*New*
 Rigged trials
 Legal Letter
 GM Crops: Risks and Risk Management Required
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

1. Key issues
 Summary and Overview
 10 main NCF concerns
 Farmers misled
 Q & A for school projects
 What is the drive for GM crops?
 Links to other issues
 Scientific concerns summary
 The future - 2020?
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Beyond the Bulldust
 *Unfair liability*
 Pressures in GM debate
 Questions regarding risk management
 Genetic engineering – a crop of hyperbole
 Agronomics and Economics of GM canola

2. GM crops banned
 Monsanto Crop Management & Resistance Management Plans
 Why Australia is not prepared for commercial trials
 Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready canola
 Bayer Cropscience's GM Invigor canola
 Where to now?
 State legislation - moratoria

3. Market issues
 Canola markets
 Zero tolerance of GM contamination is market demand
 Wheat will be impacted
 Higher prices for non-GM canola
 Contamination scare affects market
 Japanese requirements
 Consumer polls & market rejection
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 EU will not tolerate acceptance of tolerance levels
 What our marketers say
 How and when non-GM premiums started

About us
 Network Policy & Objectives
 NCF Funding
 NCF History
 NCF profile: Julie Newman
 NCF profile: Juliet McFarlane
 Early work

Canola
 What is canola?
 Statistics - yields
 GM Canola Factsheet
 Canadian farmers nervous about GM canola acceptance in Japan
 Letter from Japan

Coexistence & Segregation
 Crop Management Plans for non-GM grower
 Farmer to farmer Hypothetical
 Segregation and coexistence plans
 Seed industry allows 0.5% contamination
 Canadian grain segregation
 Zero tolerance is market demand
 European coexistence report
 Identity preservation and segregation
 What is expected of non-GM growers in Canada
 Testing protocol
 Labels for GM contamination
 EU will not accept contamination
 Proposed Stewardship Program for Canola
 Contract harvester problems
 Crop management plans
 Industry avoids the truth about GM segregation

Consumer concerns
 Is GM food safe?
 Churches - 10 reasons against GM
 Scientific concerns
 Cross Kingdom Breeding
 Food safety testing inadequate
 Environmental effects
 13 Science based reasons for GM-free
 Myths about the Digestion of Proteins and DNA
 5 part series covering issues
 Health Risk
 Reason for Schools to ban GM Foods
 Monsanto's feeding studies
 FSANZ answers regarding food testing
 Scientific report on safety testing
 Trespass report
 Scientific concerns
 Consumer concerns summary
 GM food lecture
 Monsanto
 Seeds of Concern
 Public attitudes to GM food
 Scrambling and gambling with the genome
 L-tryptophan - A Deadly Epidemic
 Protestors (photos)
 GM health concerns in brief
 Inadequate health testing for GM canola
 Russian study showing high death rates in offspring
 Pusztai debate
 Hidden uncertainties - risks of GMOs
 Study shows GM eating Americans sicker than non-GM eating English
 Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies
 Latest GMO Research: Decreased Fertility, Immunological Alterations and Allergies
 Key health papers of concern
 Do we really know what we are doing?

Contamination
 Contamination is uncontrollable (photos)
 Gene transfer & cross-pollination
 GM product recalls
 Environmental contamination (photos)
 Confronting contamination & co-existence
 Invigor canola outcrossing
 Gene Stacking = Super Weed
 AOF contamination report
 History of how Bayer Cropscience caused contamination of non-GM canola in Australia
 Fighting GMO contamination around the world

Corporate control
 Corporate control
 Corporate Engineering in Public Debate
 Commercial influence on science
 In (Seed) Bed Together
 The drive behind GM Crops
 Cartoon
 IP And Genetically Modified Organisms: A Fateful Combination
 Commercial influence on science
 Made by Monsanto

Costs and liabilities
 Costs to non-GM farmers
 Non-GM Liable for Contamination?
 Liability issues associated with GM crops - AFFA
 Supplying non-GM requires certification
 Liability questions answered
 More on liability
 *Farmer liability*
 Liability and GM crops

