| Contamination of non-GM canola crops with GM canola crops will occur, and is expected to occur, as contamination is deemed to be uncontrollable. But who is responsible for this?
There is serious consumer non-acceptance for GM and the preferred market demand is for nil GM contamination or "non-GM" or "GM-free". Our existing farming is GM-free with a guarantee of zero contamination which allows us no restriction in market access. Once commercial release occurs, Quarantine (AQIS) will no longer be able to issue the guarantee of non-GM status to our export consignments.
To sell a product as "non-GM" or "GM-free", our product must be uncontaminated or we breach the labelling requirements of the Trade Practises Act but it is expected that the non-GM farmer takes the responsibility to ensure their product meets market demand.
Farmers will need to prove their "non-GM" status and provide an expensive and time consuming traceable and auditable identity preservation system. This ensures purchasers can trace liability back to the source of contamination if the end product is found to be contaminated. Although GM is undetectable in processed canola oil, we export canola seed and the GM content is detectable in any canola seed that is the progeny of GM canola.
The Gene Technology Grains Committee is the self initiated and supposed industry representative body that is heavily funded and influenced by Avcare (chemical company representative). It is obvious the GM industry has influenced the outcomes to benefit the GM industry at the expense of the non-GM grower.
2001 GM Canola Technical Working Group – "Genetically Modified Canola in Western Australia: Industry Issues and Information" page 28; "The canola industry will need to decide whether the concept of GM-free or zero GM is of any real relevance. In the absence of an objective measure, it would be best to define the standard as the limit of detection, ie. A finite measurable purity standard. If concerned sections of the industry such as Organic Canola growers wish to continue with a concept of GM-free, however unmeasurable, then a separation distance of 3-5km would be advised."
Yet the Gene Technology Grains Committee claiming they are preparing coexistence principles has not imposed any requirement for a buffer zone. Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto can draw up their own crop management plans to deal with on-farm contamination and have claimed the confidential crop management plans will impose a 5 metre buffer zone. This is a clear indication that there is no intention to segregate to market demand.
Liability is expected to be the responsibility of the non-GM grower for controlling contamination and for being responsible for the implications! The GM product provider will be effectively rewarded for causing contamination by making it too difficult and too expensive to market as non-GM and may eventually benefit from implications of the Patent Act (see article on Law).
This self-appointed committee delegated the responsibility for establishing supposed co-existence protocols is expecting some degree of contamination.
GTGC Canola Industry Stewardship Protocols:
"Adventitious presence (AP): accidental, unintentional presence of ‘off-types’. The words "adventitious presence " are commonly used for characterizing unintentional presence of grain containing approved GM events in a non-GM grain. A certain level of adventitious presence of GM grain in non-GM grain is unavoidable with respect to the crop reproduction processes."
Canola Industry Stewardship Protocols: The "Responsibility for process verification" allocates impact and responsibility on to the non-GM grower for contamination in crop.
The liability for contamination throughout the supply chain rests with each section of industry.
How can this be managed in a commercial agricultural industry?
If the Non-GM farmer is responsible for preventing in-crop contamination as suggested, they must provide the buffer zone deemed necessary to protect the crop.
Supply chain participants such as certified seed producer, contract harvester, truckdriver, seed cleaner, bulk handler and marketers are responsible for ensuring they do not cause contamination, which again is impossible to comply with. It is not manageable to be able to test for low levels of contamination due to the extreme cost and delay and it is doubtful that any industry will accept liability for causing contamination.
The current West Australian storage and handling company, Cooperative Bulk Handlers (CBH) Carters Delivery Form is typical of what to expect:
"1. Growers declaration:
I/We hereby represent and warrant that:...
(d) the Grain does not include any genetically modified grain;…
2. Growers indemnity:
I/We …
(a) to indemnify and keep indemnified CBH indemnified against:...
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;"
This type of agreement not only requires a guarantee of contamination but an indemnity for the contamination that this sector of industry may cause.
The traceable and auditable identity preservation system is expected to provide a paper trail to enable any product to be traced throughout the supply chain. Samples will be taken at each point of delivery but due to the lack of quick accurate verified testing facilities in the field, low levels of contamination will not be detectable. Samples will be retained as part of the required identity preservation system and quality assurance.
The Australian grains industry is preparing for the co-existence of GM crops and non-GM crops, and it is important that industry protocols to achieve this are successful. In this regard, comments by Porter of the Grain Pool of WA are salient:
Cooperative Bulk Handling representative Peter Portman stated "It is not difficult to envisage scenarios where a grower delivering a crop in error, or a bulk handler pushing the wrong button, or a road haulage operator getting instructions wrong could seriously challenge this tolerance limit [ie, tolerance of adventitious GM in a non-GM crop]. Along the grain chain from grower to market there are multiple critical points at which serious contamination could be effected….There are potentially major legal and financial liabilities associated with contamination problems. Distressed cargo on the water is every exporting grain trader’s worst nightmare and has the potential to destroy a business. Add downstream processing liabilities in a non-GM value chain caused by late detection of a problem, and the damage bill could be multiplied well past the value of the grain."
(Portmann, P. and Tucek, M. “Marketing GM Crops. Market issues facing Australia if it moves into GM crops” in Outlook 2001, Agriculture and Regional Australia, Proceedings of the National Outlook Conference 27 February – 1 March 2001, at 192.)
What would happen if a consignment was tested positive for contamination and either a shipment rejected or a product recalled? The traceable and auditable identity preservation system will enable this contamination to be traced back to individual farmers that delivered to that particular consignment. If the retained samples are tested and low levels of contamination are found in some of these, will these farmers be liable for the contamination? The contamination may not have been caused by the farmer but due to the guarantees and indemnities signed, they may well be legally responsible for this.
It presents an unacceptable scenario where a farmer may only deliver a truckload of seed worth thousands, but their liability may extend to a rejection of a shipment or even a recall of a product including contamination cleanup worth millions. This may not be insurable.
If a non-GM farmers is sued for recall and contamination cleanup, our legal recourse is to sue the GM farmer who could be liable providing it can be proven contamination originated from their crop... providing we can prove which farmer caused the contamination.
The liability for guaranteeing a product is contamination-free when contamination is uncontrollable and testing is impractical at delivery point, is totally unacceptable to farmers.
The Network of Concerned Farmers insist that the GM product provider be legally responsible for the control of their product. It should not be the responsibility of non-GM growers. We do not want to be forced to market on the restricted GM because the cost and liability is prohibitive to market as non-GM. We want to avoid liability issues being resolved with farmer versus farmer legal action.
Julie Newman
GM grower liability: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=383
The American National Corn Growers site explains the problems of coexistence and markets demanding guarantees of no contamination: http://www.ncga.com/biotechnology/know_where/know_grow_guidelines.html
Update: Federal Government report on liability issues: click here
Industry issues not being addressed and government being misled to believe they are: click here
"New Zealand should follow the lead of Europe and establish legal liability of GM food producers for contaminating other foods." click here
|
