22 December 2003

Summary and Overview

29 April 2005

Summary

GM crops should be analysed on a case by case basis for benefits, alternatives, risks and the risk management needed:   On a case by case basis - GM canola   Benefits: GM canola does not benefit farmers - it only gives post emergent resistance to different chemicals (the same as our non-GM varieties). Contrary to claims, the GM process does not give increased yield and can not be planted early without the use of pre emergent chemicals. The single gene technology of GM canola only gives chemical resistance and it does not give benefits not associated with chemical resistance. In the case of Bayer Cropsciences hybrid canola Invigor, the chemical the crop is resistant to is far more expensive and not as effective as the chemicals we use now on our  non-GM canola. In the case of Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola, the crop is resistant to glyphosate but farmers are already constantly told to cut the use of glyphosate in our rotations as weeds are developing resistance to it (it is our most commonly used chemical in the agricultural industry and we can not afford to lose its effectiveness). There appears to be a significant yield penalty associated with Roundup Ready crops.   Alternatives: There are far better non-GM alternatives. We have a range of other weed control techniques including non-GM chemical resistant canola. It should be relatively easy to produce non-GM glyphosate resistant canola as our weeds are developing glyphosate resistance without us wanting them to. The benefits claimed of biotechnology are most often referring to non-GM biotechnology and the advances in genome market identification, selective breeding will fast track conventional breeding to produce the desired results. The majority of farmers prefer to market as non-GM.   Risks: Contamination will occur and economic loss will occur because consumers and markets are rejecting GM products. This will impact negatively on both GM and non-GM growers as it will be too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM. GM canola will impact negatively on all of our markets. For example, no GM canola can be present in non-GM canola which will be impossible to comply with, beekeepers selling GM-free honey need to sign a 5km exclusion zone declaration, half of our wheat can not have any trace of GM canola present.   Risk Management: All non-GM farmers want is to ensure that non-GM farmers will not be negatively impacted by a GM crop that we do not want and do not need. We insist that the liability for all economic loss to be carried by the GM industry rather than the non-GM grower as proposed. This is being refused by the GM industry as they would prefer non-GM growers to lose the right to market as non-GM.  They prefer to deny the choice for consumers and farmers to source and supply non-GM products.   Julie Newman National Spokesperson, Network of Concerned Farmers

Overview:  (15th December, 2004):

Why do the GM industry, who clearly have a vested interest in promoting GM crops, feel they have the right to remove the GM-free status of Australia without adequately compensating those concerned if economic loss is experienced? A "trust us, but farmers can pay if we are wrong" attitude is clearly not accepted by farmers or the Australian state governments who have the role of assessing economic risk.

Farmers, farm lobby groups and politicians are targetted by a range of pro-GM activists promoting dreams and hiding realities. We have the GM industry wanting to profit by patenting and controlling the source that all food is derived from, the scientists and research industry wanting to profit from the advantage of encouraging corporate investment to plant breeding, the governments wanting to back out of funding research and development (one of Australia's only subsidies) and supply chain participants wanting to profit by developing closed loop marketing systems and contractual agreements to lock farmers in to specific products, production methods and supply chains.

GM benefits need to be assessed more carefully and we need to look beyond the promises to the reality of what Australian farmers are actually being offered. We are being offered chemical resistant canola that does not appear to yield or return more benefit than our many non-GM chemical resistant canola varieties. It is not acceptable that almost all economic reports are based on the best yield improvements that the GM industry claim has occurred in Canada rather than from any factual data presented from a range of independent Australian trials.

Coexistence is known by all to be impossible to comply with the zero detectable tolerance level required but instead of acknowledging this problem, the pro-GM activists (most with a vested interest) are trying to mislead the public and government to believe that the level required for coexistence for a positive "non-GM" or "GM-free" label is the same level that triggers the requirement for a positive "GM" label.

