnology companies are imposing all costs the liability onto farmers, which will make growing non-GM canola impossible," she said.
"It should not be considered unreasonable for all costs and liabilities to be the legislated responsibility of the biotechnology company for the introduction of their product."
Although some GM proponents play down the prevalence of cross contamination in canola, many scientists and farmers disagree.
Mrs Newman said in many cases those that dismiss cross-contamination, between neighbouring crops, base their assumptions on a one-year model.
The one-year model calculates that contamination can be controlled within the one per cent tolerance level of labeling legislation.
"However, contamination in crops will increase over time due to genetically engineered crops possessing a dominant patented gene that is transferable by uncontrollable pollen and direct seed transfer," Mrs Newman said.
"The spread of contamination will be further increased due to the selectiveness of Roundup Ready canola being resistant to the most commonly used farming chemical - glyphosate."
"It is not possible to eradicate contamination from certified seed stocks of non-GM canola used for planting the following years non-GM crop."
According to an ABARE Productivity Commission report grain growers' production costs could jump as much as 17pc after genetically modified (GM) crops are introduced to Australia. The report revealed the blowout in costs were linked to identity preservation.
ABARE estimated the average cost to preserve the identity of non-GM grain in the supply chain was about 10pc of the crop value, for a 1pc contamination tolerance level to be achieved. The cost would be more to comply with the European Union tolerance level, which is 0.5pc. Despite claims of yield benefits in GM grain varieties, some believe the compliance costs would far outweigh any proposed yield benefit.
Further details from farmer:
GMO’s – Facts concerning Farmers.
Julie Newman, (Network of Concerned Farmers www.non-gm-farmers.com), Newdegate. WA – Dec 2002
SUMMARY:
Problems
- We are one of the majority of Australian farmers who want to provide GM-free food for the majority of consumers that prefer GM-free food. GM introduction is planned to be released next year but no concern is given to the economic impact on the agricultural industry and the plans for introduction appear to be controlled by the Biotech industry. The ultimate decision for the proposed release is under the "Health and Aging" portfolio (not under "Agriculture" as expected) and consideration of risk is only focused on health and the environment (not economic or agricultural risks as expected).
- When GM crops are released, the process is irreversible and all growers will need to provide proof of their GM status rather than relying on Quarantine statements to show Australian produce is GM-free.
- It will take years to establish the required traceable identity preservation system and yet the commercial release is scheduled for next years planting.
The cost of segregation and preserving the existing GM-free identity of Australia’s canola crop will add approx $42.36m* every year to our costs. (Bureau of statistics 5 yr average export canola value x 10% as estimated by ABARE as cost for identity preservation required).
- Until this required identity preservation process is in place, growers may be asked to sign guarantees of zero contamination which will be impossible to comply with due to uncontrollable contamination.
Uninsurable liability for uncontrolled contamination may extend beyond a truckload worth thousands to a rejection of a shipment worth millions or even a recall of a product worth billions.
- The exorbitant costs, difficulties and uninsurable liabilities involved in marketing as GM-free will be increasingly prohibitive and all growers will be effectively forced to market on the declining GM market.
- However, there may not be a market for this product and many of our markets may be under threat.
State Governments have the power to call GM-free zones but these will be expensive to maintain and may not even be instigated prior to the proposed release. Once released, it will be virtually impossible to claim GM-free status in that area.
- This negligent legislation is in place for all crops including wheat for flour and barley for beer. Over 210 groups (including farm union groups and wheat boards) have called for a moratorium on GM wheat release in America due to major consumer rejection. If consumers want a choice of GM-free, we need to be able to grow GM-free and legislation does not protect the GM-free grower to enable us to do this. Over half the consumers do not want to consume GM food, however, if farmers worldwide can not market crops as GM-free due to similar problems, premiums will be available until consumers will not have a choice.
Solutions:
* Government must halt the commercial release of GM canola until management systems and protective legislation is prepared for its introduction.
- Government must ensure all costs and liabilities to be the legislated responsibility of the Biotech company for the introduction of their product. This would enable growers to continue to market as GM-free.
* Economics must be assessed as reason for the rejection of GM crops. What other industry would accept the introduction of a product that reduces the industries choice to either accept huge costs and liabilities or to market on a declining market? We expect urgent action by our government and industry leaders to address the Agricultural issues and economic problems surrounding the commercial release of GM crops. If not, we expect compensation for any losses and costs incurred due to the Governments negligence.
Details:
1. Our government is negligent in legislation:
The decision IF we introduce GM crops is under the portfolio of Health and Aging and not Agriculture as expected (Ref*1). No economic or agricultural related problems are considered by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator who has the final decision for commercial release of the product (Ref*2) . Providing there is no danger to human health or the environment (which appears to exclude contamination of farm land, road verges and nature reserves), the proposed release (which is irreversible) is set for next years planting (Ref*3) .
This is:
- prior to the required testing regimes and traceable and auditable identity preservation systems being in place in order to sell our canola as GM-free (Ref*21) ;
- prior to many of the studies being completed to determine IF coexistence is possible and manageable and arrangements are acceptable to farmers (Ref*4) ;
- before many of the State governments have finalised legislation (Ref*5) ;
- before the farming community are aware of the issues (Ref*6) ;
- before there is any opportunity to instigate protective legislation (Ref*7) and
- ignoring polls showing the majority of farmers and consumers do not want the introduction of GM crops (Ref*8).
The OGTR may need to rely on the Biotech companies for funding from 2003 onwards, and unless released, an adverse decision may jeopardise this potential funding source (Ref*9).
State governments can declare GM-free zones but will need to prove to the Federal Government that the huge costs involved (estimated at $2,260,250 per shire every year ) can be a market advantage for declaring such a zone (Ref*12) . This will be very difficult to justify when costs are imposed on those trying to retain their current GM-free status and unless every State declares a GM-free zone covering their entire State, it will prove price prohibitive and impossible to achieve prior to the proposed release date.
The decision "HOW" to manage the release of GM crops is made by the Gene Technology Grains Committee. This committee has heavy representation from Biotech industry representatives (Ref*10) or by industry representatives relying on biased information supplied by Agrifood Awareness which receives funding from the Biotech industry (Ref*11) . This plan will be assessed and approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator who can only assess if there is any risk to health and the environment prior to its release (Ref*2).
The Plant Industry Committee have recently released their management plans for GM introduction involving the benchmarking and auditing required. These management plans are proposed to be controlled by the product provider and all growers will have added costs, responsibilities and liabilities. It is also rather vaguely proposed in legislation that those farmers not identity preserved should buy certified seed rather than replant their own seeds.
2. "Contamination of our existing crops is uncontrollable".
The assumption that contamination is controllable is based on a one year model which presumes that contamination can be controlled within the 1% tolerance level of labelling legislation (Ref*13) .
However, farming is considered a long-term industry and contamination in crops will increase over time due to genetically engineered crops possessing a dominant patented gene that is transferable by uncontrollable pollen and direct seed transfer (Ref*14) The spread of contamination will be further increased due to the selectiveness of Roundup Ready canola being resistant to the most commonly used farming chemical, Glyphosate.
It is not possible to eradicate contamination from certified seed stocks of non-GM canola used for planting the following years non-GM crop (Ref*15).
Every effort was made to keep the Canadian certified non-GM seed stocks free from GM contamination, and yet after only 5 years after GM introduction, the seed stocks were tested for GM presence and only 2 out of 14 varieties were not contaminated, with the worst sample registering an unacceptable 7.2% (Ref*16).
The cheaper, faster testing techniques that would be available at receival points only register if GM contamination is over 1%, whereas the more expensive, time consuming and accurate testing techniques would be used by buyers. (Ref*17) This logistical problem may be the reason many of the buyers have established a contamination tolerance level of 1%, however, with improvements in the testing techniques the tolerance levels can be lowered. EU are currently lowering their legislated labelling tolerance level of contamination from 1% to 0.9% and imposing a 0.5% contamination tolerance for 2 years.
