Dear Julie NonGM farmer:

There isn’t enough space here to outline everything on which Benbrook is misleading, but I have already given examples (as have Agronomist and David) including the claims that taxpayers are subsidising GM crops (differently than nonGM) and that GM is failing due to herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is an issue, but the crops are not failing.

On the subject of subsidies, you are quoting folks with a partisan interest and/or who are out of date. US cotton farmers and the US trade office are trying to shift attention from their own cotton subsidies. I can’t educate you on all of this in a few emails, but have some summary words from a real expert, Prof. Dan Sumner (www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/) who was Assistant Secretary for Economics at the USDA (which means he was a lot closer to advising Presidents than Benbrook) and more recently was a consultant to Brazilian government in a WTO dispute over US cotton subsidies.

Sumner wrote: “Outside the US the only significant cotton subsidies are in the EU (Greece), which has now pledged to cut most of their cotton program….. A few years ago (through 2001) the Chinese government speculated in cotton stocks and
lost a bunch. It was a significant government cost and they sold cotton at a loss (buy high sell low seemed to be the mantra). There has been no ongoing producer subsidy that anyone can find. There is always an issue of transparency in China, especially in financial markets, but any subsidy must be tiny on a per unit basis. China is by far the biggest producer of cotton and also a huge importer of cotton….. Subsidy on cotton in other places may be in the range of 1% or 2% of revenue for such things as government supported IPM research, which we usually do not bother to count.” Sumner provided me with a book chapter which shows details and citations of other authors (which Benbrook often fails to offer, by the way) on pages 280-81.

You really need to research the analyses of experts who don’t fit your views.

Who’s selective? In 2001-2002, China paid $1.2 billion in cotton subsidies. http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/052005/liebhardt.html There are numerous web references regarding Chinese subsidies, take your pick.

The GM debate in Australia is not about Bt cotton, that’s grown as a very minor crop in Australia-mostly irrigated.
The GM debate is about 2 herbicide-tolerant canolas.

Do you agree? :

Monsanto's Roundup-Ready canola:
There is no way to calculate cost/benefit/cashflow as prices and contractual-agreements are confidential.
Independent trials of with/without the Monsanto gene are needed to establish if there is a yield penalty/reward associated.
By increasing the use of glyphosate as a post emergent chemical rather than just a knockdown, it will increase weed resistance.
More chemicals will be added to glyphosate knockdowns in following crops to control the glyphosate tolerant volunteers.

Bayers Invigor Canola:
Is very expensive at $16/kg for seed and $72/ha for glufosinate ammonium.
It does not yield more than non-GM hybrids.
Glufosinate ammonium does not kill radish (our worst weed in canola).
There are no workable field tests to test for contamination

Both:
Sowing GM canola dry is not recommended.
It will not be possible to totally segregate GM from non-GM.
Tolerance levels do not currently match the ACCC legal definition to label a product as non-GM or GM-free and will not satisfy some markets demanding no contamination.
Non-GM farmers will be expected to pay significantly to try to segregate.
All farmers are expected to market on the GM market.
There is evidence of market sensitivity to GM.

The current Topas19/2 GM contamination that led to acceptance of GMcontamination tolerance levels was caused when bulk up of Grace seed was grown near Tasmanian OGTR trials prior to approval. During that time, BayerCropscience was reprimanded for breach of trial conditions but never held responsible for recalling their unapproved product.
Topas19/2 was approved in US after contamination was found in seed.
Topas19/2 has an antibiotic resistant marker gene that was listed by EU for gradual removal from food acceptance.

It is unlikely that farmers will be able to seek legal redress for testing costs, market loss and loss of premiums caused by GM.

Dear Julie NonGM farmer:

Your response that “There are numerous web references regarding Chinese subsidies, take your pick” shows a typical approach by anti-GM campaigners. Are all sources equally reliable? You can find support for just about anything on the web, including that God created all living species in 6 days. That doesn’t mean that all claims on the web are factual.

I offered evidence from a former senior Economics official at USDA who actually participated in the WTO dispute, and you offer what, a freelance reporter living in Burkina Faso, who can only mention the WTO? My source is a publication from the World Bank:

Sumner, Daniel A. 2006 "Reducing Cotton Subsidies: The DDA Cotton
Initiative." Chapter 10 in Anderson, K. and Martin, W. eds. , Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan and Washington, DC: World Bank.