As coexistence is scientifically proven to be impossible to comply with the zero tolerance of legal requirements and market demands, or too difficult and too expensive to implement, all farmers will be expected to market on the GM market and market risk is considerable. Although it is the intention of the GM industry to expect consumers to accept GM on the basis that there will be no choice, consumers will not be so obliging and will merely turn to an alternative non-canola oil on the basis that all canola is GM.  Our domestic canola market (around 30% of our market) has clearly indicated their reluctance to accept GM, several Japanese and Chinese customers have made similar claims and EU (with a clear market demand for non-GM) accounts for roughly 13% of our export market when based on a 5 year average.

Perhaps the biggest market loss would be the fact that over half of our wheat export volume is sent to GM-sensitive clients that have indicated they want no trace of GM canola in our wheat, which would be impossible to comply with considering wheat follows canola in a normal crop rotation system and it would be far too expensive to grade the volume of grain concerned. Similar market loss will occur on a range of products from barley, lupins, hay, honey, stock feed and stock fed traces of GM grain.

Farmers market a food for consumers that are rejecting GM and all farmers can not afford to throw these markets away just to let a few farmers give GM canola a try.

Even trials could be a threat to the economic wellbeing of Australian farmers if contamination is not strictly managed. An Extract from The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) report on "Co-existence between genetically modified crops, and conventional and organic crops".
"Consumer caution has meant whole areas where GMO cultivation gives rise to an increased risk of contamination being effectively boycotted whether or not contamination has actually occurred. The mere fact that GM wheat was on an experimental basis in a particular German federal state caused the largest German milling group to stop buying wheat from that area."

Governments and decision makers have a duty of care to ensure that they can not ignore the fact that there will be economic loss and market risk and when so many markets will be affected by the introduction of GM canola, it is very very clear that the risks far outweighs any perceived benefits. Farmers can not, and will not, accept the associated loss to our income and as GM crops are the intruder to our industry, the GM industry should accept the responsibility for containing their product and ensuring it does not contaminate other markets.

All Australian states that rigorously assessed economic risk called moratoriums for good, well documented reasons.

After a rigorous assessment and review process including visiting US and Canada, the cross party committee of West Australia concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that the potential benefits from the commercialisation of GM crops are not sufficient to weigh against the risks." and also included that the "WA Government has a responsibility to protect the existing rights of non-GM growers and that non-GM growers should not shoulder the financial responsibility for identity preservation, should identity preservation be deemed necessary."

The South Australian select committee recommended that "industry must be able to guarantee coexistence to meet market demands for different classes of crops and products, eg. GM-free, non-GM and GM,",  that there be an establishment of "rigorous and cost effective segregation and IP systems through the total production and supply chain" and "the segregation and IP systems must be agreed upon by the whole of the production and supply chain."

The Victorian Government commissioned a report by Professor Peter J Lloyd (independent adviser), who found:  "Release of GM canola for commercial production would be subject to whatever regulations and controls are deemed necessary to manage the risks. The State of Victoria, or the cooperating States as a group if cooperation among growing states is possible, would determine industry standards. Self-regulation by the industry does not adequately address the issues in an industry with systemic problems affecting other stakeholders."
Despite the evidence presented at the Victorian hearing, it was ignored that "Non-GM" and "GM-free" means no detectable content of GM is allowed, which would mean coexistence would not be possible. The report also failed to cover the fact that farmers are now liable for contamination caused by both commercial release and trials as the guarantee of GM-free status was withdrawn when GM canola was approved at Federal level and farmers are required to sign contractual agreements guaranteeing a GM-free status of their produce.

