GM Crops Free Areas Exemption Order 2010GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS FREE AREAS EXEMPTION ORDER 2010 Summary: Section 5(1) makes a breach of that order an offence, with a penalty of $200,000. However, section 6 permits the Minister to make a further order exempting a person or class of persons from section 5(1). Exemption can be subject to conditions. The effect of exemption orders is that technically cultivation is still not allowed, but there is no way to enforce it as there is no penalty for breach. In 2009, pursuant to a section 6 exemption, GM canola was cultivated on a trial basis to find out:
In January 2010 the trial was declared a success in a report by the Department of Agriculture and Food. Subsequently the Minister made a further section 6 exemption order, published in the Government Gazette on 29 January 2010 which says: A person who cultivates genetically modified canola in Western Australia is exempt from the application of section 5(1) of the Act if the genetically modified canola is licensed for intentional release into the environment under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth). The exemption order was strongly opposed by the Network of Concerned Farmers, Organic Growers WA, GM Free Consumers Network, The Wilderness Society, Conservation Council of WA, Greenpeace and various members of the public, as well as by both the Greens and the Labor party. Disallowance motions were brought by Labor in the Legislative Assembly and by the Greens in the Legislative Council; however both were defeated. Hence the exemption order remains in place. Concerns about GM There are many different concerns about GM, and the Greens have repeatedly drawn Parliament's attention to this. For this particular disallowance motion the Greens focussed on the alleged success of the trial and the impact of the exemption order on freedom of choice and freedom from interference to one’s livelihood. A summary of those concerns is below. Giz's full speech on 18 May 2010 is accessible via Hansard: www.parliament.wa.gov.au Segregation is impossible GM canola cannot be effectively segregated from non GM canola or other grains. Canola seeds are light, small and mobile. They get into crevices of farming machinery, can escape through tiny holes and cracks and can be carried on the wind. The 2009 trial of GM canola included many precautions to try to prevent GM seed from escaping. Yet despite this, segregation was not achieved. Out of the trial's 52 plantings, 11 “incidents” occurred:
This inability to segregate is consistent with what has happened with GM canola elsewhere. For example, in answer on 2 March 2010 to Giz's Question on Notice 1392 the government conceded:
Thus, the government has conceded that segregation is impossible. The choice that is really being offered to growers and consumers is between canola with lots of GM content, and canola with less GM content. Achieving an adventitious presence of no more than 0.9% is also impossible The May 2009 Information Paper on GM canola published by the Ministerial GMO Industry Reference Group chaired by Hon Kim Chance MLC includes at page 33 a table of estimated average escape rates at each of 9 different stages in GM canola production. Three separate estimates are provided. All three estimates show potential for contamination at at least 6 of the 9 stages of the production process. The total potential for contamination was estimated at 0.81%, 0.83% and 0.96% respectively. These figures are small, but remember that they are for a single year only. The report states at page 33 that these levels will increase exponentially (ie in multiples, not just by addition) every growing season if GM escapee plants are not controlled. This potential for exponential increase is the reason that adventitious presence of GM in non GM canola cannot be kept down to 0.9%. The way the government proposes to keep adventitious presence down to 0.9% depends on people following procedures. The Department of Agriculture and Food suggests a number of procedures in Farmnote 409: “On-farm segregation of GM and non GM canola" . But people, even those with the best intentions, are fallible. And even if GM canola growers follow all of the procedures, the Farmnote acknowledges that contamination can happen anyway. For example: a. officials from Western Power, telephone companies and others can access GM growing areas without notification and potentially transfer GM seeds, and b. livestock grazing on canola stubble can excrete viable GM seeds for up to seven days after the last feed from the paddock. The risk might be small with each incident, but: a. the effects are exponential each growing season if escapee plants are not destroyed, b. GM canola seeds are tiny, and c. GM canola plants look like non GM canola plants. During the 2009 trial, the Department took a very active role in inspecting, monitoring and ensuring destruction of the inevitable GM plants that grew in places they weren’t meant to be. But there is apparently no intention for the Department to continue that role. So the management mechanisms that now apply under the exemption order have not been trialled in Western Australia at all. Consequences of escape of GM canola These include:
Despite the potential economic losses for non GM growers through no fault of their own, no special laws (eg strict liability laws) have been introduced in respect of compensation. Instead growers will have to rely on ordinary common law mechanisms, for example suing for nuisance, or trespass, or negligence. But this is not a realistic mechanism for protection of a non GM grower against economic loss:
GM canola has not been shown to be agronomically viable in WA GM canola does not contain a gene that makes it better quality than this, or yield more. The difference between GM canola and non GM canola is that GM canola contains a gene that makes it resistant to the weed killer used on it. GM canola is a weed control tool. Weeds grow in competition with canola crops and unless controlled, can reduce canola yield and contaminate the harvest. Other strategies for increasing yield of crops in general include crop rotation, crop diversification and development of improved varieties. In Western Australia the main weeds that compete with canola and can reduce its yield are ryegrass and wild radish. Weeds are controlled mechanically (tilling) or more often by herbicides – provided the weeds have not developed resistance to the herbicide being used. Page 17 of the Information Paper lists the herbicides that can be used on canola, which weeds they control, and what level of weed resistance has developed. GM canola is promoted as requiring fewer chemicals than non GM canola. However the 5 cases described in the report of the trial do not support this claim. In one case the paddock had a low weed burden, so the value of that trial was limited in this respect. In two cases the grower used additional herbicides to control weeds. In the remaining two cases the grower said s/he would like to spray after the 6 leaf stage to control weeds. In any event, limited details of 5 cases plus a statement in the report that a further 12 commercial growers think GM canola would be viable for their farms is inadequate evidence upon which to base an exemption order with such potentially negative impacts. Further, the evidence regarding the 5 cases described in the report of the trial is entirely subjective. There is no reference in the report to any independent checking of the assertions made by growers regarding agronomic viability. This is notwithstanding that clearly some of the growers were not neutral, and held strong pro GM views before the trials were held. For example the grower in Case #3 is reported as saying “Frustrated for the last 10 years that we were denied similar opportunities [to Canada]” and the grower in Case #5 is reported as saying “Long interest in technology which could have been here 10 years ago…invited to visit Victoria in September 2008 by Monsanto to view crops and attend field days there, which reinforced positive view. Approached by Pacific Seeds to participate in 2009 trial”. Last, the limited information in the report regarding agronomic viability does not include an adequate comparison between the GM canola used in the trial and other canola varieties, particularly the non GM triazine tolerant variety which is the main alternative variety used in WA. At page 14 the Information Paper states that the triazine tolerant variety requires a longer growing period in order to avoid reduced yield, achievable by early sowing. However of the case studies provided in the report of the trial, only Case #3 gives the date of sowing of the triazine tolerant variety so as to enable comparison. That case indicates a late sowing, in late May, which probably explains the comparatively low yield reported; the Information Paper states at page 14 that in national trials, early season triazine tolerant varieties outyielded other varieties by an average of 39.7%. Conclusion The exemption order is based on trials that neither established ability to segregate GM canola from non GM canola in WA, nor agronomic viability of GM canola in WA. Inability to prevent contamination of non GM canola crops compromises our freedom of choice to grow and eat non GM canola. It also exposes non GM canola growing families to risk of losing their livelihood and their way of life, through no fault of their own. Other references:
|
Search |