Economics
 No economic benefit for farmers
 Economic Recommendations
 Economic Critique
 Why has the OGTR ignored economics?
 Australian farmers can not afford GM crops
 What benefit?
 Higher plant yields better or worse for farmers?
 Effects of GM contamination in canola
 Global seed industry concentration
 Canada versus Australia comparison
 No farmer economic gain for pharmaceutical crops
 NCF: Economics of GM canola ***
 Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

Farmer attitudes
 Australian farmer surveys
 Farm lobby group policies
 Victorian ALP policy
 GCA farm lobby group policies

GM / Non-GM difference
 What is GM / Non-GM?
 GM plant breeding not faster
 Will the industry be in crisis without GM?
 Why GM is different
 Non-GM biotech is the future

GM canola
 Will GM canola yield more in Australia?
 Comparison between Canadian and Australian canola conditions
 Are GM chemicals safer, cheaper or more efficient?
 How much GM canola is grown in Canada?
 Canadian and Australian canola statistics
 Economics of GM canola

GM crops
 Public good or corporate control?
 Misleading claims over GM
 ISAAA GM crop areas misleading
 Use of GM crops
 GM crops and chemical use
 Multiple spray applications vs yield penalty
 Yield problems - links
 GM cotton failures
 Global yields
 Pharmaceutical crops
 Global Trends in GM Crops
 Who benefits from GM crops?

GM crops experience
 Canadian Farmers viewpoint
 American farmers viewpoint
 American Corn Growers experience
 Argentina faces serious problems
 Report on North American Experience
 Canadian organic farmers
 Argentina & GM soy - success at what cost?
 How is industry managing non-GM now?
 India, Bulgaria, Indonesia
 Monsanto vs US farmers
 Global GM adoption
 US farmers warned of GM Liability
 Farming news links
 GM-growing US faces agricultural trade deficit
 GM soy in US not considered food grade
 Monsanto in Argentina
 GM soy war in Paraguay
 Violence in Brazil
 12 Years of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

GM wheat
 Learn more about GM wheat
 Marketing systems for GM wheat
 GM Wheat submission - food health
 Report - Farmers lose with GM wheat
 What our marketers say
 Canadian Wheat Board position
 GM Wheat impossible to segregate

Honey issues
 Apiarist briefing
 The impact of GM contamination
 SA Apiarists briefing
 Map SA & Vic
 Honey tests reveal GM contamination

How trustworthy is decision-making?
 Vested interests revealed
 Why trust the regulatory process?
 Sue Meek profile
 Federal government pro-GM
 Scientists influenced
 Liability, GCA and legal action
 Research manipulated
 OGTR does not assess economics, segregation, chemical resistance, food testing etc.
 Three faces of science fraud
 Misleading GM language

Insurance
 Insurance Council submission
 Insurance avoid GM risk

International Protocols
 World Trade Organisation
 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
 Free Trade Agreement
 Farmers right to replant seeds
 International agreements
 GM labelling
 WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GMOs
 Biotechnology Policy Documents of FAO Members

Legal Issues
 Law
 Copy of Technology User Agreement
 2003 Monsanto contract
 GM Patents
 Monsanto shoot themselves in the foot (cartoon)
 Will law protect us from contamination?
 Summary of Supreme Court hearing of Percy Schmeiser
 NSW Minister guarantees farmers are protected
 AFFA-liability issues
 US farmers sued
 US farmers warned of GM liability issues
 GM Crops and farmers Liability
 Why is the non-GM grower liable for contamination?
 Innocent farmer sued
 Federal judge's opinion shows understanding of patented gene spread
 Liability for non-GM farmers
 More on liability:
 Liability and GM crops
 Farmers prepare for legal fight over GM
 Legal letter from non-GM to GM
 Liability issues - Duncan Currie

Legislation & Regulation
 Trials vs Commercial Release
 Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola approved by OGTR
 States impose moratoriums in role to protect economics
 OGTR role
 Gene Technology Act
 GM canola trial locations
 Victorian Moratorium
 Australian GM status by States
 Federal candidate views
 OGTR unapproved GM canola trials
 Gene Technology Act Critique
 South Australian Act
 WA proudly GM-free
 *State moratoria legislation*
 Gene Tech Act reviews denies compensation
 National Biotechnology Strategy
 Chronology of genetic engineering regulation in Australia: 1953–2008