Labelling legislation requirements of 1% should not be considered as the indication of buyer requirements. Buyers of non-GM seed understandably prefer a zero tolerance and may not want the risk of buying contaminated seed that only just meets the labelling requirement, particularly if they have any risk to further add to this contamination through their own processing procedures. Some markets are demanding a farmer guarantee of zero tolerance (Ref*18) . This may be to exempt themselves from testing costs and liability of contamination when complying with the legislated labelling requirements of the Trade Practises Act (Ref*19) .
Although some countries do not label the finished canola oil product, in some cases labelling does extend to cover the canola meal by-products because it does contain GM content. GM products are getting rejected where stock producers are now requiring declarations that they have not fed their stock GM products (Ref*20).
3. "Australian farmers will NOT have the choice to grow and market as GM-free. Once GM crops are phased in under the proposed legislative shortfalls, it is highly unlikely that any Australian farmer will grow and market as GM-free because of the cost and liability involved, they will be effectively forced to market on the GM market."
We currently market our produce as GM-free which is verified by a certificate attached to export consignments from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). Once GM crops are commercially released, without this accompanying certificate, those countries requesting GM certification will require a traceable and auditable identity preservation system; and/or a robust and reliable testing regime to certify the commodity or product for export (Ref*21).
Without the required identity preservation or testing systems in place, growers may need to sign declarations of no GM presence. Costs will be imposed on all growers to test our loads to provide GM-free status but some buyers will need a traceable and auditable identity preservation system in place for buyer confidence of the product. As contamination is inevitable and as more farm land is planted to GM crops, a traceable and auditable identity preservation system will likely be required by the majority of buyers. (Ref*22). .
The cost of being an identity preserved GM-free farmer is exorbitant and the lower the contamination tolerance level requirement, the higher the related cost. Most reports accept an estimate of 10 per cent of farm gate prices to meet a 1% tolerance level. European reports were more specific adding that for seed-saving farms the costs would represent 17% (conventional) or 41% (organic)(Ref*23). .
Due to the costs and liabilities imposed on the buyers, it is understandable why buyers are asking for a guarantee of GM-free status from growers.
An example of the type of form farmers would be required to sign can be found on the CBH (WA’s storage and handler) Carters Delivery Form (Ref*24). This contract asks for a declaration of delivery of no GM grain and a growers indemnity to exclude CBH from liability for delivering a contaminated product that does contain GM grain.
This kind of contract holds great risk for the farmer if he declares the load as not including any genetically modified grain (effectively a zero tolerance) when contamination is considered uncontrollable and he is aware of other farmers in his area growing GM crops. The liability for unintentional and uncontrolled contamination of the delivery of a truckload of seed worth thousands could cause the rejection of a shipment worth millions or even a recall of a product worth billions. Farmers could be held legally liable for these costs if this is traced by identity preservation back to the farmers concerned (Ref *19) .
Insurance companies have indicated their concern with genetically modified crops and it appears highly unlikely that GM liability due to uncontrollable contamination will be insurable. (Ref*25).
These problems will be extended to other associated industries offering essential services including contract harvesters and swathers (Ref*26) , transport companies and seed cleaners (Ref*27) and many of these will make the commercial decision to exclude non-GM produce due to the excessive costs and liabilities involved.
In effect farmers will find the cost, liabilities and complications of growing GM-free will be too high to contemplate and they will be forced to market as GM.
The implications of increasing unintentional contamination with a patented product could enable the Biotech company to threaten growers under the Patent Act to effectively pressure growers to grow GM crops (Ref*28). Will we be allowing a system that our following generations will not be able to manage?
4. "Australia may not be able to market our crops on the GM market."
