*New*
 AOF Contamination report
 GM Canola Factsheet
 History of how Bayer Cropscience caused contamination of non-GM canola in Australia

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

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
 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

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

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

Corporate control
 Corporate control
 Corporate Engineering in Public Debate
 In (Seed) Bed Together

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

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

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

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

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

Honey issues
 Apiarist briefing
 The impact of GM contamination
 SA Apiarists briefing
 Map SA & Vic

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

... And just when you thought the GM debate couldn't get any sillier...

In Western Australia, pro-GM lobby groups are pushing for the lifting of the moratoria to allow the commercial growing of GM wheat!

There are a few problems that they are forgetting to consider:

- There is no market for GM wheat or GM contaminated wheat. Wheat is a food consumers are expected to eat directly, not indirectly as food for stock or as oil and it will be required to be labelled as GM.

- No country in the world is growing GM wheat commercially. Even US and Canada refused to allow GM wheat commercialisation due to the economic risk.

- If GM wheat is released commercially, all farmers will be expected to market as GM unless they participate in a rigorous identity preservation system to prove there has been no chance of GM contamination and no GM in the final product. Any I.P. system is considered price prohibitive if there is no tolerance of GM allowed.

- There is no tolerance of GM wheat in non-GM wheat.

- There is no workable field test available to ensure there is no GM wheat in non-GM wheat. There is no advanced test that does not involve destroying the grain in the process of testing.

- Anybody pushing for lifting of the moratoria claiming a potential economic benefit could be classified as either lying, negligent or plain stupid. Any government would be negligent if they ignored their legislated role to assess economics by allowing GM wheat to be commercialised.

According to the Australian Wheat Board policy (*here)

"GM Wheat
At present there is a clear market signal from international and domestic customers that strong reservations exist concerning GM wheat. None of AWB’s National Pool customers are prepared at present to purchase GM wheat. Based on AWB Group’s experience in managing the National Pool we believe there is currently insufficient capability within the supply chain to ensure complete segregation of GM and non-GM grains. Due to this lack of capability, the introduction of GM wheat in Australia could jeopardise many of our existing export markets. AWB believes that GM wheat should not be released commercially in Australia until market preferences change and/or supply chain technologies and protocols are developed that will ensure that customer requirements can be met."

Why the pressure? Because a local company has developed what they claim is salt tolerant wheat. The preliminary trial results showed better performance in 180 millisemens per metre, however conventional non-GM wheat performed better in 67 millesemens per metre.

 Julie Newman (08) 98711562

So much for the regulatory processes governing GM crops in Australia! 
Confirming similar findings of many independent feeding tests that have been debunked by those pushing GM crops, CSIRO found serious health problems with mice fed GM peas and dropped their license application. Health testing is only done by the company that is wanting approval for release but luckily CSIRO did these voluntary feeding tests. Why aren't these feeding tests compulsory? How many GM products are approved that may have the potential to cause similar health problems?
In the late 1990's, before GM canola was declared "safe" by our regulatory process, GM companies were only lightly reprimanded for ignoring the voluntary protocols required to contain their GM canola trials in Tasmania. Topas 19/2 was one of the lines involved in trial breaches. 
Topas 19/2 was a GM canola variety that EU had planned to remove human consumption regulatory approval due to an identified problem associated with antibiotic resistance.
State governments identified an economic and market risk associated with GM canola and imposed a ban or moratorium. Despite bans, it was found that the popular non-GM canola variety Grace was contaminated with Topas 19/2 and had contaminated every canola growing state in Australia. The trait had genestacked and is now resistant to both triazine and glufosinate ammonium and unable to be selectively removed from the crop. The Victorian DPI announced that the contamination occurred when the non-GM canola variety Grace was bulked up for resale at around the same time and on the same farm that Bayer Cropscience's Topas 19/2 was grown.
Rather than a requirement for Bayer Cropscience to pay for the damages, Government and industry has now approved a level of GM contamination in our non-GM product which means our GM-free status has been stolen. Farmers that did not want GM canola are now paying for expensive testing regimes and any market loss associated with the contamination of Bayer Cropscience's GM canola. Due to government approval, farmers have no legal recourse without a strict liability regime.
How dare Bayer Cropscience now insist our Federal government overide State bans to allow them to contaminate our land further.
This negligence in containing the GM product is happening globally and our food supply is being irreversibly contaminated. If a health problem is found in the future, this product can not be recalled.
If Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto were to pay for the damages their product causes and for their negligence, they would be far more careful about containing their product and ensuring their product is safe! 
Julie Newman, NCF National Spokesperson (Media Ph 08 98711562 or 08 98711644)

GM CANOLA FACT SHEET - A PROFIT OR A LOSS?

