Rules on genetically modified food are unfair to farmers

FARMERS have gates and fences for a reason. It's their right to determine what they do with their land, and trespassers or stray animals are unwelcome.

But does that extend to preventing someone contaminating their crop and costing them contracts and much of their livelihood?

Most Australian farmers grow GM-free food and get premium income for it, because it is what consumers want. A poll released last month by EMC revealed that 50 per cent of Australians disapprove of the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Australia.

But the farmers' choice to grow GM-free can be affected by their neighbours' choices, because of the lack of protection rules in Australia. The current non-binding recommendation guidelines for managing GM canola cultivation in Western Australia are very weak and only recommend a minimum of 5m separation between a GM and non-GM canola field.

Every farmers know that such a small buffer zone cannot prevent GM contamination. And there is no farmer-protection legislation when genetic contamination occurs.

Biotech companies have a no-liability contract with GM farmers (Monsanto calls it a Technology Stewardship Agreement) to protect themselves and they regularly sue contaminated farmers in North America for patent infringement. They haven't done it in Australia yet, but nothing prevents them doing so in the future.

This situation is insane, unfair and generates conflicts.

A landmark trial under way in the WA Supreme Court sees farmer against farmer, neighbour against neighbour, all because of GM crops.

Believed to be the first of its kind in the world, it's a case that is being followed by citizens, lawyers, food businesses, the agriculture industry, and biotech companies in Australia, Europe, North America and elsewhere.

It began when WA farmer Steve Marsh lost his organic certification on 70 per cent of his farm -- and most of his livelihood -- after his land was contaminated by GM canola patented by Monsanto and grown in the adjacent property.

His only avenue to protect his right to grow what he chooses was to sue his neighbour for his losses in a civil negligence case, despite the risk and expense.

His case may set a precedent for future cases of GM contamination and ultimately determine the future of farming in Australia, New Zealand and beyond -- and it is not only about organic farming. In January 2011, Bob Mackley, a conventional grain farmer at Duchembegarra, Victoria, faced genetic contamination. He was not able to sell canola from that land as GM-free any more and had to change rotations and the herbicide regime and cover extra clean-up costs.

If Marsh loses, there will be no effective compensation system for organic and conventional farmers who suffer financial losses as a result of ineffective coexistence. The legal precedent established will shift the economic burden of GM farming from those who choose GM to those who don't.

We need to protect our farmers from GM contamination as it could result in organic and conventional farmers getting lower returns, because GM canola achieves a lower price than conventional canola. Contaminated farmers could also be liable for contaminating deliveries, shipments and markets.

The inability to prevent GM contamination in Australia may also put major export markets, such as Europe, at risk.

No one wants to see farmers battling fellow farmers and neighbours in the courts. As contamination is unavoidable, the Safe Food Foundation is calling for a moratorium on all GM crops grown in the open air in Australia.

Specific legislation is also needed in states where GM crops are allowed, to prevent their dissemination, to protect organic and conventional agriculture and food businesses and to facilitate clean-up operations and recalls.

Such legislation should also cover the question of who is financially liable in the case of GM contamination.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/rules-on-genetically-modified-f...

Greens....the farmers new best friend.

Hay , did you know that greenpeace funded 3 "eco-terrorists" to destroy a crop of GM wheat being grown by some Ph D students at the ANU.
Yeah GM wheat that was drought resistant to save little starving ethiopians.
All trashed by inner city urban greenies.
6 years hard work by Ph D students, down the drain.

Love your work greenies

____ wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 11:21pm:


Just like countries have borders.





Let the poor GM crops in i say!



Great arguement.....

Good call China.....we all hate gm foods.

US corn exports to China drop 85 percent after ban on GMO strains – industry report

China’s rejection of shipments of US corn containing traces of unapproved genetically modified maize has caused a significant drop in exports. According to a new report, US traders have lost $427 million in sales.

Overall, China has barred nearly 1.45 million tons of corn shipments since last year, the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), an American industry association, said Friday.

The tally is based on data from export companies and is significantly higher than the previous numbers reported by the media, which said roughly 900,000 tons were affected. US corn exports to China since January are down 85 percent from the same period last year, the report says.

http://rt.com/usa/china-gmo-corn-ban-120/

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 9:02am:

What is power?!!? 

miketrees wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2014 at 9:14am:

Like what?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/aspartames-name-changed-to-amino-sweet-a-toxin-by-a...

