*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

 

10 December 2002

India - BT cotton fraud proved

"The study, conducted in 11 villages of Warangal district in AP, states that in economic terms, Bt cotton has proved a total failure."

AgBioIndia Mailing List - 10 December 2002 Subject: India: Bt cotton fraud proved
Bt cotton: neither the science nor its economics were correct.
While Monsanto walked away with its first year profits from selling prohibitively expensive inferior seeds, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in India gets ready to accord approval to yet another strain(s) of Bt cotton for the northwestern parts of the country and too after a hurridly conducted one-year of farm trials. Cotton farmers, in the bargain, have been left high and dry.

That in the very first year of commercial planting, Bt cotton should be faced with American bollworm attack (the insect against which it is supposedly resistant), is a clear pointer to the fact that the science/technology was not at all perfect. Bt cotton has also seen an increased infestation of other sucking pests. The crop came under an increased attack of wilt disease and of course has proved to be a water guzzler. And as far as the economics is concerned, it has gone wrong everywhere.

At no place in the country was the crop monitored for the riders that the GEAC had imposed to ensure that the environmental damages are minimised if not eliminated.

The scientific fraud that we pointed to at the very beginning has been very well established.

Contents:

1.Bt cotton lets down AP farmers: Study
2.Central India: Farmers recount their fears over Bt cotton
3.Bt cotton: An economist report card
4. In Brief: Kerala farmers plan campaign against GM food
---------------------

1.Bt cotton lets down AP farmers: Study
http://www.blonnet.com/stories/2002120900760700.htm
Business Line,

HYDERABAD, Dec. 9: Bt Cotton, introduced by Mahyco-Monsanto company in Andhra Pradesh (in South India), has failed to fulfil its promise, says a study made by agricultural scientists Dr Abdul Qayoom, former Joint Director of Agriculture in the State and Mr Sakkari Kiran of Permaculture Institute of India.

The study report was released to the press here on Saturday by Mr P. V. Sateesh, Convenor of Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity, a non-government organisation.

The study, conducted in 11 villages of Warangal district in AP, states that in economic terms, Bt cotton has proved a total failure. The current yields for both Bt and non-Bt cotton are same at 4-5 quintals per acre. But non-Bt plants have a life of 2-3 months more and are expected to yield another 3-4 quintals. Therefore, non-Bt cotton will produce at least 30 per cent more cotton.

Besides, the pesticides use has shown only a marginal difference. While farmers have sprayed pesticides 4-6 times, they have sprayed 5-7 times on non-Bt cotton crop.

On the whole, the study states, Bt cotton farmers have spent a total of Rs 8,000 per acre while non-Bt farmers spent Rs 7,100 till date. Bt farmers paid Rs 1,600 for seeds per acre while non-Bt farmers paid only Rs 450 per acre. However, Bt farmers had one spray of pesticides less than the non-Bt farmers resulting in a saving of Rs 400. Despite this, Bt farmer had to end up spending Rs 900 more per acre than non-Bt farmer as had to pay Rs 1,150 more towards the purchase of seed. Besides, the labour charges are stated to be about Rs 150 more for picking Bt cotton.

This apart, the price of Bt cotton is 10 per cent less than the non-Bt cotton in the local market as the size of its bolls and staple length is smaller than the conventional cotton hybrids under cultivation. As a result, in terms of total earning at the end of the cotton season, a non-Bt farmer is estimated to earn around Rs 6,000 more per acre than a Bt farmer, the study says.

Mr Sateesh told newspersons that the findings completely belie the expectations and hype raised by the Bt cotton industry. Bt cotton was expected to reduce pesticide usage, increase the crop yields and enhance the earnings of the farmers. However, it had failed on all three counts and the cotton farmers of Warangal district were saying they would not cultivate Bt cotton hereafter.

----------------
2.Central India: Farmers recount their fears over Bt cotton
By Dr R.B.Thakare

The purpose of releasing Bt cotton was to protect the environment by avoiding several damaging expensive insecticidal sprays to control bollworms. But looking at the fate of cotton crop grown in the Vidharbha region of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, the results are to the contrary. This report is based on the experience of many farmers in the region and also based on the visits of the authors to see some trials and visit farmers fields.

One thing is clear. More expensive sprays were need in this region for controlling bollworms pests.

