Dear Ms. Newman:

I understand that you asked me on 23 December “Do you however think it is fair that the existing non-GM industry must take the steps required to prevent contamination of their crops by the “newcomer” of GM crops?”

I am glad that you now understand that the red corn grower had not taken steps to protect his investment against any yellow corn.

However, asking whether it is “fair that the existing non-GM industry must take the steps required to prevent contamination of their crops by the “newcomer” of GM crops?” is like asking what I think about the “boat people” parents who threw their children overboard. Despite the pre-election Howard government propaganda, we know that no children were thrown overboard, so it’s a misleading question.

Similarly, it’s misleading to ask whether “the existing non-GM industry must take THE steps required” for identity preservation or whatever. Cross-pollination has been an issue for ag for decades, yet growers have worked it out cooperatively. It seems that only this adversarial relationship driven by activism against GM crops has made this a political issue, but it has not been a real issue on farm, other than for Starlink, which has been financially settled, especially with growers.

One of the reasons the anti-GM ordinance in Sonoma county lost here recently is that the campaigners couldn’t produce a single farmer who had actually had trouble with a neighbor growing a GM crop, despite the fact that they managed to enlist various anti-GM personalities to campaign in the county, including Percy Schmeiser (though not Prince Charles, though he visited only a a few dozen miles away just days before the election). We have heavily organic regions in California (such as Sonoma County), Iowa and Minnesota where there a lot of organic and GM corn growing in close proximity for nearly 10 years now, without problems. Growers talk to each other and work it out, like they have worked out other issues (weed and pest contamination, pesticides, etc) for more than 50 years. (continued below).

MsNewman:
If you think otherwise, find the documentation. I certainly have asked organic activists for it, including in Sonoma county, In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle, a fairly left wing and important newspaper in the US, after hearing both sides of arguments, explicitly rejected the anti-GM claims, concluding that “modern agriculture employs an array of techniques to protect the purity and integrity of crops. Some large operations have fields of organic, genetically modified and conventional crops on the very same farm.” As the editorial shows, Dave Henson and the other anti-GM proponents had their chance to provide evidence of problems, and didn’t.(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/02/EDG9UFH1P01.DTL)

Despite the various claims on the internet, Professor Drew Kershen of the University of Oklahoma has researched this issue and concluded “There have been no lawsuits of farmer vs farmer for adventitious presence (called "contamination" by activists) of transgenic crops in other crops. None, anywhere in the world.” And he knows of your claims: “Julie Newman of Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia is threatening to file a farmer v farmer lawsuit - but it is only a threat at this point in time.” In short, you seem to be about the only such complainant in the world.

As far as I can tell, no one has had a case on which to sue companies either, except for obvious political reasons.

By the way, Tom Abate, a Chronicle writer, interviewed Schmeiser, and wrote: “Simply put, Percy Schmeiser is not quite the innocent victim he makes
himself out to be. The impression he conveyed during our lengthy meeting was
that Monsanto's seeds had drifted over from adjoining fields like so many
snowflakes, and then sprouted on his land unbidden. After reading the court
transcripts and speaking with Schmeiser's lawyer, I think it's a bit more
complicated. ….. Schmeiser, who saves seed from each harvest to plant the
next crop, apparently saved some of the Monsanto seed. He seems to have figured
that any plant that grew on his land belonged to him, as did its seed…... But he knew that some of his saved seed carried the Monsanto brand.”

You don’t seem to understand what GM is if you think GM is natural. Bacteria don’t normally breed with canola nor do fish with tomatos or humans with rice or any other strange unnatural cross-kingdom breeding. Farmers are proud people especially in Australia and look after their neighbours and Monsanto know it and prey on this. Aren’t American farmers draining the American economy from subsidies? Wouldn’t this make the American president prey on puppy dog Howard to “Go for GM as we won’t hurt our allies”? Starlink is a prime example of GM and contamination occurring. Isn’t organic a growing industry in Australia? Have you got proof that it’s not? Schmeiser isn’t the only farmer that has had contamination who wanted to grow and sell non-GM and found that they couldn’t. How can a farmer remove GM contamination from their non GM crop? Look at the other side of the coin. I am a consumer and I want non-GM. How are you going to give me non-GM and I mean non-GM with no contamination at all? What right do you have to contaminate every farm with your product as you have done with the seed that was sold to Australian farmers under the guise of not knowing that it was GM? This is Australia and I have the right to non-GM as it is not known the long term effects or safety on humans. Or are the big chemical companies only interested in controlling all canola because it is a potential fuel source.