The majority of consumers are rejecting GM products for a range of reasons and recent polls worldwide indicate between 50-95% rejection (Ref*29) . There is no indication that consumers will eventually accept GM products and many consumers have indicated reasons for rejection that will never gain acceptance (Ref*30) . When a product is labelled, this allows consumers to choose GM-free in preference and it is logical to expect retailers to stock GM-free in preference to satisfy all of their customers and for wholesalers to protect their brand name reputations by refusing to buy GM’s (Ref*31)
North America successfully markets all of their canola on the GM market (because non-GM canola and GM are not segregated) but they have a huge domestic market where governments are supporting agriculture and industry by refusing to introduce labelling (Ref*32) . It will be unlikely that there will be sufficient markets for Australia to compete on the GM market when there is tightening labelling legislation and subsequent market rejection worldwide (Ref*33) .
Australia may not be able to compete with the declining GM market. Unfortunately there is very little research done to determine how many of our customers would buy our whole crop if we could not guarantee its GM-free status as we can now. Data to date is only assuming that very few farmers will market as GM but in reality the majority of Australian produce will need to be marketed as GM if the costs and liabilities are imposed onto the non-GM grower as proposed.
There is no demand for GM, only tolerance, yet there is an increasing demand for GM-free.
Australia’s main markets in order (5yr average) are (Ref*34) :
China (37%) – just recently decided to introduce labelling legislation that will need to label the finished oil product. China may demand GM-free in preference when consumer reaction to labelling legislation is evident. Documentation regarding GM status will be necessary from December 2002.
Japan (29%) – has had labelling legislation for a year and some buyers have already been to Australia indicating their preference for uncontaminated GM-free produce with a traceable audit system. (Ref*42)
European Union (13.4%) – are rejecting GM food and Australia has picked up this market due to our GM-free status. They are in the process of getting extremely strict labelling legislation in place.
There appears to be very little or no market for GM wheat or barley. (Ref *35)
5. "GM crops offer little that is not achievable by non-GM. However, when the promised pharmaceutical and industrial crops are introduced, farmers may not be able to produce food crops in the future".
Business is conducted for private gain, not for public benefit and genetic engineering was not created for charity to feed the starving. Farmers are being promised miracles while being offered little.
There is very little evidence of improvements in productivity and yields in food crops that can not be met with non-GM genetic research and development or improvements in other farming techniques (Ref*36) . Many of the promises of genetic engineering in food crops are the same promises being made and achieved with non-GM research and development (Ref*37).
The next wave of GM’s that have never been possible without the cross-kingdom breeding of genetic engineering is pharmaceutical and industrial crops. Some farmers will choose pharmaceutical and industrial crops over food crops but there will be a zero tolerance for any food crop contamination with pharmaceutical and industrial crops (Ref*38) . Farmers may turn away from producing food crops because the cost, difficulty and liability would be unacceptable. As the area grown to food crops decreases, food supplies will decrease causing food costs to rise. Recall of GM products will be near impossible to achieve and the adoption of GM crops must be considered as irreversible. This is further complicated by the gene stacking trait of genetically modified crops that if mismanaged, could produce a totally inedible crop resistant to a range of chemicals, tolerant of a range of seasonal variations and resistant to a range of diseases and insects (Ref*39). All countries are being pressured to rapidly adopt genetically modified organisms with no idea of long term implications (Ref*40) .The pressure is stemming from North America with the obvious principle that "the only way we are going to win this thing is to not give consumers a choice."(Ref*41). Are we threatening our world food supplies?
————
References:
Ref*1: Federal Hansard Report; House of Representatives. Tuesday 12, November , 2002. pg 8719. www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/latesthansard/rhansard.pdf
Ref*2: Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Issues to be considered by the Regulator
www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/dir020.pdf. Process www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/process.htm
Ref*3: a) Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. .Media Release. "Regulator stops clock on GM".08 November 2002 www.ogtr.gov.au/media/index.htm.
b) Media Response: 11 November 2002. Monsanto expects GM Commercial Release - 2003 www.abc.net.au/rural/wa/stories/s725113.htm.