GM canola is the least popular of the GM crops with only 18% global adoption and almost all of that grown in Canada. While both Canadian and Australian canola yields experienced a gradual increase in yields as farm practises improved, statistics show that Canadian yields did not increase as GM canola was introduced. Australian and Canadian canola yields are very similar and there is no evidence of the 10-40% yield increase promoted.
Over 20% of Canadian farmers prefer a non-GM variety called Clearfield and yet that same variety is available, but not popular in Australia.
There is also now very clear evidence of a price penalty associated with GM or GM contaminated produce. Attempts to segregate in Canada failed and almost all canola is sold as GM. Canada lost their premium over Australian canola of $US32.68/tonne and are now faced with price penalties up to $US30/tonne and are experiencing large carryover stocks despite their major market being US which is not GM sensitive. 
With little benefit, higher costs and lower commodity prices and an inability to segregate, there is a risk, not a benefit associated with GM canola.
 

Farmers are not being told the truth. If we analyse GM canola what have we got?
 
BENEFIT:
Trait benefit? Chemical resistant canola: Bayer Cropscience Invigor  varieties are resistant to Glufosinate Ammonium, Monsanto Roundup Ready varieties are resistant to Glyphosate.
Effectiveness? Australia's most critical weed control phase is pre-emergent and the "advantage" is only applicable to post emergent control. Radish is our worst weed in canola, Glufosinate Ammonium does not control radish and Glyphosate is not very effective either.
Yield? GM canola doesn't yield more than non-GM.
Cost? Bayer Cropscience - costs far higher than conventional. Monsanto - costs still secret.
 
ALTERNATIVES:
We have non-GM chemical resistant canola, Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield and non-GM hybrids and soon non-GM chemical resistant hybrids.
Non-GM biotechnology will fastrack breeding desired traits.
 
RISKS:
It is too difficult and too expensive to segregate GM from non-GM products.
Unfair costs and liabilities will be imposed on Non-GM farmers.
All farmers are to sell as GM.
Consumers will be denied GM-free products.
Market loss and penalties will apply to GM.
RR will exacerbate resistance to glyphosate (our most commonly used herbicide)
Increased use of herbicides for resistance management and volunteer control.
GM is not recallable.
 
RISK MANAGEMENT NEEDED:
Strict liability regime where the GM industry is legally responsible for containing their product.
 
Ignore the hype and get the rules right.

Australia is the largest exporter of non-GM canola and Canada is the largest exporter of GM canola. Canada is losing market share and premiums.

ABARE hard data reveals that from 1990-2000 before adoption of GM, Canada maintained a consistent premium over Australian canola averaging US$32.68/tonne.

Australia's 3 largest export customers are China, Japan and EU:

China: Nov 24th 2005, Graincorp Marketing Report "Recent sales to China from Canada have been at a $US30 discount to current prices being bid in NSW. Canada is expected to be a keen seller throughout our marketing campaign as they attempt to reduce potential ending stocks." Canada has dropped from a US$32.68/tonne premium to a $US30/tonne penalty.

Japan: 2004 Japans Ag Dept reported an average 5% premium for Australia's canola over Canada's canola.

EU: Last year, WA Department of Agriculture report revealed WA receives a premium of 10% for our GM-free produce to EU.

 

It is expected that if GM is introduced commercially, almost all farmers must market as GM as Canadian farmers do. Non-GM farmers are not prepared to accept this risk and should not be forced to.

GM contamination is now considered to be acceptable by our governments and unless states implement rigorous testing regimes, it will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to guarantee there is no GM in our produce. Are consumers happy to eat GM?