At the farm of the well known environmentalist Baba Amte, at Aandwan in Warora,  in Chandrapur district, at both in Yeotmal district, at Smudrapur in Wardha District, at Wani and Warora in Chdrapur Dist and at Dhapewada in Nagpur district and else where in the Gujarat State, several Bt trials on the farmers fields gave very upsetting results. These results contradicted the purpose the transgenic Bt cotton varieties were developed and released.

Experience at Baba Amte's Anandwan farm [By: Dr. Palarpawar, Principal and Dean, Anandwan; in a talk with the team that visited Warora on October 29, 2002.]

A team comprising scientists and farmers representatives had visited the Anandwan farm. This team included:  Dr P. T. Shukla - a  geneticist and former head, department of botany, Gujarat Universsity; Dr. C. S.Chaudhary - Associate Dean, PKV Nagpur; Dr. Bhagvat - PKV Nagpur; Dr R B Thakare - geneticist and Editor, Farmers Forum; Mr. N. S. Ole Patil - President, Bharat Krishak Samaj, Maharashtra State; and some farmers.

After visiting the farm, the team also had discussions with the research staff at the Anandwan agriculture college, where apart from Dr. Palarpawar, other scientist  also joined: Prof. B M Chandore, head, Entomolgy; Prof M V Pusaddekar, head, Agronomy; Prof. P S Neharkar, incharge, Biotechnology; and Dr. Dhanorkar.

Dr. Palarpawar and his staff narrated their experience with Mech-162 variety of Bt cotton grown at the Anandwan farm. This crop was planted by Dr Palarpawar, who had also kept all the records pertaining to the trials.

Following are the excerpts:

Bt cotton seed details: (Sr. No. 026264 Cotton hybrid MECH - 162 Bt. Lot No. K01-66-29 ctq 84093 Date of Test : 13-05- 2002 Valid up to: 12.02.2003). Maximum retail price quoted at Rs 1600. The transgenic seeds of MECH - 162 Bt incomposite can contain Cry1 Ac gene and nptil and aad marker genes. GEAC approval D.O. No. 10/1/2002 - C S dated April 5, 2002.

Harvesting of the cotton crop was in progress when this visited the farm. Dr Palarpawar informed that he had so far incurred a total expenditure of Rs 11,000 on its cultivation. What he was expecting from this Bt crop was something around Rs. 5,000 -- a loss of Rs 6,000.

He had to spray the Bt as well as the non-Bt refuge several times to control the attack of bollworm insects and other sucking pests. They had also collected and killed several thousands bollworms from this Bt field in September. He was expecting a yield of about 4.5 to 5 quintals per acre this year, which would fetch him about Rs 5,000. He informed that there was no significant difference in the yield and performance of transgenic cotton with that of non-Bt cotton at his Warora farm but a local variety Nanded - 44 planted nearby was much better than the Bt cotton. Similar results were seen at other locations at some nearby places in Padhurna region, in Wani and Samudrapur in Wardha, Madhya Pradesh.

Farmer, Mr. R. R. Pawar, from Dhapewada, near Nagpur said: "he had (illegally) planted Bt cotton in 2001 and all that he could get was about 2 quintals/acre whereas the local cotton varieties gave him yields of 5 to 6 quintals/acre. He also clarified that he had sown Bt seed much late.

[Editors note: in its submission before GEAC, Monsanto-Mahyco had claimed 50 per cent higher yields from a crop sown two months late !!]

Experience of some Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra farmers:

At a cotton field day conducted at Padhurna in Madhya Pradesh, some farmers were interviewed by Dr R.V.Thakare: Raju Gharpure, Vijay Nakade, Devilal Paradkar and Nandu Bande. Most of these farmers except Nandu Bande, who grew Bt cotton, said that they will not plant the transgenic Bt cotton the next year because the cost of seed was prohitively high for them. Besides, this year Bt cotton was also attacked by the American Bollworm and at the same time the attack of sucking pests was much higher. Despite the protective Bt gene in cotton, extensive insecticides sprays had to be made. The difference between Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton was not significant and the other cotton varieties planted nearby viz  Dhanno, and Binny gave better yields with and with out sprays. "Then why go for expensive Bt cotton?"

[This field report was contributed by Dr R.B.Thakare]
--------------------

3.Bt cotton: An economist report card
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=23412

by Ashok B Sharma
Financial Express

New Delhi, Dec 9: The commercial sowing of legally approved Bt cotton seeds for one complete season in India is over. The harvesting of cotton in the country has almost come to a close. This is the time to assess the impact of largescale sowing of Bt cotton in the country.