Links
 Genome Scrambling Links
 Links
 Top 10 books on GM
 Religious links

Network action
 Invigor canola submission OGTR
 GM Zone proposal submissions
 GTGC submission summary
 NCF Newsletters
 NCF Media releases
 GTGC full submission
 Roundup Ready Submission OGTR
 Network tours
 pro-GM lobbyists attack NCF
 Pro-GM tantrums
 Advertisement
 Victorian farmer survey
 NCF banner & flyer
 Field day survey
 Community monitoring of GM Crop Trials
 Letters to farmers
 
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt1
 Gene Tech Act Reveiw Pt 2
 Gene Tech Act Review Pt3
 Bayer Protest
 Bayers Response to NCF
 NCF submission released

Organics
 Canadian organic standard
 American organic standards

Trials
 Victorian maps
 Victorian sites - photos
 SA trial photos
 Trials summary
 Topas 19/2 contamination
 South Australia 2006 GM Trials

 

18 February 2009

Rigged trials

07 November 2008

Rigged GM trials

Rigged GM Trials
 
Why has there been so much promotion of GM trials but little attention to detail? Media has focussed on Andrew Weidermann's GM trials in Victoria but these trials were manipulated to favour GM. The non-GM varieties could not perform to their full potential because standard weed control was avoided. 
 
The "advantage" of GM canola is only a weed control tool as the GM part of Roundup Ready canola is a gene transfer from soil bacterium to non-GM canola to change it to a GM canola that has resistance to glyphosate. The agronomic difference between GM and non-GM herbicide tolerant canola is the type of chemical that it is resistant to and performance trials should compare the weed control using the different chemicals at optimum times.The trials at Andrew Weidermann's property did not.
 
The recommendations for the Roundup Ready canola were followed well and spraying was done when weeds were manageable. Trifluralin @ 1.5l/ha was incorporated prior to sowing and glyphosate was applied around 6 weeks after sowing when ryegrass was 2-4 leaf, musk 5cm, vetch 2 node and hogweed 2 leaf. Despite this ideal treatment, hogweed and vetch survived and there was a second germination of weeds (including hogweed).  
 
Standard practise for non-GM canola is to apply a knockdown herbicide of glyphosate prior to sowing but this was not applied.
 
In a blatent disregard for standard practise of triazine tolerant varieties, no pre-emergent triazine was applied which is essential to the success of TT varieties. Normally a full dose of 2.2kg/ha would be applied or a half dose of 1.1kg/ha followed by a follow up dose no later than a month after planting. A half dose of atrazine was applied two months after planting when ryegrass size exceeded label recommendation for control. Ryegrass was 4-6 leaf, musk 10cm, vetch 4 node and hogweed 4 leaf. This weed control was well outside label recommendations and would have had a serious yield drag due to lack of weed control, particularly in early growth stages.
 
It is not surprising that there was ryegrass survivors in the Clearfield varieties as again the herbicide recommendations were not followed. The weeds were not sprayed until around 10 weeks after emergence when the ryegrass was late tillering and musk was 20cm.  
 
An excuse of "bad weather" was given for delay but no rain was recorded at the optimum spraying time.   
 
A tall variety was planted to provide the impressive visual difference in height for those that were not aware that Australian plant breeders have been deliberately breeding for shorter varieties. For an additional visual extra, triazine tolerant varieties were sown far thicker resulting in a spindly look as the average plant density was 164 plants/sq metre rather than the recommended 60-70 plants. Roundup Ready varieties looked more robust as plant density averaged 76 plants/sq metre.
 
As treatment of non-GM seriously deviated from the norm, it is valid to say that trials have been manipulated to give a false benefit to GM varieties by compromising non-GM comparisons. It is a sad day when trials need to be rigged in a desperate attempt to avoid the truth that GM fails to live up to the hype that surrounds it.
 
Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers
66 North Rd
Newdegate, 6355
West Australia
Phone 08 98711562 or mobile 0427 711644 (not in range on most of farm)
 
Gai Marshall attended a recent Field Day at Andrew Weiderman's property and data has been obtained and analysed from the "2008 Better Canola Victorian Demonstration" pamphlet plus followed up with email confirmation of accuracy with the contact person listed.
 
 
 
1. Weed control:
Site was chemical fallow in 2007.
All plots were treated with 1.5l/ha Trifluralin prior to sowing (as per recommendation for RR varieties)
Canola sown May 9th.
 
Roundup Ready - Herbicide recommendations were followed well. Glyphosate was applied on time when weeds were manageable (26 June when ryegrass was 2-4leaf, musk 5cm, vetch 2 node and hogweed 2 leaf.) Report states RR "had the advantage over the other two systems of smaller weed size."
Victorian Field Trial on 31st October. 2008  Field Day comment by Kate Burke - John Stuchberry & Associates "good control of musk, Struggled on hogweed and vetch. 2nd germination of weeds – cotaledon and hogweed.
 
Triazine tolerant - Herbicide recommendations were not followed. No knockdown was used. No pre-emergent triazine was used (essential to the success of TT varieties). A half rate (1.1kg/ha) of Atrazine was applied late when weeds were too advanced with Select @ 500ml/ha, Uptake 1% and Lontrel @100ml/ha (district practise is 150ml/ha for Lontrel) (6 July when ryegrass was 4-6 leaf, musk 10cm, vetch 4 node and hogweed 4 leaf.) 
 
Clearfield - Herbicide recommendations were not followed. No knockdown was used. Intervix @ 550ml/ha was applied far too late when ryegrass was outside label recommendations with 70ml/ha of Lontrel and Hasten @ 0.5% (district practise would be to add Select but it was not used). (15 July when ryegrass was late tillering, musk 20cm, vetch 6-8 node and hogweed 4 leaf.).
Victorian Field Trial on 31st October. 2008  Field Day Comment:  Kate Burke - John Stuchberry & Associates  There was "ryegrass survivors" (not surprising considering the size of the ryegrass when it was sprayed)
 
 
Label recommendations for Triazine application on TT varieties (using 4Farmers Atrazine 900 WG label as referred to from APVMA website)
Maximum 2.7kg/ha consisting of:
Pre-emergent: 1.1 - 2.2kg/ha
Post emergent: 0.5-1.1kg/ha. Ryegrass control 1-2 leaf stage only.
Apply second application within one month of planting.
 
Note: 
  • No pre-emergent was applied
  • Post emergent application was to be applied within one month of planting (9th May) but was not applied until (6 July) which is almost a month late.
  • Ryegrass size exceeds label recommendation for control.
Industry best practise
  • Generally glyphosate as knockdown with trifluralin incorporated for residual grass control
  • Simazine pre-emergent (half rate of 2l/ha or 1.1kg/ha)
  • Atrazine post emergent (half rate of 2l/ha or 1.1kg/ha)
  • Selectives as required
 
** These trials deliberately ignored the standard weed control used for non-GM varieties. No knockdown herbicide was used and no triazine was applied when sowing. TT varieties only received a half dose of Atrazine well after it should have been applied when the weeds were twice the size as the weeds in RR crops when they received their treatment. The delay in chemical application in Clearfield varieties resulted in weeds being 4 times the size of weeds when RR varieties were treated. Both Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield varieties were treated past label recommendations when weeds were too large for chemicals to be effective. ***
 
Andrew Weiderman claims rain was the reason for delay in spraying but there was no rain recorded during the optimum spraying window. For TT varieties, spraying should have occurred before June 9th when the Australian Oilseeds Federation webstie states there was no rain.
Rainfall record on virtual canola crop on australian Oilseeds Federation website:
9-11 June = 25mm
RR crop sprayed 23 June but TT and Clearfield NOT SPRAYED
1 July - 8mm
2-3 July - 15mm
After 3 July - 36mm
TT canola sprayed 6 July
Clearfield canola sprayed 15 July
After 20 July - 13mm 
 
2nd June: There has been no rain over the past week. The crop is still at the cotyledon stage, with some plants at the first leaf stage.
 