No, the majority do not want it. Reasons range from repulsion for cross-kingdom breeding and scientists tampering with our food to serious concern for the lack of health testing (regulatory bodies do not do health testing, they rely on information supplied by the license holder such as Monsanto or Bayer Cropscience who have a vested interest not to find a problem with their product).

There have been adverse health reports. See (here) for a summary of the scientific concerns and long term testing revealing serious problems. The key concern is for intergenerational impacts. How will an unborn child be affected? How will a child fed GM be impacted?

Arpad Pusztai's UK research found smaller organ development, blood disorders and immunology problems in developing animals. The latest results from a reputable laboratory in Russia (here)  revealed smaller body weights and increased deaths in rats born to mothers fed GM (Roundup Ready Soy) compared to non-GM soy.

Consumers want further testing to assess if these risks are applicable to humans eating the specific GM food available. If not, they want the choice to avoid GM.

Contamination is extremely difficult to avoid unless the product is contained but the intention is to make it too difficult and too expensive for a farmer to market as GM-free or non-GM. If a farmer can not market our product as GM-free or non-GM, the consumer will not have the choice. Help us help you. If consumers want a choice, they must help farmers lobby to ensure GM is contained rather than expecting non-GM growers to try to prevent contamination.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
 
Did you know?
 
If GM crops are introduced:
- contamination of non-GM crops will occur
- markets will reject GM contaminated products
- the non-GM grower is expected to keep GM out rather than the GM grower to keep it contained
- the non-GM grower is liable for all costs for testing, segregation, recall or market loss caused by GM contamination
- it will be too difficult and too expensive to segregate a non-GM product
- all farmers (except organic farmers) are expected to market as GM even if there is market rejection for GM
- organic farmers will be expected to accept some contamination
 
 
Consumers and farmers will NOT have the choice to avoid GM
 
Fair risk management includes STRICT LIABILITY legislation where the GM company is liable for any economic loss caused by contamination with their product (unless someone else is proven negligent).
 
Help us help you
 
Please lobby for strict liability legislation
 

Quote of the week:

ISAAA "Global Review of Commercialized Trangenic Crops: 2001" section 5, page 22. "Global R&D expenditures in Crop Biotechnology and future GM crop markets."

"In 1995 the private sector viewed crop biotechnology, prior to the commercialization of the first GM crops in 1996, as an important new opportunity for markets that would contribute to lowering crop production costs, increasing productivity, provide a safer environment and a more sustainable system for ensuring global food, feed and fiber security. Later in the 1990's the private sector judged the life science concept to be an inappropriate strategy for the future. There followed a series of spin-offs and mergers culminating in consolidation that resulted in six transnational North American and European based crop protection/biotechnology entities."

The private sector is stearing the GM debate and it is clearly not in the best interests of the community.

Welcome to the Network of Concerned Farmers site:

  • Who are we?
    We are a network of conventional and organic farmers from around Australia sharing a concern regarding genetically modified crops. 
  • What is our goal?
    We want to inform others regarding what is really involved in GM crops, what the non-GM alternatives are, what the real risks are and what risk management is needed. 
  • What is our key issue?
    We are pushing for fair risk management, particularly a strict liability regime to ensure the GM industry is liable for any economic loss associated with their product, rather than the non-GM grower as proposed.
  • What is our key aim?
    To ensure non-GM growers are not adversely impacted by GM crops.
  • Why do we want to do this?
    We want to ensure non-GM growers are not negatively impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need. We do not like farmers being lied to regarding the benefits of GM crops when our livelihoods will be negatively impacted by the introduction of GM crops.
  • Who are our supporters?
    We have farmers, supply chain participants, key decision makers and consumers supporting our work locally, Australia wide and globally.
  • Who funds us?
    We are volunteers and mainly operate on self funding but we have had some donations (mainly from other farmers) to cover some costs.
     
     
  • The truth is being modified far more than the genetics.

    We are told GM is more profitable and beneficial for farmers when it is not, as costs will be increased for both GM and non-GM farmers and there is no advantage that can not be achieved in non-GM.