Even the Federal Government has recognised the need to indemnify farmers from additional costs and market risk: Quote from Appendix 1 - Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry - Australia produced document titled Biotechnology Strategy for Agriculture, Food and Fibre. - "considering that the application of biotechnology in the agriculture, food and fibre industries should not jeopardise market opportunities or impose unreasonable costs on existing producers;"

Non-GM farmers have not been warned that they would be liable for economic loss caused by contamination as they will be signing contractual guarantees that indemnify the supply chain. Those wanting to grow GM crops are not told that they can well be sued for any loss incurred from contaminating their neighbours, that this risk appears to be uninsurable, that they could suffer loss of land values and associated loss in equity which would in turn affect their bank loans and viability.

The GM industry claim that decisions should be "science based" rather than "economic based" which is clearly ignoring the fact that the world revolves around economics and that economics is the reason why the GM proponents want GM crops in preference to the better plant breeding advances in non-GM biotechnology. If a less economic, more "scientific" angle is to be pursued we should remove the right to patent living organisms as this economic incentive is clearly the driving force for forcing GM on a reluctant population.

If the future option of GM pharmaceutical or industrial crops is accepted, there is clear evidence that consumers do not wish to be accidentally and unknowingly consuming a range of pharmaceuticals or industrial plastics in their ceareals and yet it will be impossible for farmers to avoid contamination. If wreckless decisions are made, farmers could not only lose our ability to market food crops consumers prefer, but we could lose our ability to market food crops at all.

Without adequate risk management, the introduction of GM crops will seriously threaten farmers long term economic viability. Farmers will take whatever action is necessary to ensure our industry is not threatened and accordingly farmers are poised to take legal action to recover economic loss.

The Network of Concerned farmers are non-GM farmers not wanting to be adversely affected by a crop we do not need, do not want and can not afford and we believe nobody has the right to force us to compensate the GM industry without adequate and fair redress.

Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers
www.non-gm-farmers.com

-------------------   ***   -----------------------

2. Short summary with more focus on the general public : 20th May, 2004:

3. December 2003 Report (more detailed)

Australia has released GM canola on a national basis but each State has blocked the commercial release due to industry unpreparedness and market risk.

The chief debate centres around a market reality that no GM contamination is to be detected in agricultural produce and an industry expectation that contamination is impossible to control so will have to be tolerated. This is not acceptable when farmers will be liable for not being able to continue to deliver a product markets are demanding. Farmers will not accept GM contamination if we are to be liable for it nor will we accept the loss of our valuable non-GM status.

Farmers not wishing to grow GM crops simply do not want to be impacted by them and insist on protection from any impacts.  We want to continue to market on the consumer preferred market and do not want additional costs or any contamination if it will cause market rejection or if we are to be liable for it.

Consumers want a choice and do not want to pay more to avoid a product they do not wish to consume.

Those farmers supporting GM crops do not want their crops segregated, or any requirement to contain their product as it will be too expensive and too difficult and therefore not viable to grow GM crops as there is insufficient benefits. They would also prefer no market competition and want all growers to market as GM.

Those producing GM crops do not want to accept liability for their product, do not want consumers to have a choice as it is creating market restrictions, and do not want GM growers to face additional costs as it will impact negatively on sales.

Why let the GM industry prepare management plans when they have no desire to segregate the product for consumers or to protect farmers not wanting to grow GM crops and will be financially rewarded by contamination? Our Federal government has allowed this to happen but luckily states have acted to protect our industry.

Worldwide millions of consumers are rejecting GM food causing market restriction. Yet, if GM is introduced under existing proposals, it will be too difficult and too expensive to segregate unwanted GM from our crops to supply to demand.