18 June: The crop is now at the 4-5 leaf stage and looking excellent, following 25 mm rain between 9-11 June. The variety is markedly more vigorous than some triazine tolerant varieties sown as a demonstration on the same day in the same paddock. A small area near the fenceline has been infested with redlegged earthmite, which will be controlled next week with insecticide when a post-emergent herbicide is applied.
 
15 July: "Photos taken Wed 2 July, and the crop was at the 6-7 leaf stage. The crop recieved another 8 mm rain on 1 July. The crop was sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate (as Roundup) at 900 g/ha around 23 June along with the insecticide Le mat for mite control. The weeds have died off or yellowed and the crop is looking very healthy. Another 15 mm+ has fallen today and last night since these pictures were taken. Next pictures on 15 July."
 
20 July: The crop is now at the 6-8 leaf stage and buds have begun to form at the base of plants. It has reached full canopy closure, which is ideal for this growth stage. Since the application of herbicide, the crop appears is virtually weed-free, with all weeds either dead or dying. The dense crop should smother most late germinations.
After the previous photos were taken on 3 July, another 36 mm rain fell at the site. And since this round of photos were taken a further 13 mm has fallen. The grower would like to topdress the crop urea soon, but at this stage it is too wet.
 
 
 
2. Plant density:
Different sowing rates were used for different varieties. Generally 4.5kg/ha was used for TT varieties and 2.7kg/ha was used for RR and Clearfield varieties. Plants of high densities would have the appearance of being spindly due to competition, while the crop of lower plant densities would have thicker stems, appear stronger and more robust.
Roundup Ready - plant densities range from 47 - 131 plants/m2 with an average of 76. Low densities of RR Hyola varieties were affected by "poor seed"
Triazine tolerant - plant densities range from 156 - 173 plants/m2  with an average of 164.5 which is well above the GRDC recommendations.
"Target populations for TT varieties in low rainfall environments should be maintained at 60 to 70 plants per metre square."
Clearfield - plant densities range from 61 - 102 with an average of 86.3.
**Plant density differences would give the appearance that TT varieties were not as robust as RR and Clearfield varieties.
 
3. Early Vigour
Hybrids are bred for early vigour. RR and Clearfield varieties were almost all hybrids but because TT hybrids are not planned for release until 2009 they were not used in TT comparisons.
Seed size of TT varieties was medium while seed size of RR and Clearfield varieties were almost all extra large. This would affect early vigour as there is improved vigour in large seeds. Early vigour rating  (1 poor - 5 very good):
Roundup Ready - Rated 2.5, 3.0 and 4.5 for hybrids and 4.0 for open pollinator (large seed). Low performance of RR Hyola varieties was explained by " Poor seed quality affected emergence and early vigour".
Triazine tolerant - Rated 2.5 and 2.5.
Clearfield - Rated 4.0, 4.0 and 5.0.
** As GM and Clearfield hybrids were compared to non-hybrid TT varieties, it is expected that early vigour would be far better. It is of surprise that some RR hybrid varieties rated the same lack of early vigour as non-hybrid TT varieties.
 
Statement by Andrew Broad (GM grower): "Easy to do stewardship program as Monsanto give you the answer if you get it wrong"
 
Julie Newman
Phone 08 98711562
Print Version
 

Seach the archive:  
or by date  

09 November 2009
Industry avoid the truth about GM segregation problems

11 June 2009
Dupont alleges anti-competitive conduct by Monsanto

24 February 2009
Non-GM Farmers to pay for unwanted GM contamination

02 February 2009
Made by Monsanto

01 February 2009
Top 10 Seed and Pesticide companies

29 January 2009
Agronomics and Economics of GM Canola

29 January 2009
Non-GM biotech is the future

26 January 2009
12 Yrs of GM soya in Argentina - disaster for people and environment

19 January 2009
Non-GM seed preferred by farmers but difficult to obtain

16 January 2009
GM Canola a flop

News archive