| The Gene Technology Grains Committee is claiming to represent "industry" in preparing Australian coexistence protocols to supposedly allow GM and non-GM growers to plant side by side without problems.
These principles can be downloaded (here) and explain how there is no buffer zone, no requirement on the GM industry or grower to contain their product, no compulsory obligation to notify their neighbour and no concern for the non-GM grower who must sign the supply chain plan contracts and indemnities requesting guarantees of no contamination. Basically, the attitude of this committee is "she'll be right mate" and that for us growers who do not want to market on the consumer rejected GM market it will be our problem, even if the problem is unmanageable. They have been far more rigorous in implementing a requirement for all farmers (GM and non-GM) to repurchase seed every year rather than maintaining the right to replant.
The Gene Technology Grains Committee gives the definition of "adventitious presence (AP) " as "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 biology and the production processes. Although certain countries have begun adopting AP policy guidelines, widely recognized standards on the level of adventitious presence of GM grain in non-GM grain are still in the process of being developed. Where such standards do not exist, market specifications within a grain contract between the customer and the supplier of the grain are utilized to set limits on levels GM grain containing approved events in non-GM grain."
This is an admission that contamination is unavoidable but as international acceptance levels of adventitious presence has not been established it will be up to the non-GM grower to sign grain contracts and guarantees of no contamination and accept the liability for it.
The Gene Technology Grains Committee has allocated the "canola" definition as "May or may not contain approved GM events (eg. co-mingled), "Non-GM canola" as "Within market specifications for adventitious presence of GM" and "GM-free canola" as "Market specification for 'nil' adventitious presence of GM (based on testing protocol that would provide an agreed level, eg. 95% confidence, that it does not exceed 0.1% AP).
This ignores the legal definition and market acceptance for "non-GM" and "GM-free" requiring the product to be free of GM product, nor produced from GM product and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety definition for "canola". (more here)
The Australian Oilseed Federation are involved in preparing management plans through their involvement in the GTGC and quote: "However, complete containment of a GM trait using isolation distance alone becomes impractical under commercial production conditions (Downey, 1999b). No system of field production for canola can guarantee 100% purity or complete freedom from GM pollen (Moyes and Dale, 1999), given both pollen flow and temporal and spatial seed movement. To ensure successful co-existence of organic, conventional (non-GM) and GM canola crops, industry and growers need to accept similar standards of purity to those currently used for canola seed production crops worldwide, allowing for example, a threshold of up to 1% off-types (Moyes and Dale, 1999)."
The Gene Technology Grains Committee have allowed the Crop Management Plans to be in the hands of Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience (who will be financially rewarded for contamination by removing market competition) and they have been allowed to keep these plans confidential until the crop is in the ground. Bayer Cropscience have not even developed a test for Invigor canola yet and clearly have no intention to prevent contamination. (here) "Attention to good cropping management and record keeping will ensure coexistence of GM and non-GM canola is nothing new to farmers and that they can respond to their chosen market needs."
Bayer Cropscience has indicated an acceptance of a tolerance level when it has not yet been established .(here) "Commodity trading standards exist for GM and non-Gm grains throughout the world and Australia is no exception." and "The Australian Oilseeds Federation have defined 1% (in accordance with importing country standards) as an acceptable standard for the presence of unavoidable traces of GM canola in non GM canola grain." and "Japan is the largest importer of canola and accepts GM canola. Its non GM canola standards are regulated at 5% presence of GM." We have advised Bayer Cropscience that the definition of non-GM does not allow contamination, but this has been ignored.
Representatives from Monsanto appear to have the opinion that growers will not mind if they market on the GM market claiming there is no premium for non-GM (here) and are certainly of the opinion that there is no need for containing the GM product.
The Gene Technology Grains Committee are deflecting criticism of their principles by claiming they have started another committee called the Canola Reference Group that will create the "how to" plans. However, the mandate of this committee is only to police the principles and crop management plans. As there is no requirement of the principles to contain their product, the only containment measures imposed will be at the discretion of Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience.
The chief debate centres around a market reality for no contamination and an industry expectation that contamination is impossible to control so will have to be tolerated. This is not acceptable when it will be the non-GM grower that will be liable for not being able to deliver a product markets are demanding.
Some members of the Gene Technology Grains Committee have a clear vested interest in promotion of GM without restrictions. (more) Others are denying there are any problems or that problems are being resolved when they are not (more)
The few farmers on this committee are very supportive of GM introduction and are even going against the policies of the farm lobby groups they are claiming to represent. Although some farm leaders are claiming farmer support, the policies of major farm organisations are far more cautious (more) and public surveys reveal serious concern (more). Some farm lobby groups are stifling debate in order to reject restrictions on the GM grower and claims of vested interests have been made. (more)
Farmers will not accept contamination if we are to be liable for it and we are seeking legal advise to protect our industry. Unfortunately, the cheapest legal action is to wait for contamination and subsequent market loss and then sue our GM growing neighbours providing we do this early enough to ensure the source of contamination can be established (see AFFA liability here). This is not acceptable.
If we do not take action to prevent this, we are faced with outrageous legal issues that will be devastating for our industry. (here)
Attention has been focussed more on the accountability of those charged with the responsibility to protect our industry.
Julie Newman, Newdegate WA
Network of Concerned Farmers
|