Without our existing non-GM guarantee attached to quarantine statements, farmers will need to prove our non-GM status. The increased cost is estimated at between 10 – 20% of our gross product income (or $40 - $80/tonne) depending on acceptable tolerance levels. (Ref 1)

The traceability system is needed to assign liability for uncontrollable contamination and this will be traced to non-GM farmers who have signed guarantees and supply chain indemnities to declare there was NO GM contamination. (Ref 2)

Contamination will occur, not only by pollen flow over long distances but by direct seed transfer caused by seed carryover from previous crops, natural occurrences (wind, flood etc), animal transfer, machinery and human error. (Photos: Ref 30) 

Already, over 95% of the certified seed stocks in Canada are contaminated despite every effort to segregate. Once released, it will be impossible to guarantee no contamination and yet this is a requirement for our agricultural industry. (Ref 3) Seed tested in US confirm all non-GM canola seed is contaminated (Ref 41)

There is high market sensitivity to very low levels of GM contamination in any of our produce. Any detectable contamination and we would not be able to sign a guarantee of non-GM status, nor sell our product as labelled "non-GM"under the Trade Practices Act, nor declare a non-GM status under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for International trade. Legally "non-GM" or "GM-free" means no GM contamination. We can not supply contaminated feed to the dairy industry and other stock markets such as yabbies, beef, mutton and pork.  Half of our wheat export volume requires a zero tolerance of contamination and other exports of grains such as lupins and barley are at similar risk.

Zero contamination tolerance is the market reality and yet it is impossible to comply with and has been scientifically proven to be so. 1% GM contamination tolerance has been touted as acceptable, but the 1% GM tolerance relates to compulsory labelling of some foods with GM DNA in the final product and is not related to compliance with GM-free labels. Any adventitious presence tolerated by some markets must be proven to be accidental, not accepted when known.  It appears the supposed contamination limit was an attempt by the GM industry to mislead farmers, government and the public into believing coexistence is possible. (Ref 4)

The non-GM farmer will not be able to test for low levels of contamination as the cheaper tests expected to be used at receival points only give a guidance if content is over 1%. There are no standards approved GM test and as yet, Bayer Cropscience has no field test available.

Farmers will be liable for any contamination due to the contractual agreements signed declaring no GM content in seed supplied. (Ref 19). Liability may extend to a rejection of a shipment, a recall of a product or contamination cleanup amounting to millions of dollars and it is unlikely that this will be insurable.

The non-GM farmer is expected to control uncontrollable contamination in order to prevent being sued under the Trade Practices Act for delivering a contaminated product under a "non-GM" or "GM-free" label. Farmers can even be sued under Patent law for possessing an unwanted patented gene in their crop. (Ref 20) 

Australia is the first to propose an end-point royalty system for collection of user fees on delivery of product but has not established what amount of contamination triggers a deduction. As yet, there is no protection to avoid companies such as Monsanto deducting their user fee from the proceeds of any farmers payments.

Why should farmers accept GM contamination if we are to be liable for it? Contamination will occur, market rejection will occur and liability and insurance difficulties will affect all supply chain participants. (Ref 45)

Non-GM is a preferred market but due to the unacceptable costs and liabilities, non-GM farmers will be effectively forced to market on the consumer rejected GM market. (Ref 5) It is ignored that Australia may not be able to market all of its produce as GM and it is ignored that we will be paid significantly less for our product. (Ref 56)

The GM industry must not be allowed to deprive farmers of our chosen markets in a bid to remove market competition and consumer choice. If farmers can not grow crops without GM contamination and can not verify a non-GM product, consumers will not have a choice and will avoid our product in order to avoid GM.

Why the push?

Fantastic yields are claimed of GM but this has not been substantiated and evidence shows a reduction in yields in Australia. The Federal Productivity Commission report stated the experience of GM canola in Canada showed only "small yield results for herbicide tolerant canola, averaging only about 1 per cent, and little evidence of cost reductions." GM canola is not performing as well as promoted in Australia (Ref 26) Up until trial results were removed recently, the best yield available on Monsanto's website was 17% below the national average and yet they were touting up to 40% increase in yields. Bayer Cropscience claims similar yield increases but trials show it performs no better than the lower yielding triazine tolerant varieties known for yield penalties. Despite years of trials covering thousands of hectares, there is no agronomic or econonomic evidence that GM canola can perform better than non-GM canola in Australia.  Economic reports to date overestimate unsubstantiated benefits and underestimate, or ignore the costs and risks. (Ref 18)  