Aspartame’s Name Changed to Amino Sweet: A Toxin By Another Name is Still a Toxin

By Christina Sarich
Global Research, April 10, 2014
Natural Society



Natural Society has been talking about the dangers of Aspartame for quite some time now. It is a dangerous artificial sweetener found in many of the foods we consume every day, including soft drinks, chewing gum, breakfast cereals, and jams. Now, it’s important to know that aspartame may be disguised as a new name in your favorite foods – aminosweet.

Used as a sugar substitute and often marketed as Nutrasweet and Equal, aspartame is an excitotoxin that destroys the brain and body. Its use has been a controversial subject since the 1980s when the CEO of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, pushed for it’s approval to be sold on the market. Now, its name is being changed, with FDA approval, to try to dupe millions into purchasing and consuming this toxin once again.

Aspartame, even renamed Amino Sweet, is not safe. This substance is made using genetically modified bacteria in the US, but according to a Monsanto source, the UK market does not have to eat genetically modified bacteria excrement. Many ‘low-calorie’ foods contain GMO aspartame, however, even overseas. Aspartame may cause blindness, cancer, and brain tumors.

Just as a reminder of who is pushing this excrement – quite literally – on the consumers of the United states, it was Mr. Rumsfeld who went on to become George W. Bush’s secretary of Defense, and crony-Capitalist agenda-pusher. This one substance has continually been shown to cause harm to human health, so why is the FDA renaming it instead of banning it completely from the food supply? There is considerable evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer, including aspartame specifically – so why not name it something more appropriate at least? ‘Sickeningly Sweet’ might be more appropriate.

Even saccharin eventually had to be made with a label, mandated by Congress, that says, “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals”. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment. Aside from cancers and tumors, top researchers have linked aspartame with the following symptoms and diseases:

Headaches
Memory loss
Seizures
Vision Loss
Coma
ADD
Lupus
Fibromyalgia
Muscular Dystrophy
Alzheimer’s
Chrnoic Fatigue
Diabetes
Depression
Aspartame is Dangerous

European scientists have been telling us about the dangers of aspartame since 2005. Why on earth is it still allowed in our food? Partly? Because a politically biased FDA, then swayed by Rumsfeld’s corporation, said that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s decision about aspartame was not conclusive enough to prove that it was a dangerous substance, and that there was no “further review [on an] earlier scientific opinion on the safety of aspartame or [reason] to revise the Acceptable Daily Intake.”

The problem, and what more research concluded, is that aspartame breaks down into something called Phenylalanine, among other things. This can cause a disorder known as Phenylketonuria.

“. . .one in 15,000 people in the world has a genetic disorder called Phenylketonuria. Their body can’t metabolize synthesizde phenylalanine. As it builds up in the body, it causes all sorts of bad things to happen, such as mental retardation, seizures, and other brain damage. People suffering from Phenylketonuria (or PKU) are called phenylketonurics. They need to constantly monitor their protein intake. They are also warned about consumption of products containing aspartame – hence the warning on labels – ‘Phenylketonurics – contains phenylalanine.”

Not only that, but aspartame is also chemically addictive to the body, even though it damages it profoundly – just like other drugs. This is why food makers want to put it in their products – so you will buy more of them.

Aspartame, or Amino Sweet – its all the same toxic substance. Watch out for it on food labels. Eat honey, apple sauce, raw, non-GMO sugar, and other REAL food sweeteners instead. You deserve to live a sweet life without being a sucker.

Natural Society has been talking about the dangers of Aspartame for quite some time now. It is a dangerous artificial sweetener found in many of the foods we consume every day, including soft drinks, chewing gum, breakfast cereals, and jams. Now, it’s important to know that aspartame may be disguised as a new name in your favorite foods – aminosweet.

Used as a sugar substitute and often marketed as Nutrasweet and Equal, aspartame is an excitotoxin that destroys the brain and body. Its use has been a controversial subject since the 1980s when the CEO of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, pushed for it’s approval to be sold on the market. Now, its name is being changed, with FDA approval, to try to dupe millions into purchasing and consuming this toxin once again.

Aspartame, even renamed Amino Sweet, is not safe. This substance is made using genetically modified bacteria in the US, but according to a Monsanto source, the UK market does not have to eat genetically modified bacteria ..

aquascoot wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2014 at 9:39am:




yes I recall that, protestying the possibility of GM organisms getting out into the environment, by trampling them and spreading them outside the facility thereby spreading the GM organisms.