    We are told GM food is rigorously tested for health when it is not and the GM technique is an unperfected imprecise science that could have serious implications to consumers.

    We are told farmers and consumers will have a choice to avoid GM crops and food when we will not as it is not possible to segregate to legal and market demands.

    We are told common law will address unfair liability problems when it will not as the non-gm farmers would be liable for economic loss associated with GM crops. 

    We are told the future for GM crops will be better when it could be the biggest threat to food and agriculture we have ever faced - what consumer in their right mind would accept any trace of raw pharmaceuticals in food crops?

    The drive is more to do with the patent associated with this plant breeding and the corporate investment opportunity for the scientific community, not for the supposed benefits to either farmers or consumers.

    There is a belief that a tolerance level will be accepted in non-GM produce but it will only be tolerated at a cost. There are 3 classifications of grain:

     

    • GM Free - must be guaranteed. Until released on a Federal level these guarantees were covered by certificates provided by the OGTR to quarantine (AQIS). Since Federal approval, guarantees are now given by our marketers based on the signed declarations farmers provide on delivering GM-free grain at receival points. Legally to sell as GM-free or non-GM in Australia, there must be no trace of GM detected in the produce (ACCC confirmation).
    • Non-GM – In some countries there is an acceptance of a level of adventitious (accidental) amount of contamination provided that the product is not required to be labelled as GM. EU @ 0.9% and Japan @ 5%. However, the buyers rely on a rigorous paper trail showing the actions that the farmer and the supply chain have taken in order to prevent any contamination. This includes a rigorous testing regime which will be extremely difficult considering the recommendation by industry of a GM canola testing regime takes approx. 8 weeks.  This cost of an identity preservation system was estimated by ABARE and the Federal DAFF at 10-15% of the value of the product ($35/tonne). While this is a legislative acceptance, market standards and buyer standards are often lower. A positive GM test negates the acceptance of GM contamination as "accidental". (more details here)
    • GM - The finished product must be labelled if GM is present in levels above the set tolerance level, if GM is found in testing throughout the supply chain as part of the identity preservation system or if there is no identity preservation system and no guarantee of GM-free .

    Australia has no identity preservation system and no rigorous testing regime and unless there is a guarantee of GM-free status, farmers may be effectively forced to market as GM if any contamination is found.

    Non-GM farmers will not accept any GM contamination if we are to be liable for it. Accepting a contamination level when it does not comply with law or market demand and is too expensive to test for or segregate is little more than a deliberate attempt to sabotage Australia's GM-free status. Australian farmers can not afford to sell all of our produce as GM contaminated. GM contamination must be prevented and the GM company must be liable for the economic loss caused by their product.

    Congratulations to Juliet and Donald McFarlane for winning the New South Wales ASC Dryland Wheat Competition with a phenomenal yield of 6.9 tonne/ha.

    The variety was Marombi, a winter grazing wheat. High yields were achieved despite drought delaying sowing till the 26th June and sheep grazing the crop to the ground in late July.

    Juliet is the NSW spokesperson and founding member of the Network of Concerned Farmers.

    Welcome to the NCF website and thank you for your interest in the GM debate. For a basic introduction of the key issues in the debate, click (here) We have over 100 referenced research articles (see left hand column) and over 1500 news stories archived (here). We hope you find what you are looking for.

                                                   
    This website is solely managed on a voluntary basis by Julie Newman julie@non-gm-farmers.com
    Our website averages around 5,000 hits/day (1,000 visits/day).
    Thank you.
     

    Australia has adopted a tolerance level of 0.9% based on the EU legislation based on what appears to be a misinterpretation of the EU legislation.

    EU Legislation Q & A Document: (here)
    Quote re tolerance levels... accepted at 0.9% "...provided the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable. This is the case when operators demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken adequate measures to avoid the presence of this material."
    Questions: Does a positive test negate the acceptance of tolerance levels? Answer: Yes. The EU legislation has been tested and any positive test negates the "adventitious" classification. (more details here)
    Is planting seed known to be contaminated considered accidental or adventitious? 
    Are Australian farmers now required to undertake a rigorous identity preservation system (ABARE estimated $35/t or 10-15% value of product)?