Ref*4: a) CBH/Grainpool are conducting studies to ensure coexistence is possible throughout the supply chain. www.cbh.com.au/index.html reports Q track system.
b) Grainpool publication "Talking Grain" August 2002 "Trial will determine WA’s ability to supply ‘safe grain’. Indicates the trials will continue for 2 to 3 seasons. Contact is Peter Nelson 1800 199 083.
Ref*5: W.A. Legislative Council’s standing committee on environment and public affairs is hearing evidence on two Bills before the WA Parliament that relate to gene technology. They will be reconvening in June 2003. WA GM policy www.ministers.wa.gov.au/policies/genetically_modified_organisms_DS.pdf
Ref*6: a) Farm Weekly November 14,2002. WA farm groups reject call for poll on GMO’s.
PGA, Damien Capp "He said the PGA would not poll its members, not only because it was not its policy, but because it believed there were too many unanswered questions and a general lack of understanding of the GMO issues in rural WA."
and "WAFarmers "Mr Nicholl said there were too many unanswered questions." and "… it was too premature in the debate to hold a poll…" .
b) Farm Weekly November 21, 2002. "…
VFF Grains Group president Ron Hards said surveys were inherently biased and a grower survey could not be expected to truly reflect the views of all growers."
and "NSW Farmers Association grains committee chairman Angus Macneil also ruled out a survey of NSW growers because farmers would be voting from a position of ignorance."
Ref*7: Time will be needed for changes in legislation to ensure the Biotech companies are legally responsible for all costs and liabilities arising from the introduction of their product. A possible proposal would be to set up an independently assessed contingency funding in order to compensate for estimated costs incurred and liabilities arising from GM introduction. It is also logical to insist on containerising all GM produce on farm to prevent contamination upstream.
Ref*8: Poll shows 80 per cent of South Australian Farmers support a moratorium on the release of any GM crops in that state." www.abc.net.au/rural/news/stories/s715664.htm
Ref*9: a) OGTR Cost Recovery options www.health.gov.au/ogtr/pubform/kpmg.htm
b) Submission regarding cost recovery: www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/process.htm
Ref*10: www.afaa.com.au/ Publications; External Documents; Gene Technology Grains Committee Strategic Framework document.
Ref*11: Agrifood Awareness www.afaa.com.au/ Who we are.
Ref*12: Gene Scene, About GE (genetic engineering) free zones. By Paula Fitzgerald, Agrifood Awareness GRDC magazine "Ground Cover", Sept 2002 issue, page 24 & 25. Resource www.afaa.com.au – GM-Free Zones (Factsheet 16).
Ref*13: Gene flow studies www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/CRCWMS/
Ref*14: a) Pollen transfer – animals, birds, wind, bees and insects. Direct seed transfer – seed carryover from previous year, winds capable of picking up entire swaths and carrying seed to neighbouring farmland, human error in storage and handling, leakage from transport resulting in roadside germination, inability to guarantee cleanliness of machinery, wild animals and domestic stock depositing undigested droppings (eg sheep grazing on canola stubble and moving locations).
b) E. Ann Clark, Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph. http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/crops/canola/outcrossing.html "Alberta Agriculture has calculated that even at 0.2% outcrossing rates (with a neighbors RR canola, for example), a crop yielding 25 bu ac-1 with 3% shattering loss would deposit 10 000 outcrossed seeds per metre squared. And that is just the genetic pollution from a single season. The lengthy dormancy interval of canola allows the soil seed bank of contaminated seed to accumulate with each successive year’s additions."
c) May 2002. Scenarios for co-existence of genetically-modified, conventional and organic crops in European Agriculture. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission – Joint Research Centre.
"Any segregation system in agriculture to segregate GM and non-GM crops could fail due to, for example, accidents, abnormal weather conditions of human failure."
Ref*15: Grading the seed of same size, weight and appearance or selective herbicide spraying can not eradicate GM canola from GM canola.
