NonGMFarmerNewman:

Here are more of the questions I have continued to ask on the issues:

What are “the ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed”?
The websites you gave on 23 December don’t seem to open. In fact, your whole website doesn’t seem to open.

Do you have any evidence that the Canadian subsidies are any higher to support Canadian GM canola than they would be for non-GM canola? Are Canadian subsidies any higher than for the EU subsidies to its canola growers, all of whom are nonGM?

What liability or other rules did you refer to (on 5 December) as what the US and Canada want to introduce for the next GM crop? On 23 December, you wrote “The ACCC has confirmed “non-GM” = zero GM contamination.” I believe that you have confused the ACCC’s view of “GM free”, which is zero GM, with non-GM (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/87952; http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/610481). Non-GM usually means that the GM content is low enough not to require a label.

So I ask again, what is your “legal definition of non-GM”?

What do you mean by “No GM contamination can be accepted if a "user fee" is to be charged on contaminated produce”? Surely you are not implying that companies will charge if someone has 0.5% or even 10% GM content in their crop? Is this a reference to the legally disproved claims of Percy Schmeiser?

Even your comment on 23 December that farmers “want risk management to ensure that a positive test (as low as 0.5%) does not trigger a royalty deduction”, does not address the substance of my question. Why is there any reason to believe that 0.5% or even 10% would trigger a royalty ?

Can you explain to us why the current legal system in Australia cannot protect non-GM farmers? On 23 December you referred us to the Federal government paper on liability, but neither you nor the paper explain your claim that “there is little chance that we can win.”

After 9 years and hundreds of millions of ha planted, has there been one farmer sue another for so-called contamination

The “ridiculous costs, liabilities and inconveniences proposed” on the non-GM grower is at the heart of our debate. The "coexistence" plans proposed are along the lines of countries that have adopted GM first then found consumer rejection later. If a non-GM grower wants to market as non-GM, markets require the non-GM grower/supply chain to undertake a rigorous identity preservation system which was estimated by ABARE to be around 10-15% of the gross value of the product.
The non-GM grower is to:
- have the buffer zone to prevent contamination which is to be marketed as GM rather than non-GM;
- keep the produce from this GM buffer zone completely separate to the non-GM produce (will require fencing to prevent stock spreading seed, will require separate machinery or rigorous cleanout regimes)
- avoid planting in the opportune times to prevent crosspollination (will reduce yields significantly)
- provide a separate supply chain that can prevent contamination
- rigorous and expensive testing regime
- if attempts to avoid contamination fails, the liability for market loss and contamination cleanup will fall on the farmers who have signed industry exemptions and contractual guarantees.

Or of course, we sell as GM and accept the market loss and loss of premiums associated with this.

Why should we accept it?

Funny how the education of these “coexistence” plans has been avoided isn’t it?

If Australian farmers are to prevent the same "all sell as GM or pay to avoid contamination" principle, it is necessary to take legal action against neighbours as soon as possible while it is possible to trace contamination to an individual source. Not ideal, but GM growers need to contain their product and not expect other farmers to just accept contamination with a product markets are rejecting.

No, I have not confused the ACCC comments, try phoning them and having them explain it fully to you. Non-GM and GM-free mean the same, no GM. FSANZ can confirm this as they were involved in prosecuting a NZ firm for believing the misleading GTGC guideline. He was prosecuted for having 0.0088% GM in a non-GM labelled product.

There are numerous papers explaining Chinese cotton subsidies, I can't believe you are ignoring facts. Try a paper called "Understanding the impact of cotton subsidies on developing countries" by Ian Gillson, Colin Poulton, Kelvin Balcombe and Sheila Page (May 2004). On page 27 you will find a chart with subsidies ($ per kilogram). China is listed as: 97/98-0.4378*, 98/99-0.5962*, 99/00-0.4268, 00/01-0.4356*, 01/02-0.2266. 3 of 5yrs Chinese subsidies exceeded US subsidies (*).

