What part of this statement from the full report at website www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11c.pdf is not saying that the farmers are getting an increase in GM benefits because their spouses and themselves are working in salaried wages outside of their own farm?:-

"The lack of increased profitability for some farmers who adopted HT soybeans suggests that factors other than those included in traditional farm returns calculations may be driving adoption for these farmers. In particular, weed control may become simpler and require less management time, which allows growers of HT soybeans to control a wide range of weeds and makes harvest easier and faster. One important alternative use of management time is off-farm employment by farm operators and their spouses (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2002)."

"Adoption of HT soybeans is associated with increased household income Recent ERS research showed that adoption of HT soybeans was associated with a significant increase in off-farm household income for U.S. soybean farmers. On-farm household income is not significantly associated with adoption but total farm household income is significantly higher for adopters, suggesting that most managerial time saved by adopters is used in off-farm work (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2005)."

I think you need glasses Agronomist.

I have just one question agronomist;

If my grain is contaminated by cross pollination from a GM crop, can I expect to have the contaminated seed replaced at no cost to me?

Dunart, It is not an issue in North America. No-one, except a few mavericks who have other agendas, is worried about adventitious presence as it doesn't lose any money. There is nothing to compensate for.

The word used in the USDA text is employment. This means a lot of things including earning wages. It does not mean as NonGMfarmer wants to claim that growers have to get wage jobs off farm to earn money outside their farms to prop up their farming business because of GM crops. It also won’t explain adoption of GM crops in places like Smith County Kansas, Adams County Iowa and Nance County Nebraska where off farm work for wages is not readily available. If GM crops free up time so the farmer’s spouse can work off farm, is that a bad thing?

NonGMFarmer also has the subsidy situation quite wrong. Subsidy payments have been decreasing in recent years. The total subsidy payout of about $12 billion in 2004 was the lowest than it had been since 1998. In contrast to the assertion made by NonGMFarmer, in 2004 crops with GM traits (soybeans, cotton, canola and corn) represented only 57% of all subsidy payouts. The biggest payout (37%) was for corn, where only modest adoption of GM varieties (45%). Soybean, with the highest adoption rate (85%) only got 7% of subsidies behind wheat (10%) and just ahead of rice (5%). Neither of the latter have any GM varieties. In 2003, with $16 billion in subsidy payments, soybeans received less subsidies than either wheat or rice. While it might be interesting that cotton and corn receive the most subsidy and are GM, this is simply a reflection that these are major crops in the US. As a percent of total subsidies, soybean subsidies are declining. Historically over the period 1995-2004 they were 9% of the total, from 2002-2004 they have been 7% of the total.

Agronomist, you did not answer my question.

• If I plant cross contaminated seed will I ever be prosecuted for doing so?
(This would mean I am planting the “GMO” genes.)
• If the cross contaminated seed ends up lower yielding, will I be able to claim loss of income?
• If I lose a sale, or have the price downgraded due to this contamination, will I be able to claim for the losses caused?
• Will the extra costs of killing the chemical resistance plants be able to be claimed from the GMO companies?

This involves a very short answer; in fact 4 words will be long enough.
Unless the answer is;

• No
• Yes
• Yes
• yes

It means the non GMO growers will be asked to subsidize the GMO industry and the large companies involved.

So what do you see as the answers?
I do not need a story about so called subsidies and farmers having to work of farm to survive.
I just need 4 words, a very simple reply.

Dunart, Experience from North America would dictate the following answers:

If I plant cross contaminated seed will I ever be prosecuted for doing so? Not if it was due to adventitious presence. If you did so deliberately, you could expect a request to explain. In the same way as if you deliberately decided to sell seed with plant breeders rights to your neighbor.

If the cross contaminated seed ends up lower yielding, will I be able to claim loss of income? Broadly, yes, but you would need to demonstrate economic loss. It hasn't happen yet. If you get adventitious presence of a lower yielding wheat in your premium wheat variety do you lose income? If so, who do you claim the loss from?

If I lose a sale, or have the price downgraded due to this contamination, will I be able to claim for the losses caused? Again you would need to be able to demonstrate economic loss. If you could sell it elsewhere for the same price, the answer would be no as there would be no economic loss. This has not yet been successfully tested in the courts.

Will the extra costs of killing the chemical resistance plants be able to be claimed from the GMO companies? No. If you get cross contamination from Clearfield wheat into your wheat, and then have to use clethodim in your Clearfield canola to kill the wheat volunteers, who do you claim the extra costs of control from?

Where do you get your information Agronomist? Check the dates of your subsidy information. Last year subsidies were increased (check the OECD website for information). And soy,corn and cotton made up 80% of the subsidies (this was clearly given in a presentation by USDA at Grains Week and all there heard the rather dithery response when I pointed this out during question time).

You are deliberately missing the point about contamination. We are promised coexistence when there is no intention to allow fair, practical coexistence plans. In order to sell as non-GM, we either guarantee there is no GM (will be impossible if GM is grown) or we have a rigorous identity preservation system claimed to costs 10-15% of the gross value of our product). Part of that I.P. is to plant uncontaminated seed - apparently not an intention of our seed industry.

All the GM industry is saying "no problem" but they expect us to wear all the costs and liabilities when there is.