Ref*16: www.saskorganic.com/oapf/index.html – Report on Product Entitled "Isolation Effectiveness in Canola Pedigree Seed Production by R.K. Downey and H. Beckie Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre, Saskatoon, SK. This report was obtained by Court order from the Saskatchewan Organic Growers for a class action against Monsanto for contamination.
Ref*17: a) Co-existence in European Agriculture. Monitoring Non-GM Agricultural Production. Details normal testing regimes.
b) Agnet 7/8/02 "New highly sensitive DNA detection technique" – regarding new peptide nucleic acid tests that detect minute GM presence.
c) ABARE Genetically modified grains – market implications for Australian grain growers. pg 36
Ref*18: www.ncga.com/biotechnology/know_where/know_grow_guidelines.html
Chairmans Newsletter from Australian Barley Board Nov 2002 "Our markets don’t want GMO" indicates that not only do buyers prefer a zero tolerance of that particular commodity but if GM canola is introduced to Australia it would jeopardize other commodity exports. "...our Japanese market contacts have suggested that if Australia produces commercial GM canola, Australia may lose its current advantage in the Japanese market for non-GM products due to concerns of contamination of non-GM grains by GM canola." "It will be imperative that a tracing and storage system be devised before commercial GM grain cropping becomes a reality to enable us to continue to have the confidence of buyers who require non-GM grain."
Ref *19: Trade Practises Act – www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/index.html
Ref *20: Seeds of Doubt, North American farmers experiences of GM crops. Pg 9.
Ref *21: 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."
Ref *22: a) WA State Govt policy www.ministers.wa.gov.au/policies/genetically_modified_organisms_DS.pdf "The Grain Pool has advised that its customers are increasingly requiring non-GMO certification to accompany grain shipments."
b) Pulse Australia submission to OGTR 10.7.02 : "In the case of pulses there has been advice in various forms from our markets that the commercial release of any GM broadacre crops MAY RESULT IN SOME OR ALL OF THOSE MARKETS BEING CLOSED ENTIRELY TO AUSTRALIA’S PULSES. Concern has been expressed that notwithstanding that there have been no GM pulse varieties commercially released, the release of other broadacre GM food crops, such as canola, will provide an opportunity for contamination by them, of conventional pulse crops during the harvesting, transport and handling processes. There is no procedure in place in Australia to ensure that this will not happen."
c) Chairman's Newsletter - Australian Barley Board November 2002. "Our world markets don't want GMO"
"Some of our major buyers are requesting certification to assure them that their purchases are free of GMOs.
Saudi Arabia requires a GMO free certificate to be issued with every shipment of grain while also indicating that they may refuse to trade barley with ABB if Australia produces any commercial GM grain crops in the future."
"Other Middle East customers, as well as those from Taiwan, China and Japan also ask for GMO free certification from time to time. Japan, like Saudi Arabia, has also indicated concern."
"...As such, our Japanese market contacts have suggested that if Australia produces commercial GM canola, Australia may lose its current advantage in the Japanese market for non-GM products due to concerns of contamination of non-GM grains by GM canola."
"Buyers' attitudes to GMOs may change in the future. However, we are concerned that Australia's grain storage system is not ready to adequately provide the segregations needed to assure them that we can supply what they want.
Market assurance is inextricably linked to being able to trace GM grain from the farm gate to the point of storage and then from store to the land or sea transport carrying the grain to buyers. We also need to ensure GM material is stored. Separately from non-GM material. Such a system will be essential in enabling the provision of GM free certification to buyers who require it.
It will be imperative that a tracing and storage system be devised before commercial GM grain cropping becomes a reality to enable us to continue to have the confidence of buyers who require non-GM grain."
Ref *23: a) May 2002. Scenarios for co-existence of genetically-modified, conventional and organic crops in European Agriculture. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission – Joint Research Centre.