The biotechnology dream has been misleadingly promoted by the GM industry without clarifying that the best of biotechnology promoted is non-GM genomics. Our income has been levied to position Australia in the forefront of non-GM research and development and the breakthroughs in non-GM biotechnology will continue to provide non-GM varieties with the many traits promised of GM varieties. The study of gene function can allow fast tracking of breeding to produce preferred traits such as tolerance to salt, frost, drought and diseases in Non-GM varieties, but this is not explained in biotechnology promotions. (Ref 15) 

Companies do invest in non-GM biotechnology but prefer producing a final GM product because non-GM does not have the same corporate control or profit making potential as GM products. Non-GM products only possess a minor plant breeders rights with little chance of recouping total research dollars. The unique major patent rights of GM products encourages the increase of corporate profits from chemical, seed sales and corporate control. Rather than the smaller end-point royalty fees associated under plant breeder rights, the GM end-point user fee is far more expensive and the farmer loses the right to plant their own seed. Even non-GM farmers are to have their rights to save seed restricted. Chemical sales can be promoted by making the plant resistant to that particular herbicide or by incorporating genes that will be activated when sprayed with a specific chemical. Profit margins of farmers can be manipulated easily by the GM industry by increasing seed costs and user fees and imposing crop-management plans dictating how to farm and what products to use. As a major patent owner legally owns the product if only a user agreement is signed, it can be assumed they could dictate management of that product from paddock to plate. (Ref 35) 

If the GM product was denied the unique major patent rights we would not have the drive to force GM on a reluctant population. GM is nothing to do with feeding the poor and everything to do with feeding the demands of corporate business. (Ref 8)

American subsidies have risen in direct proportion to GM crops grown and they are clearly having difficulties marketing or even giving away GM produce as aid. Pressure is being applied to countries such as Australia, to lose our competitive non-GM marketing edge in order to level the playing field and remove consumer choice. (Ref 9) 

ABARE reported comparisons between Australian and Canadian prices showed Canadian canola consistently gained a premium of around $30US/tonne for their canola. Since 2000, Australia now often gains a premium over Canadian GM canola. (Ref 56)

Australia’s Non-GM status is very valuable, and yet our agricultural industry is expected to give this away without question or compensation.

Where is government protection?

Our Federal Government has appointed the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to assess health and the environment and "any other risk" associated with this product. The OGTR’s bizarre interpretation of the Act has led to her ignoring economic or agricultural related issues and the process does little more than deflect liability from the GM industry. (Ref 10) The OGTR is claiming they do not "do" economics, contamination, segregation or even environmental biodiversity. They do not "do" food testing, it is done by companies such as Monsanto themselves and the longest animal test appears to be 28 days and full autopsies are rarely done. (Ref 27) and (Senate estimates Ref 28)

The OGTR has approved both Bayer Cropscience Invigor Canola (24th July 2003) and Monsanto's Roundup Ready Canola (19th December 2003) for release on a Federal basis. There is a condition of license to ensure GM crops are not planted in a designated "GM-free" zone.

It has been decided Federally that "industry" must decide how to manage these crops and Government is accepting the role of the Gene Technology Grains Committee. This committee has been selected by, and have approved plans prepared by, the GM industry. This committee is not representative of industry, farm representatives are not consulting the industry they are claiming to represent and they are ignoring farmer concerns and their own policies. (Ref 22)  Despite their reassurances, somewhere along the way, this committee forgot to prepare the promised crop management plans to deal with the risks and are relying on the GM industry to do so. Of course, Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience are not interested in encouraging market opposition by making the production of non-GM possible.

Therefore, the crop management plans have been prepared by the GM product license holder themselves with virtually no restrictions by the GTGC. The principle of coexistence is rather than the GM industry being required to keep GM contained,  it will be left to the non-GM grower to keep GM out of their product. (Ref 42) Crop management plans do very little to contain the GM product within the GM growers boundary.