Even if we accept your source, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/052005/liebhardt.html, the claims made are not inconsistent with Sumner’s facts. Your person John Liebhardt claims $1.2 billion in cotton subsidies in China in 2001-2002. Sumner says the Chinese government speculated through 2001, but there is no ongoing subsidy. GM still thrives in China and other countries without subsidies.

I should also point out that NONE of your citations makes any mention that ag subsidies prop up or cover losses in GM crops. Benbrook is still alone on this, even more alone than strict Creationists.

There have been independent assessments of the safety of GM foods, but let’s turn to those submitted by the companies. I have reviewed some and they are extensive, mostly undertaken by independent contracting labs who work for many clients and have to meet government lab practice and record standards. If not the GM companies, who do you expect to pay for these tests, on which tens of millions are spent ? When government pays for them, anti-GM campaigners whinge about government subsidies for Biotech.

Which brings me back again to another current key issue. Do you think Judy Carmen and her two friends are appropriately qualified to such tests? What are their relevant qualifications and expertise?

Of course I expect GM companies should pay for research on their product. They are bringing in a potential hazardous chemical into my food, they should pay to do research so that I know it is safe. But it needs to be done via an institution that is not fudging results. CSIRO could be a good example, and employing Judy and her friends so that we the consumer know the results have not been falsified. It would also need to be in a locked experimental lab.

Sorry Isitsafe, CSIRO has a vested interest in GM crops.

The qualifications of IHER staff can be found on their website. Are you worried that IHER research results would be different to Monsanto/Bayer Cropscience data?

If there were no cotton subsidies in China, they would not have given a recent commitment to reduce the subsidies to 8.5%, or are you denying this FTA planning to reduce cotton subsidies is real? It appears China adopts subsidies in poor seasons but chiefly relies on very high excise on imports to allow Chinese farmers to receive a higher price for their cotton.

Benbrook did not mention subsidies when he was in WA but I have seen comparable US charts showing US subsidies going up in direct proportion to the area of GM crops grown. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1292 Canadian farmers have just had a big increase in subsidies and it was reported that the Oilseed sector was worst affected. Canola prices are hedged on the soy prices and because of the glut of GM soy, prices have plummeted. There is however still a significant premium and demand for non-GM soy.

Another Canadian farmer rang on Sunday and spent hours discussing the problems many of them are having with GM crops and the influence sponsorship and personal bonus trips etc had on gaining lobby group support. He confirmed that if they had their time over, they would be sure that they had adequate rules in place first.

That is what the NCF is doing, identifying the problem and trying to get adequate risk management in place to prevent problems happening. State governments have imposed moratoriums based on extensive studies and it is good governance to ensure that a new activity does not impose outrageous risks and impositions on the existing industry.

Just had a call from our Network of Concerned Farmers NSW spokesperson and founding member Juliet McFarlane, they won the NSW state ASC Dryland wheat competition with a yield of 6.9tonne/ha.

NonGMFarmer has been casting a number of aspersions around. This could become quite interesting.

Given the level of interest, perhaps I should provide some background. I work in agriculture. I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the chemical industry, although I will admit to meeting with people from Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow and DuPont while I was in Kansas City this week. I happen to also work with farmers. I have met many farmers who grow GM crops and many who do not. I have stood in commercial fields of GM cotton, GM soybean, GM corn and GM canola and talked to the farmers that grow them. I have also seen trials of GM rice, GM alfalfa and GM wheat. I have met only a few farmers who after growing GM crops have decided not to grow them again. Most often these decisions were made on operational grounds; usually the variety did not suit the region. I have met many more farmers who like the products this technology provides. I have also met farmers who do not want to grow GM crops. That is their decision and I respect it. I would like to see the same respect accorded to farmers who do want to benefit from the technology. Just because it is GM doesn't make it good, but Bt and Roundup Ready crops can provide economic benefit to farmers.

NonGMFarmer likes posing as questions. Can I respond in kind?

Is it the role of OGTR and FSANZ to do testing? Do they test other foods for safety?
As FSANZ looks at food safety, wouldn’t it be redundant for the OGTR to do the same? IF FSANZ says it is unsafe, would the OGTR be able to say it is safe?
How many Roundup resistant weeds have occurred in Canadian canola fields? How many Atrazine resistant weeds have occurred in Australian canola fields?
If independent studies showed GM foods were no less safe than conventional foods, would you eat them?
If GM crops are as bad as you say, why does the area sown continue to increase?