Reports have already come in citing some success stories of Bt cotton cultivation at some places. There are reports of cases where Bt cotton has not fared well in terms of the expected yield and returns to the farmers due to high cost of seeds and more application of fertilisers and water. Some reports say that the seeds 'illegally' distributed by Navbharat have given more promising results in terms of yield and more returns than the legally approved seeds of Mahyco.

In this context, Dr Sudarshan Iyengar, director of Gujarat Institute of Development Research (GIDR), Ahmedabad and Dr N Lalitha, assistant professor of GIDR wrote in the current edition of the prestigious 'Indian Journal of Agricultural Economic' published by the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Mumbai castigating the regulatory authority in the country for unnecessarily rushing the approval of Mech 12, Mech 162 and Mech 184 Bt cotton hybrid seeds developed by Mahyco in collaboration with Monsanto.

The experts duo also clarified "the purpose of this paper is not to suggest that we should shun this technology, but to tread cautiously especially in the context of lack of transparency, co-ordination and monitoring by the certifying authorities in adapting a new technology like the transgenic seeds, which has definite implication for India.
In future, if it is possible that since the Bt cotton seeds have the government certification to go for commercialisation, there could be a tremendous demand, which could pave for hike in prices and adulterated seeds. There should be an undertaking by the company for eventual compensation of the farmers if the seeds fail. A very strong institution mechanism should be built to prevent the sale of 'truthful' and adulterated varieties of Bt seeds."

Dr Iyengar and Dr Lalitha questioned "when a country like the US had taken more than 10 years to conduct the trials and subsequent commercialisation, it is unclear why the Indian government is in a hurry to release the transgenic crop. Where developed countries like the US, Australia and even China have so far not allowed the transgenic products to enter the food chain, India has taken a very bold decision to do so, in spite of the reports on allergic impact on humans caused by transgenic corn in Mexico.

In all the countries, so far the produce of the transgenic crops is restricted to industrial applicability alone and has not entered the food chain."

Quoting the regulatory authority in India, the writers duo said "more interestingly, GEAC has said that there is no harm in using the transgenic cotton in food products and no labelling is required for the domestic market, while labelling will be essential for the export market."

The two experts also said that there has been mixed results with farmers in US regarding Bt cotton. They said, "Harvest time reported mixed results with farmers from the West to the East coast reporting of bollworm damage of varying degrees and there was no change in the behaviour of the pest attack but a substantial reduction in the pesticide use." They also said: "the returns from the Bt and non-Bt cotton were the same for the US farmers" and further adding, "interestingly, North California State University's research study reported that one in 350 tobacco bud worms carried resistance to the Bt toxin......Bt cotton could remain effective against tobacco budworm for 10 years."

Dr Iyengar and Dr Lalitha said, "Since the concerned State Government's Biotechnology Coordination Committees were not consulted in Mahyco's trials it raises a fundamental question whether the required permission came from GEAC or the RCGM?"

They alleged that field trials were not conducted on a step-by-step basis and the field trial results have not yet been made public.

They said, "ICAR trials have also been carried out only for one season, sometime between June 2001 and March 2002. For identifying the possible pest attack and GMOs impact on the soil diversity and environment, the field trials should have been ideally carried out for a minimum of three to four seasons." -----------------

NEWS IN BRIEF

Kerala farmers plan campaign against GM food
http://www.keralanext.com/news/index.asp?id=4579

Kochi (Kerala), Dec 8: The recently-formed Kerala Karshaka Munnani, a farmers' organisation, plans to undertake a campaign against Genetically-Modified (GM) food and cash crops, being popularised by multinational biotech corporations.

The chairman, P C George, a member of the legislative assembly, said on Saturday that his organisation was determined to educate the farmers on the harms wrought by GM crops as most of them were not aware of it. He urged the State and Union Governments to take immediate steps to save the Indian farmers from the GM crops, which were rejected in developed countries. This apolitical organisation formed under the initiative of Fr Vadakkan, a Catholic priest fighting for the cause of farmers, also proposed to campaign against nationalised banks in Kerala which utilised deposits mobilised from Kerala for lending in other States, neglecting priority sectors like agriculture in the State. -------------

Backgrounder:

'Bt cotton will kill farmers, financially and literally'
An interview with Devinder Sharma
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/12inter.htm

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