"Complying with a 1% threshold would result in addition costs (changing farming practices, monitoring systems, insurance) of 1% - 9% of current product price for maize and potato. For oilseed rape (canola) production the equivalent costs to comply with a 0.3% threshold would be 10% - 41% of current price." "For oilseed rape (canola), farms producing conventional certified seeds would have additional costs representing 10% of the price, the largest part of the costs being monitoring costs. For the corresponding organic farms, costs would represent more than 20% of the price, the difference being due to higher costs of changing agricultural practices. For seed-saving farms the costs would represent 17% (conventional) or 41% (organic) of the price. These farms would probably be forced to stop saving seed and instead buy certified seed."
b) ABARE Genetically modified grains. Market implications for Australian grain growers. Pg 36. "Because marketers of GM crops could be held liable for any accidental mixing with other grains in the handling storage and transportation system, identity preservation costs could include a component to compensate marketers for the risks assumed."
c) Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper www.pc.gov.au "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade" Consumer and Regulatory Framework pg. 37
Ref *24: W.A. Co-operative Bulk Handling (CBH - www.cbh.com.au ) Carters Delivery Form.
This includes:
[Growers declaration "I/We hereby represent and warrant that:... (d) the Grain does not include any genetically modified grain..."
and Grower's Indemnity "I/We, being the owner of the Grain, by signing this form or by authorising my/our agent/representative to sign this form on my/our behalf, agree: ...
(a) to indemnify and keep CBH indemnified against:
i. any loss or damage suffered by CBH; and
ii. all actions, claims and demands which may be made or instituted against CBH, arising howsoever out of or as a consequence of any of the representations or warranties contained in this form being false, misleading or deceptive;"]
Ref 25: Insurance www.non-gm-farmers.com/issues_insurance_icoal.asp
Ref 26: Grain harvesters submission to GTGC. www.non-gm-farmers.com/issues_gtgc.asp
Ref 27: We own a seed cleaning factory in Newdegate and have made the commercial decision to not grade canola (either for GM or non-GM market) due to liability involved.
Ref *28: a) Percy Schmeiser was the first farmer sued under Patent Law regarding Genetically modified crops.
In his ruling, Judge MacKay stated: "(92) Thus a farmer whose field is contaminated by seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour’s land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
Judge MacKay when considering the fact that Mr Schmeiser did not use the product for its patented advantages (did not spray the resistant crop with Roundup) concluded "(123)… In my opinion, whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs’ invention, using it, without permission. In so doing the defendants infringed upon the patent interests of the plaintiffs." He also concluded while considering an injunction "(130)… to restrain the growing of Roundup Ready canola, would be impossible to comply with in light of the uncontrollable spread of the patented gene." Mr Schmeiser was sued for the $15.00/acre (Canadian) technology user fee and for the entire profits of his crop "(135)… It is the profit from sale of that crop that plaintiffs may claim, not the difference between sale of that crop and sale of an alternative crop that was not grown."
Detailed court case: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001fct256.html , Percy Schmeiser’s website: http://www.percyschmeiser.com , Appeal http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/2002fca309.html , Canadian Patent Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-4/84167.html
b) Other farmers have been threatened by Monsanto since. Roger, Rodney and Greg Nelson finally proved their innocence after It cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, the health of Roger (required heart bypass surgery due to stress) and years of their lives to defend their reputations and fight for rights of farmers. An out of court settlement was awarded to the Nelsons when they finally proved that almost half of the GPS readings of sample sites were not taken from their land. http://www.nelsonfarm.net
c) www.afaa.com.au Agrifood Awareness "GM seeds of doubt tour" background info. pg 7 Monsanto’s statement regarding Patent infringement for Australian farmers is: "Monsanto Australia has indicated that they will only pursue individuals who deliberately or knowingly infringe patent rights – that is knowingly grow GM crops without a licence to do so."
Ref *29: Productivity Commission Report – Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade. Pg 88 Consumers rejecting GM foods – Australia 2001 50%, United States 2000 50%, Germany 1999 95%, Japan 2000 80%, Europe 2000 60-80%.
