| Network of Concerned Farmers Policy
The Network of Concerned Farmers supports a moratorium on the commercial release of GM crops in Australia.
The NCF supports a regulatory process that adequately addresses consumer, environmental and farmer economic concerns.
The NCF supports small well contained independent research trials to test agronomic performance.
The NCF supports a thorough and accurate assessment of economic impact.
The NCF supports widespread, accurate and unbiased education regarding the impact of genetically modified crops.
The NCF will consider the commercial release of GMO crops on a case by case and a year by year basis subject to compliance with the undermentioned key industry requirements."
Key Industry Requirements:
- preservation of farmers right to farm and choose their farming systems without negatively impacting on others.
- decision making must take into account the interests of all agricultural commodities
- no unacceptable costs or liabilities to growers beyond what would be expected with any new variety. No costs or liabilities to be imposed on a sector of the agricultural industry without the involvement and approval from that industry.
- protection of current systems to ensure farmer viability
- fair legal recourse to ensure farmer liability is addressed fairly
- establishment of whole of industry agreed tolerance levels and testing techniques that have legal compliance and consumer acceptance.
- provision for independent appeal mechanism in decision making
- whole of industry led review process
- preservation of growers choice for on-farm seed retention
- That the GM industry is not entitled to deduction of major patent user-fee by end-point royalties unless the GM content of the crop is at least 90%, that the use of the GM was deliberate and that no "double-dipping" of fee deduction is allowable in the case of gene-stacking events. (ie. if the crop contains DNA with more than one trait belonging to different companies, unless predetermined prices have been arranged, the end-point patent user-fee is not to be duplicated.)
- producers right to determine marketing arrangements without prejudice.
- whole of supply chain acceptance. That no sector of the agricultural industry be faced with unmanageable problems.
- Prior to acceptance of industry prepared coexistence principles/protocols, the Gene Technology Grains Committee must demonstrate widespread accurate and unbiased industry education of the canola stewardship principles/proposed protocols and proof of widespread acceptance.
- That legislative changes be implemented to ensure management plans have legal status for compliance, not voluntary status as proposed, to ensure the GM industry is responsible for the containment of their GM product.
- The development of a detailed and realistic recall strategy.
- clear pathway for commercialisation providing above conditions have been met.
- END POLICY -
OBJECTIVES:
The Network of Concerned Farmers and industry stakeholders insist on a halt on any commercial release until protective legislation is in place to ensure the GM industry is responsible for containment of their product and all associated costs and liabilities.
1. Assessment of Economic impact:
That an independent and widely consultative, transparent assessment be undertaken to determine the economic impact of the proposed commercial release of GM crops. If an unacceptable or unmanageable economic risk is identified, commercial release must not proceed until issues are resolved.
This assessment is to include but not be limited to:
· An independent assessment of both domestic and export market acceptance of existing Australian markets of GE canola, including implications on primary industries such as honey, meat and dairy products, organic foods, as well as other grain markets which may be affected (ie barley exports);
· Independent review of claims by the biotechnology companies in relation to the agronomic performance of GM canola, including modeling of gene flow and herbicide resistance into future generations (at least 5 cropping seasons). Such a study should be conducted by a research organisation that does not receive funding (either directly or indirectly) from biotechnology proponents;
· assessment of all costs associated with the implementation of GM canola, including cost impacts on downstream processors such as stock feed manufacturers and food processors and local shires;
2. Protection of existing systems:
Guarantees through appropriate legislation that GM crops will not be released until a legislated and regulated system is implemented that guarantees protection of organic and conventional farmers who choose not to grow GM crops. This must enable such farmers the right to continue to farm unrestricted and market their crops as uncontaminated non-GM, GM-free or organic as per market specifications including to a "nil detectable" status according to testing industry technology available.
Conditional on acceptance, guarantees through appropriate legislation that any additional costs which result from the introduction of GM canola be either the responsibility of the GM canola grower or the technology providers, and not the whole of the grain supply chain;
The development through legislation of a legal framework to ensure that the technology providers and users of GM grains will be accountable for liabilities and costs of cleanup or recall arising from genuine unintentional contamination and any resultant loss in market access;
The development of a detailed and realistic ‘recall strategy’ to ensure that, if GM canola is introduced and segregation fails, the Australian grains industry can effectively return to, and maintain conventional and organic supply chains. In addition the GM supply chain and technology providers must be made responsible for the cost of implementing such a recall strategy should it be required;
3. Industry preparedness:
Each segment of industry must identify GM related problems and indicate preparedness and a suitable management plan prior to consideration for commercial release (please see attached list (*here*) for example). This democratic right must involve the majority of stakeholders within each industry segment. No sector of industry should be faced with unmanageable problems.
- END OBJECTIVES -
FUTURE: GM is the biggest public relations disaster for the decade.The Network of Concerned Farmers believe that this debate will not be resolved amicably unless consumer concerns are allayed. This is not possible by forcing a "scientific" viewpoint on consumers but by adequate independent health testing from scientists that consumers trust (eg. Arpad Puztai).
OTHER FARM LOBBY GROUP POLICIES:
Although a few farm lobby leaders portray industry support for GM crops, the farmers are far more cautious and this is reflected in lobby group policies which are more in line with the cautious NCF views than with the personal views of some farm lobby leaders.
The Grains Council of Australia has identified the need for "appropriate procecures and standards in place prior to the commercial release of any GM crops."
WAFarmers has identified Key Industry Requirements including the need to ensure there is no unacceptable costs or liabilities to all growers and that no additional costs or liabilities be imposed on non-GM growers than what would be expected of any other variety. Others include protection of current systems (farmer viability), legal recourse (farmer liability) and whole of supply chain acceptance.
The New South Wales Farmers Association policy has requested postponement of general release plans for GM canola "...until marketing and trade issues are fully addressed by government and industry...". Some of the issues/questions identified by NSWFA were: Agronomic performance, Insurance, Liability, Segregation and Marketing and trade.
The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) supports gene technology "...provided the concerns and recognised risks associated with the technology are managed..." however, this has now been replaced to VFF supports biotechnology..." We also recognise the concerns associated with techniques such as genetic engineering..."
South Australian Farmers Federation position included to "...ensure that the diversity of our farming systems is maintained through establishing adequate protocols, to enable co-existence of GM, non-GM and organic production..." They identified the need to deny commercial release "...until a greater understanding of marketing, preservation strategies and robust stewardship programs are in place..." SAFF also recognised "...there must be no negative impact on those who choose not to embrace the technology..."
Agforce Queensland Grains insists that if a GMO is commercially released "...producers choosing to utilise their traditional or current marketing and production system should not be negatively impacted in regard to supply chain costs or market access..."
There are currently no accepted coexistence plans that address these identified problems. The Gene Technology Grains Committee has ignored the impositions on non-GM growers in the preparation of their claimed "coexistence principles" and they have almost entirely concentrated on gaining priority for the GM production chain post-farmgate.
Why then are lobby group leaders going against the policies they represent in order to claim a pro-GM stance pushing for no risk management?
See articles: "Farmer policies" (here) and "Farmer surveys" (here) Gene Technology Grains Committee Coexistence principles (here)
Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers |
