Summary and Overview - GM crops should be analysed on a case by case basis for b

[Guest guest]

Summary and Overview

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=506

 

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:

 

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:

 

A farmers perspective

 

Genetically modified foods are rejected by consumers and rejected by the food

supply industry protecting their brand names. Accordingly, there is a need to

keep GM and non-GM crops completely segregated but this is impossible to

control on-farm due to the nature of the crop. There is evidence worldwide that

every effort to control contamination has failed within a few years.

 

Contamination will occur, market rejection will occur and liability and

insurance difficulties will affect all supply chain participants.

 

Contrary to claims, no contamination can be detected if a product is labelled

non-GM or GM-free and 1% GM contamination tolerance has been touted as

acceptable when it is not. There is high market sensitivity to very low levels

of GM

contamination in any of our produce. We would be breeching international

trade agreements if we do not label contaminated products as GM. We would be

breaking the law if we labelled a contaminated product as " GM-free " or " non-GM "

when it is not and farmers would not have confidence to sign expected supply

chain guarantees of no contamination when we deliver our seed.

 

Industries other than canola will also be affected, 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. We can not supply contaminated

stock feed to some stock such as the dairy, beef, mutton, pork, mutton and

even the yabby industry.

 

The chief debate centres around a market reality that no GM contamination is

to be detected in a range of agricultural produce and an industry expectation

that contamination is impossible to control so will have to be tolerated. This

is not acceptable when farmers not wishing to grow this product will be

liable for not being able to meet contractual demands for delivering a product

markets are demanding.

 

Farmers are being promised coexistence and the ability to market as non-GM

when behind the scenes the GM industry has prepared the crop management plans

and ensured it will be too difficult and too expensive to do so. Rather than the

GM grower being expected to keep GM contained, it will be up to the non-GM

grower to keep GM out - which is impossible. This removes the GM industries

market competition because it will be impossible to sell as GM-free. This denies

farmers and consumers a choice because all farmers will be effectively forced

to market as GM.

 

Consumers want a choice to avoid GM foods and do not want to pay more to

avoid a product they do not wish to consume. If farmer concerns are ignored,

there

will be no choice for consumers or the choice will be extremely expensive to

compensate farmers for the costly and time-consuming measures needed to

attempt to segregate the product.

 

Farmers are being misled to believe GM will solve problems when there is more

than enough evidence to show that there is little benefit and huge risks. Due

to our own funding, Australia is at the forefront of non-GM biotechnology

where GM is used in laboratory research in order to produce non-GM crops with

desired traits. We do have good alternative choices that do not negatively

impact

on markets or consumer choices.

 

The expensive Federal regulatory process has done little more than deflect

liability from the GM companies for the risks associated with their product. As

with any other product, we believe the GM companies themselves should be

liable for all negative consequences arising from the introduction of their

product.

 

There is no intention in the existing coexistence principles to segregate

efficiently and it appears the aim of any proposed commercial release trials is

to contaminate and place all costs and liabilities on to those farmers not

wishing to grow GM. This will remove the choice of both farmers and consumers

because it will be too difficult and too expensive to market as non-GM.

 

" Is industry prepared and under existing terms, will farmers and consumers

have a choice? "

 

The answer is a very clear NO.

Julie Newman

Network of Concerned Farmers

www.non-gm-farmers.com