Organisms don't have to interbred for us to share genes. A very large number of genes are shared among any comparison of organisms as a direct consequence of evolution from shared ancestors.

The war in Iraq is a far larger source of drain on the US economy than crop subsidies. I doubt that George Bush even thinks of GM crops, much less talks with Howard about them.

Who and where are these other farmers who have "had contamination who wanted to grow and sell non-GM and found that they couldn’t?"

I made contact with the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) recently. Despite continued monitoring, there has been no positive test since October 2004 for Starlink.

If the claims were accurate that GM canola has increased yields in Canada by over 10%, statistics would show that the average yield would progressively go up in proportion to the adoption of GM with relevence to seasonal conditions. However, this has not occurred, when GM canola was introduced, average Canadian yields did not go up, they went down and have now come up to the level that they were pre-GM. Even though Canada is more suited to favour the post emergent benefit of GM canola, they have not had an increase in yields, not a decrease (based on ha and production statistics) http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2530

The GM canola varieties that are GM by adding a Monsanto gene, are not released in non-GM form to be allowed to make accurate comparisons and farmers are restricted from growing trials because it is a condition on the contracts.

GM canola benefits are no different except that they are resistant to different chemicals than our triazine tolerant varieties or Clearfield varieties. GM canola will not increase yield just because it is GM! The chemicals GM crops are resistant to are not necessarily value for money as non-GM alternative chemicals may be more effective and cheaper. For example, glufosinate ammonium does not control radish despite being astronomically expensive.

If you look at the Canadian Canola Council survey that favoured GM claiming yields of over 10% were from GM crops, you will also find that these farmers applied more fertiliser which would give a very good reason why yields are higher. The total yield data more accurately reflects the truth about yields.

The farmer survey concerned asked the question "Would you grow GM material if there was a profit advantage?" which is deliberately misleading. There has been no evidence of a profit advantage to date and until there is, you can not claim that a Yes to this question means a Yes to accepting GM canola in Australia.

Rebel-?Hudson: Give a scientific reason why GM canola should increase yields more than non-GM chemical resistant varieties other than for the weed control the chemical resistance offers.

Starlink corn is a good example of how extremely difficult and expensive recall is. Recall of StarLink corn cost the food industry an estimated US$1 billion (Rodemeyer). "Three years after StarLink corn was banned for human consumption, U.S. government still finds small amounts of StarLink in more than 1% of samples tested." Dec 2003- (San Jose Mercury News)
The last report I was aware was in Guatemala in Oct 2004. http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2023

The astronomical cost and problems associated with recall of Starlink should make our industry far more cautious about releasing a product that can not be mixed with our food crops.

Why should farmers pay any testing, recall or market loss associated with contamination? Why shouldn't the GM industry take this responsibility for their product?

Rick, the American organic industry accepts contamination levels up to 5% whereas the Australian organic industry does not allow any GM because this demand is dictated by consumer preference. We are conventional growers and do not see why we need to go to the same costs and hassles associated with the closed loop market system (similar to organics), testing, quality assurance and identity preservation associated with selling as GM-free which is what our markets prefer.

We don't want contamination of our existing GM-free crop, why should we pay for the losses caused by it? Australia has the envied position to learn from other countries mistakes. We need to keep GM contained rather than try to keep GM-free separate.

Yes, we will be setting a legal precedent by taking legal action against the GM-farmer as this is the immediate recommended first course of action to defend ourselves. We are already gradually gathering evidence of a far bigger class action against the GM company.

If legal redress fails, farmers should be compensated by the government because it is the government that has taken steps to protect the GM industry. Good governance is about ensuring that the activities of one sector of the community do not unfairly burden another sector of the community without fair redress.