Ref *30: Reasons include concern for long term health, ethical reasons regarding cross kingdom breeding or "playing God", rejection of multinational business’ seeking to control the entire food chain.
Ref *31: Greenpeace True Food Guide www.greenpeace.org.au/truefood
Ref *32: Oregon parliament has recently just rejected calls by consumers to provide food labelling legislation to enable consumers to have a choice. The reason for rejection was economics.
Ref *33: Even Zambia is refusing the aid relief of GM maize due to potential economic and health impacts on their country.
Ref*34: Figures: Australian Bureau of Statistics International, Total exports (by weight) Trade Report 1997 to 2001.
Ref*35: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_archive.asp
Ref*36: Soil Association Seeds of doubt North American farmers experiences of GM crops. A damning report indicating GM crops are failing to meet promised expectations.
Ref*37: a) http://www.abc.net.au/rural/wa/stories/s710235.htm non-gm drought proof wheat Drysdale was developed by CSIRO.
b) Prof Colmer University WA- research and development on non-gm salt tolerant and waterlogging wheat.
c) GRDC Ground Cover Nov 2002 "Biotechnology: de-stressing plans first target for genomics centre" Dr Langridge, Professor of Plant Science at the University of Adelaide comments on the new Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics. "Hoever, there will be even wider benefits for conventionally bred crop varieties from the application of genomics: understanding the nature and behaviour of the entire genetic complement of organisms." "Once we understand the role of each gene, or group of genes, we can identify those that are part of tolerance or resistance mechanisms and search for novel variants of the genes that have helped the grasses to conquer so many harsh environments. With that knowledge plant breeders can focus on those genes and how they can be transferred into crop plants where they will produce benefits in the form of more reliable cropping in adverse conditions."
Ref*38: a) Pollen flow studies – www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/CRCWMS/ Can GM and non-GM cropping systems co-exist? pg 6. Acceptable levels of GM contamination in organic and other crops need to be determined because, although most pollen in a given crop may not move far, complete isolation is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee. Once reasonable thresholds are agreed to, systems can be designed to manage GM ‘contamination’ within these limits.
"In the future, GM crops will be developed that produce industrial or pharmaceutical products. These crops will require strict segregation from food crops to maintain varietal purity over the whole production chain, as even a low level of contamination of a food crop with an industrial crop would be unacceptable in most cases."
b) "Abortion drugs in your food crops?" http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=35
Ref*39: Genestacking – a) Source: Rural Press Get the Drift pg 8 "The research was carried out in Canada by Ag Canada… We have found that different types of GM rapeseed, each resistant to a different type of herbicide, can interbreed with each other and spread. So you get rapeseed growing as a weed but with resistance to a whole range of herbicides that would normally get rid of it."
b) Outcrossing between canola varieties – a volunteer canola control issue. Www.agric.gov.ab.ca/crops/canola/outcrossing.html
c) Weed Science (vol 48: 688-694
d) www.mindfully.org/GE/Triple-Herbicide-Resistance-ISB.htm
Ref*40: a) American proposed trade agreement with Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/14/1037080851435.html
b) US want to force EU to accept GM’s. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=34
c) Pressure to accept GM crops as aid with no choice of non-GM given. Eg. Zambia.
d)True Food Guide May 2002. www.grennpeace.org.au/truefood : In 1994, 24 African scientists at a United Nations conference responded to GE advertising depicting starving Africans. "… on the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."
Ref*41: Dale Adolphe (current president of the Canadian Seed Growers Assn. and previous president of the Canola Council of Canada)Western Producer, 4/4/02. "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."
Ref*42: "There are, however, a small number of niche markets for non-GM canola. Jusco is the third largest supermarket operator in Japan and is now labelling its canola oil products. It has three classifications: GMO, non-GMO and unknown. Jusco's private label non-GMO canola oil (from Australian canola) currently represents about 10 to 20% of sales volume and is sold at about a 34% premium compared to the national brand canola (Manitoba Agriculture and Food, 2001)."
| 
