Brookes and Barfoot state that the average technology cost to Canadian farmers has been $C44.03 per hectare per year. Savings in imput costs for growers adopting GM have been $39 per hectare per year. They also state that there has been a 10.7% yield increase per year for growers of GM canola.

Canadian canola growers have average 1.46 T/ha over the past 10 years and achieved an average price of $C372/T. A 10.7% yield increase is a handy $54.31 per hectare bonus that more than offsets the $C5 extra cost of the technology. Over an average of 150 hectares per grower, this comes to over $C8000 extra profit for a grower.

Julie NONGMFarmer Newman: You need to retract your claim from 2 January that “Every poll done has shown that the majority of farmers do not want GM” . I don’t think that is true even in regions of WA, eg., news reports from Esperance, but results from Vic on December 20 prove otherwise. The tide is turning.

I have deleted some comments on differences between men and women in this story to keep within 350 words.

WEEKLY TIMES

Survey backs GM crops

Peter Hemphill

December 20, 2005

A survey of Western District farmers has given strong backing to genetically modified crops.

Cropping research group Southern Farming Systems surveyed 225 farmers …… attending its recent field days at Inverleigh, Yalla-Y-Poora and Hamilton.

But, despite the backing for GM crops, SFS executive officer Col Hacking said the results did not mean the research group would get involved in the testing of GM crops.

''We are yet to decide (on GM crop research),'' Mr Hacking said.

''We need to make that decision at a board level.

''But we probably need to survey our Tasmanian and South Australian members as well.

''This has just been a fact-finding exercise; we thought we had to be proactive.''

The survey is believed to be the first conducted of Victorian farmers.

SFS members were asked three questions:

Should SFS get involved in GM testing?

Would you grow GM material if there was a profit advantage?

Would you grow GM material if it meant a reduction in pesticide use?

On whether SFS should involve itself in GM research, 80 per cent of all respondents said ''yes'' while 19 per cent were opposed, with 1 per cent undecided.

For the question on growing GM crops if there was a profit advantage, 75 per cent of all respondents were in favour and 24 per cent against.

For the third question on pesticide advantages, 80 per cent of all farmers said ''yes'' and 18 per cent ''no''.

Women were again less convinced with the arguments, with 71 per cent in favour and 25 per cent saying they would not grow the crop.

Back to the Brookes and Barfoot report, read the table and this is what it says: Cost of technology = $/ha $44.03. Cost savings EXCLUDING cost of technology + sources =$/ha $39. Where are you getting your figures from? This is what the table says, read it. That means that the farmer is out of pocket $5.03 surely if you do the sums. The SFS members where asked if there is a profit advantage and there is not, so their answers would change. The increase in yield would have to look at the seasons not just your so called wonderful GM. Farmers yields change yearly according to the weather and this should be in all reports of the GM industry that is patting themselves on the back for higher yields. I want to know what the yields are in a drought or flood and then show me how wonderful your so called GM is. And I want it compared to exactly the same conditions of a non-GM crop and shown if there is a difference and a non-biased supervisor to make sure there is no watering of GM plants in drought conditions. Are you disputing what non-GM farmer is saying when the figures are in front of everyone?
I’m not alone with consumers and we shouldn’t be forced to eat GM which is why we should not be ignored in policy. I am interested in the safety of GM as I’m not a farmer, I’m a consumer and guess what, we are the ones that pay for quality food as we are the end of the line and we don't want potential biohazards as our food. We do not care about technology that has been manipulated to suit Corporations needs. We want the true answers to “Is GM Really Safe” and we want the knowledge that we can choose non-GM and know that it is completely free of GM which is an impossibility factor as far I am concerned due to contamination.

Julie NonGMFarmer Newman:

You are ignoring many questions, and providing answers that are either without independent corroboration or confusing.