Starlink is an excellent example of irreversible contamination. Despite every effort to recall Starlink, it is still found in around 1% of corn samples.
If the Australian seed industry allows 0.5% contamination in our seed, how on earth can we plant uncontaminated seed?
It should not be up to the non-GM grower to keep GM out of our produce, it should be up to the GM grower to keep it contained. What do you think?

Contamination of the variety Grace was caused by Bayer Cropscience not being able to contain GM trials in Tasmania. Geoffrey’s first loss was testing costs. Geoffrey Carracher could not sell his canola when he knew it was contaminated. Rather than Bayer Cropscience being held responsible, both Federal and State governments decided that farmers will need to pay for any economic loss caused by accepting a tolerance of contamination in non-GM seed. Who is going to tell farmers if markets are refusing to buy seed that is contaminated? How much is the supply chain testing costs? Farmers have not been advised of this information even though we are expected to pay for losses and costs. Why shouldn’t Bayer Cropscience pay for the testing costs? We would not need to do it if they were not so careless at controlling their product.

It is not that I am not answering your questions Rebel, it is that you don't accept the answers. You have your point of view and I doubt if you will ever accept answers that do not follow that point of view.

GM is the intruder to the industry and should have no right to cause loss to the existing agricultural industry.

The facts that you GM’ers have supplied are tests done on animals (as I have said before) that are not remotely like humans i.e. rats, birds etc. This is why I say I am not accepting them because no long term trials on either humans or animals like humans have been done. I don’t care about who’s who. All I want to know is “Is it Really Safe?” as my name implies. Have these so called names that you have supplied done any of the tests on humans that I have asked for on 11/12 and given the full scientific analysis? No they haven’t so I don’t care for these names that you throw at me. I don’t care if a scientists is waving an “I am great and fantastic” and “oh look I’ve won some prize” awards as I want real facts and real figures. You have not given them to me so why should I listen to all the so called tests that you say are done on rats when I am not one. The tests that are outside of the GM industry are more likely to be accurate so these are the ones I want to listen to as they will not fudge the full report which is what I will be asking them for. And only then when these health issues have been looked at and have shown that GM food is not dangerous, then I will be satisfied.

Is it really safe?, I am guessing from your posts on this site that you are indeed fervent about non-GM. For example, you have made statements such as “keep GM out of my food”. I accept your point of view as your personal opinion, but not necessarily as a position from which to create policy. Personally, I would prefer to see policy driven by factual information rather than personal prejudice.

For example, your statement that Canadian canola growers are not making money is at variance with what the vast majority of Canadian canola growers I know will say. Growers on the Canadian Prairies are planting canola in tight rotations specifically because the crop is profitable to grow. I take it from your comments that you believe Australian growers should give up growing canola because you say it is not profitable, rather than looking at the factual information available (even from the companies selling the seed) saying it is profitable to grow?

As to tests of GM foods on humans, what is your rationale for GM foods to be singled out in this way? Perhaps you can provide a list of other foods that are comprehensively tested on humans before being marketed. For example, was canola oil from atrazine-resistant canola tested in this way?

We have the technology to test for health issues. Why not use it? I want to keep GM out of my food until it is proved that it is safe and that proof is not forthcoming. I have high allergies and you are changing the DNA of the whole grain which has a more potential death impact on me if I am allergic to the DNA strain you put into my food. I had no control or no voice when Atrizine was bought into the country but now I am able to be heard. You are challenging me as a consumer of a potential biohazard and I am saying “Check the health issues before you bring it into the country”. What’s wrong with that? You are acting childish with "But you didn't check this other product and now you are making me test my product. That's unfair and I'm going to throw a tantrum". You say that Canadian farmers are "saying" they are making money from GM foods but this seems to be in contradiction from the facts of the 10 year study of Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot of PG Economics in a paper published in December (http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm) as yes, they made a profit and after paying for the technology to Monsanto they made a loss.