    2 GM crops are being offered to Australian farmers:

    Bayer Cropsciences Invigor (more detail here)

    Monsanto's Roundup Ready (more detail here)

    Contamination will occur, market loss will occur but the impact on Non-GM farmers will be devastating as Non-GM farmers are expected to be liable for any economic loss associated with this product. (more detail here) The Network of Concerned Farmers insist on fair management of liability issues.

    Canada is currently being faced with a huge carryover stock. Australian farmers are being told that Canada is increasing acreage and increasing yield, statistics do not support this claim.

    Graphs showing the comparison between Canadian and Australian canola acreage sown and yields  (*document here)

    "A study at the University of Manitoba proved that GMO and non-GMO crops do not co-exist. Genetic pollution will eventually occur when an organism with a GM trait is introduced into the system. Zero tolerance is no longer possible." National Farmers Union / Canada. (more here)

    "In most cases and for most species there is no realistic chance for coexistence between GM and non-GM farming, just as there is none between silence and noise in a room." EU Conference quote (more here) 

    Pressures in the GM debate:
     
    GM companies: Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience have invested huge sums of money in to GM crops and incentives to promote it and will make a loss if GM canola is not introduced. As there is little advantage for farmers to grow GM canola, the GM companies want GM introduced in a way where non-GM farmers lose their right to market as non-GM in opposition. GM companies want to win the debate before decision makers find out the facts and introduce risk management. While the NCF sympathise with the GM companies, we do not feel non-GM growers should subsidise their ventures.
     
    Scientists: Desperate for funding because the industry is under pressure for government funding to be cost recovery based and there is higher expense in advanced biotechnology techniques (not just GM). Corporate companies are investing in science on the condition that GM has a pathway to market eg. CSIRO announced a lucrative investment deal from Bayer Cropscience the day Federal approval was given for Invigor canola (more here).  No doubt there will be similar deals if State moratoriums are lifted but the NCF have been vehemently denied the answer to this question. Scientists appear to be more interested in winning the debate than finding out the facts leading to moratoriums.
     
    Federal Government: Signed an intergovernment agreement to support biotechnology (not just GM) and have invested greatly in to research and development of GM in the hope that the patents will return profits. US government via WTO is putting significant pressure on the Federal Government to level the playing field and remove Australia's GM-free status. The Federal government appears to be more interested in winning the debate than managing the problems.
     
    Farmers: For GM - many have believed the propaganda that GM canola will achieve benefits not related to the GM process. (eg. higher yields- unsubstantiated and unrelated to GM, drought tolerance - false, sowing dry - false). These unsubstantiated claims do not relate to the single gene technology of chemical resistance only. These farmers obviously have not assessed costs or benefits accurately as much of the information is not available. eg. Bayer Cropscience chemical is far more expensive than the non-GM alternative and yet it does not control weeds including radish (our worst weed) as well as the chemicals used in alternative non-gm chemical-resistant crops. Crop management plans are still "commercial in confidence" so costs can not be calculated. Farmers wanting to grow GM do not care about the adverse impacts to non-gm farmers and again appear to be more interested in winning the debate than finding out the facts. Unfortunately, those farmers pushing for GM crops are very emotive towards farmers not wanting GM crops and the debate is polarising the farming community.
     
    Farmers: Not for GM - simply do not want to be adversely impacted by a GM crop we do not want and do not need. It is expected that all non-GM farmers are to market as GM because contamination can not be controlled. Markets are rejecting GM crops and there will be economic loss. If risks are not managed, non-GM farmers will be seriously adversely impacted by them and farmers can not afford to lose our competitive GM-free status.
     
    Consumers: majority don't want GM and do not want to pay more for choice to avoid it yet will be expected to pay far more to compensate farmers for trying to avoid GM.
     
    Markets: majority don't want GM and will insist on guarantees from farmers that GM is not present in non-GM consignments. If contamination is found, price penalties will apply.
     
