ANTI-genetically modified (GM) cropping farmers have joined to form the GM-Free Farmers group, a united voice opposed to GM food production.
The group announced their formation at a small rally on the steps of Parliament House last week.
Goomalling farmer Darrell Boase said the group was formed in response to the news of a repeal of the GM Free Crop Areas Act (2003).
"It has been an idea for several years, but the recent threat of a repeal finally got us into gear," Mr Boase said.
"We held a phone link-up with 15 like-minded farmers in September to see if there was any interest in forming a new group, dedicated to the promotion of non-GM farming, which resulted in a unanimous 'yes'.
"As a result we were able to launch our group."
Williams farmer and long-time supporter of anti-GM farming Janette Liddelow was named spokesperson and wants the voices and concerns of anti-GM farmers to be heard and addressed.
About 20 anti-GM farmers and city protestors gathered to oppose the possible repeal of the GM-free laws, being considered by Agriculture and Food Minister Ken Baston.
The group and consumer advocate Foodwatch also gathered more than 1500 signatures on a petition.
Labor MP for Gosnells Chris Tallentire, Greens MP Lynn MacLaren and Nationals MP Paul Brown were given petitions to table in the Parliament, asking to protect GM-Free farming and food.
Mr Brown, who represents the agricultural region, said he did not support the anti-GM position, but would provide a voice for the region and tabled some of the petitions.
"I support those farmers in the region, who are entitled to a voice," he said.
Kojonup farmer Steve Marsh, well known for a landmark case against his GM canola growing neighbour, attended the rally and thanked the crowd for supporting a "traditional farmer".
"The impacts of GM are significant and we face substantial losses," Mr Marsh said.
"It is disappointing to see the government perusing this repeal, as there are a lot of farmers who don't want this technology imposed on them.
"It is not just another mob of grain, as we are so often told.
"The government needs to do something about it, and the only way to rectify the situation is through legislation."
Mr Tallentire said 874 petitions had been tabled and there would likely be more to come.
"The Act was brought in to protect us from the uncontrolled use of GM crops," he said.
"We are going to be opposing the repeal of the legislation, because there is no evidence to suggest there is no long-term feeding trials into the safety of GM foods.
"There is no evidence that the market, the buyer or the consumer wants to eat that product."
But the Pastoralists and Graziers' Association (PGA) Western Graingrowers chairman John Snooke believes opposition to GM crops hasn't disappeared locally but the level of support has certainly diminished.
In early 2010 when then Agriculture Minister Terry Reman signed an exemption to the GM Crops Free Areas Act, about 150 protesters rallied on the steps of Parliament House to vent their anger demanding the decision be reversed.
But Mr Snooke said a meagre attendance at another anti-GM rally last week at the same venue fell well-short of that support.
He believes mainstream, commercial media has lost interest in the anti-GM cause as facts about the technology have been proven to a wider audience, especially after the decision was handed down earlier this year in the Marsh v Baxter WA Supreme Court case.
"GM canola has slowly been seen as a good tool for farmers," he said.
"The supply chain has segregated it and there's no marketing disadvantage.
"Farmers who want to market their crop as non-GM have every right to reinvigorate themselves and come together and do what they do; that's the free speech we have in this country and I support that.
"But what I don't support is their ignorance of the facts.
"Still to this day none of those anti-GM people will read the verdict from the Marsh-Baxter case and get an understanding of the facts.
"Clearly they have missed the law and been found out and they've been discredited and that's why the interest isn't there.
"When you spruik millions of dollars worth of damage like Steve Marsh did in the early days of that case and you wind up in the Supreme Court and it's just an $85,000 case, not too many journalists are going to keep taking an interest."