I’ll start with Carracher as an example. You have made all sorts of statements about Carracher but never directly and explicitly answered my questions (just as a politician would). Again as you did on 5 December, you have asserted that NCF member Carracher “has already experienced losses. His testing cost him $1200”. I asked on 6 December and I’ll ask again now, “Who required any testing from Geoffrey Carracher?” It’s a bit too convenient that he (or an ally like Greenpeace or GeneEthics) spent the money and NCF made a media case out of it; that’s simply a setup. On 7 December, you stated that “Geoffrey Carracher tested his seed because farmers are expected to sign a guarantee they have no GM contamination and that we will accept liability if there is.” Fine; who then actually asked for the tests? Give us a name.

Further, I have been asking since Dec 5 for an estimate of what Carracher has lost in the market. You now state that “Carracher could not sell his canola when he knew it was contaminated”. Who refused to buy it? And in fact, as you allude, the Federal and State governments instituted a tolerance. So again, what did Carracher actually lose in the market? Don’t give me more polemics about companies, please just answer specifically and directly the same “critical issue” questions I have been asking for a month. Otherwise, we’ll all have to assume that no one in fact specifically asked Carracher for a test, it was fishing expedition voluntarily undertaken by Carracher (perhaps with a suggestion from someone else), and that in any case, he has had no problem selling his canola for his usual market price. Further, since the government now allows a tolerance, there is no longer a need for anyone to test unless they think GM is above that level. Problem solved.

Here’s a question you’ve ignored: After 9 years and millions of ha planted, has any farmer sued another over GM?

Is it really safe?, I did read the table (Table 1) in Brookes and Barfoot’s paper. The Table has 5 columns. Column 3, headed “Yield effect”, describes the positive or negative impact on yield of growing the GM technology. Column 4, headed “Cost of technology ($/ha)” describes the seed and/or technology cost to the grower. Column 5, headed “Cost savings excluding cost of technology and sources”, describes the cost savings to growers including, but not limited to, pesticide, tillage, fertilizer and application costs. The yield increase for growers of GM canola in Canada is given as 10.7%. This is a real benefit to farmers that you choose to ignore so you can say that GM canola is less profitable. When the effects of the increased yield are included, farmers are not out of pocket at all, but are making almost $C50 per hectare more. Look at Table 4. Brookes and Barfoot estimate that GM canola across Canada and the US resulted in $US135 million in extra farm income in 2004.

In Canada, GM canola invariably performs better than non-GM canola. The 2005 PCVT are just out (www.canola-coincil.org/PDF/Variety_Trials_1-7.pdf). They show the highest yielding non-GM variety was equal 11th in yield among all varieties in the short season zone and equal 5th in the mid-season zone. The best yielding non-GM variety in the long-season zone was equal 7th in yield. All 3 Liberty Link canola varieties out-yielded the best performing non-GM variety by 15-18% in the short season zone, by 12 to 17% in the mid-season zone and by 8 to 16% in the long season zone.

There is a lot of tinkering with plant DNA. Almost all plant species that we eat have sometime in past been crossed with a plant species we don’t eat with lots of DNA introduced. Atrazine-resistant canola was created in Canada by crossing an atrazine-resistant weed with canola. Many of the plant species we eat have also been subject to mutagenesis with radiation or chemicals changing the DNA in many places. Should we demand human testing of all these foods? If not, why not?

Is it Safe: "Back to the Brookes and Barfoot report, read the table and this is what it says: Cost of technology = $/ha $44.03. Cost savings EXCLUDING cost of technology + sources =$/ha $39. Where are you getting your figures from? This is what the table says, read it. That means that the farmer is out of pocket $5.03 surely if you do the sums."

No the farmer is NOT necessarily out of pocket. What is being missed here by Is it Safe is the REVENUE side of economics, which is boosted by yield increases INDEPENDANTLY of any costs. That is why all the claims of better GM crop economics fit so well with clearly increased yields from GM hybrid canola. The story of a better cost equation is also played out by detailed cost data for GM cotton in India published by Reading University workers and which is available on the GMO pundit website