    State Governments: Have invested less in to GM but have the legislated responsibility to assess economics and markets and aware that farmers may seek compensation from State governments if this duty of care is ignored. Most farmers are very grateful for State governments taking their role seriously and imposing moratoriums based on facts about the risk to the agricultural industy.
     
    Non-GM farmers will be the most adversely impacted and we (not unreasonably) insist on fair risk management. Australia must introduce a strict liability regime to ensure the GM company is liable for any adverse impacts caused by their product.
     
    Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers

    WHERE TO NOW?

    The following steps need to occur to progress the Australian GM debate further:

    - Open debate with both sides evenly represented with an aim to find where the truth is in benefits, alternatives, risks and risk management on a case by case basis for varieties planned for release (Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola and Bayer Cropscience's Invigor GM canola).

    - Independent trials to assess information required to make an informed decision. eg. assessment for yield penalties associated with post emergent spraying of chemicals used for GM and non-GM chemical resistant varieties. Note: many farmers are being misled to believe that GM canola can be sown dry which is not true (herbicide tolerant varieties are a post emergent tool not a pre emergent tool), assessment of dry sowing of GM and non-GM canola should also be included.

    - States to include a strict liability regime (the GM company responsible for economic loss) in the exemption from moratorium legislation. On Federal release the signed GM-free guarantees were withdrawn and now farmers are guaranteeing our produce is GM-free and even "trials" could cause economic loss.

    - Federal legislation to include strict liability regime and coordination with State governments to ensure GM varieties are not released at Federal level if any state has assessed an economic risk (even for trials). As common law does not adequately address the liability issues surrounding GM crops, a strict liability regime will be essential (as per drug companies) where the GM company is liable for losses caused by their product. (It does not mean that the GM company is liable for the negligence of others.)

    - Coexistence management plans must be prepared including the fair management of Non-GM produce as the existing plans prepared by the Gene Technology Grains Committee have only assessed by the pro-GM sector giving priority to the GM grower, have definitions that are illegal (Non-GM means No GM, not 1% acceptable contamination), have not been approved by farmers and based on the unfair principle that Non-GM growers are to keep contamination out rather than the GM grower to keep contamination contained.

    - An accurate economic report be commissioned based on facts, not furphies.

    Julie Newman

    The intention of the GM lobby is clear:

    Step 1 - Remove the ability to market as "non-GM" or "GM-free"

    Step 2 - Remove the requirement to label as "GM"

    Result = consumers will have no choice to avoid GM foods

    Will this extend further?

    Step 3 - Remove the right for farmers to replant our own seeds (more)

    Step 4 - Remove unpatented non-GM varieties from the market

    Result = farmers may not have a choice to avoid growing GM crops

    ---------

    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.

    Wake up call... farmers can not afford any increase in input costs or decrease in market access.

    Latest issue:

    No contamination is acceptable in "Non-GM" (here)

    0.0088 % contamination in "Non-GM" Soy triggers prosecution. (here)

    Stock can not be fed GM if meat is to carry a "GM-free" label. (here)

    Coexistence to a zero level is scientifically proven to be impossible (photos here)

    Martin Entz, professor of Agronomy at the University of Manitoba (Canada): "GM canola has, in fact, spread much more rapidly than we thought it would.  It's absolutely impossible to control... It's been a great wake-up call about the side effects of these GM technologies."

    Trials can cause economic loss:

    The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) report on "Co-existence between genetically modified crops, and conventional and organic crops". available (*here)
    Extract: "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."


     

    Seach the archive:  
    or by date  

    14 May 2007
    Farmers outraged at Victorian contamination plan

    14 May 2007
    Apology - News not currently being updated

    09 January 2007
    GM CROPS STILL NOT PERFORMING

    22 November 2006
    Farmers blamed for own economic loss for getting crops contaminated

    13 October 2006
    No economic benefit with GM canola

    12 October 2006
    Monsanto posts bigger loss for 4th quarter

    11 October 2006
    Engineering crops, distorting trade

    11 October 2006
    Sorry for delay in news updates

    11 October 2006
    Has the GM Bt cotton bubble burst?

    11 October 2006
    AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS DEVELOP NON-GM DROUGHT TOLERANT CANOLA

    News archive