The simple facts of how growers will be affected have been denied. There is no transparency or clarity on decision making as claimed and it is being ignored that industry has clearly not approved these plans (Ref 22)

"Non-GM" is to become an expensive to produce niche market legally requiring no contamination which is technically impossible. The GTGC are proposing that the definition of "canola" is to become GM or GM-contaminated canola, thereby removing the definition that GM "adventitious presence" could be tolerated.  Farmers have not even been advised that they are expected to market as GM and have certainly not been asked. (Ref 12)  

Due to lack of transparency and accountability, the GTGC has recently caused a misunderstanding at Senate level incorrectly claiming industry has approved coexistence management principles while farm lobby groups are being told that the GTGC has not signed off on principles as it would be against policy.  (Ref 19) 

We are faced with a situation where the GM industry is not prepared to bear the costs, liabilities and control of their product and have drafted management plans to redirect these responsibilities on to those of us not wanting to use their product. There is no right of appeal and yet the only public consultation process is by submissions that are being ignored. (Ref 14)

Our Federal government has previously supported the GM industry in refusing to impose special liability on the GM industry for containing their product. (Ref 21)   Recently motions at Senate have given support for these issues be debated at Ministerial level but attempts to block these motions were made by our own Federal Minister for Agriculture. (ref 24)

Unrestricted regulatory approval must be considered as an attempt to legitimise vandalism of our consumer preferred product with a product rejected by markets. Farmers and consumers can not afford, and are certainly not prepared to subsidise companies such as Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience.

The State Governments, responsible for land use, are able to assess GM acceptance on economic grounds and currently all canola growing states suited to approved GM canola varieties have a moratorium or ban of some sort to prevent commercial release. (Ref 50)  If one State accepts GM crops, it will be unlikely that it could be quarantined sufficiently to protect other States getting contamination and yet it is a condition of license that GM companies accept restriction into GM-free zones. (Ref 25)

Why is GM introduction being approved by our industry leaders?

Farm lobby groups have been the target for an extremely pro-GM campaign and have relied heavily on biased information from Agrifood Awareness that is partially funded by Avcare who represents the chemical companies involved. Previously there has been little avenue for the average farmer to impact on any decision making processes and concerns were ignored. Now more information is available there is a very gradual change in attitude at farm lobby leader level but some have maintained their pro-GM stance as an issue of pride. Although farm lobby groups have been portrayed as very supportive of GM crops, their policies reveal a far more cautious attitude than revealed by the farm lobby leaders (Ref 35).  Polls clearly show the majority of farmers are seriously concerned and do not support GM crops. (Ref 36) 

It is claimed that decisions are well regulated, well managed and science based, yet farmers have been denied the information needed to make an agronomic or economic decision. Decisions are made, not on sound logic or sound science, but as a result of an expensive promotion campaign.

Where to now?

Resolutions must not be left to resort to farmer versus farmer (hypothetical Ref 58) .We can only co-exist if we maintain our national uncontaminated non-GM status and ensure the GM industry is 100% responsible for total containment of their GM product and all associated costs and liabilities.

The commercial release of GM crops is the biggest threat to our industry we have ever faced and yet essential information regarding the impact of these crops is denied. GM benefits are doubtful but economic risks are very real and we must therefore adopt a suitable risk management strategy. We must fully assess economics, we must ensure no sector of industry is faced with unmanageable problems and we must protect our existing agricultural industry.

Wouldn’t it be negligent not to?

Julie Newman, Newdegate, West Australia (08) 98711562

Network of Concerned Farmers www.non-gm-farmers.com

We welcome distribution of any articles on our website prepared by the Network of Concerned Farmers, if used please reference website address. Every effort has been made to provide accurate information and we invite comment if any inaccuracy is found (email julie@non-gm-farmers.com)