THE establishment of a compensation scheme for WA growers who suffer financially from contamination caused by genetically modified (GM) grain would create a solution to a problem that does not exist.
That was the resounding message conveyed to a public inquiry last week, as key agricultural stakeholders including WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA (PGA), CropLife Australia, the Grain Industry Association of WA (GIWA) and Monsanto fronted the standing committee on environment and public affairs for the fourth day of hearings.
The inquiry into mechanisms for compensation for economic loss to farmers in WA caused by contamination of GM material was triggered by Greens MLC Diane Evers, who tabled a petition in parliament last year, prompted by the high-profile Marsh versus Baxter legal case.
Kojonup farmer Steve Marsh lost his organic certification after GM canola from Michael Baxter’s neighbouring farm was found on the Marsh property in 2010.
Mr Marsh took Mr Baxter to court seeking more than $80,000 in compensation, but the case was dismissed in the Supreme Court after a six-year battle.
CropLife Australia chief executive officer Matthew Cossey said a compensation mechanism was unnecessary and common law adequately dealt with such problems arising from GM technology.
Mr Cossey said there was no evidence of pure economic loss caused by the unintentional presence of an approved GM organism in more than 20 years of GM farming in Australia.
“The undeniable success of co-existence between both the organic farming sector and farmers who choose to grow GM crops in WA is why a compensation scheme is entirely unwarranted and unnecessary,” Mr Cossey said.
“Any form of compensation scheme could only be considered to be a solution looking for a problem that just simply doesn’t exist.
“If introduced, such a compensation mechanism would simply pose a real and serious impost to WA’s entire farming sector, it would also cause unnecessary farmer conflict and would unjustifiably undermine long-established and well-operated legal principles.”
Mr Cossey warned the hearing that any steps towards compensation mechanisms for non-GM farmers would lead to similar claims being pursued by those who suffer financially at the hands of organic farmers.
He said it could be argued non-organic farmers were put at risk by their organic neighbours who were unable to chemically treat their crops against weeds and disease.
“The establishment of a compensation scheme for the unintended presence of low levels of genetically modified organisms sets WA sort of on a path of setting what are costly and unnecessary compensation schemes for any number of safe approved products,” Mr Cossey said.
“Those most at risk of a policy direction like this would ironically be the organic growers themselves, who would face a hike in duty to prevent pests, weeds and resistance that they cannot control through organic methods from crossing into their neighbouring farmers’ properties.
“Because non-organic farmers would have immediate cause to seek a similar compensation scheme, I think from government if you step one up in this place and then you start expanding it into every peril, every threat that exists.”
The PGA and WAFarmers representatives said many growers used GM and non-GM canola in their cropping programs and were yet to encounter any problems with “contamination”.
PGA grain committee member John Snooke is one of those to use the technology alongside his non-GM crops and said the existing system worked “perfectly well”.
Mr Snooke said referring to GM canola as a contaminant was inappropriate and damaged the industry’s reputation.
“GM canola is not a contaminant, it is an approved food,” Mr Snooke said.
“It’s used by end consumers all around the world, so we are very concerned when that word contamination is used and it is insulting our end users.
“It’s not a contaminant, when plant material crosses over in farming systems – which it does because we operate in nature – it’s just an unintended accidental incursion.”
Mr Snooke said there was no scientific evidence to suggest GM material was harmful and Australia’s hesitancy to adopt the technology had set the State’s agricultural industry behind major competitors.
“In WA the stalling of our adoption cost us 10 years – 10 years when we had no productivity gains in canola,” Mr Snooke said.
“Since GM canola was allowed and approved in WA by the previous Liberal and National government, we have had advantages because we’re seeing productivity gains in canola and we’re seeing a vibrant research and breeding industry happen because of the allowance of GM canola, it’s been a fantastic crop for WA.”
This sentiment was reiterated by GIWA chief executive officer Larissa Taylor, who said further regulation would set Australian grain growers back further against competitors.
With rising grain production in the Black Sea and Argentina, Ms Taylor said it was vital that Australian growers weren’t hamstrung by unnecessary compensation measures.
“GIWA does not support the introduction of any compensation mechanism for farmers who’ve suffered loss from genetically modified material and we think that to do so would introduce a regulatory burden and inefficiency into our globally competitive grain supply chain,” Ms Taylor said.
“If the WA government penalises our globally successful canola industry by introducing a regulated compensation mechanism for a problem which we don’t believe exists, I humbly suggest that we’ll be giving a free kick wrapped up in red tape to Konstantin from Kiev and Valentino from Buenos Aires.”
With seeding in full swing across the State, Ms Taylor said the importance of GM was highlighted as growers used the technology to adapt to seasonal conditions.
She said GM canola had become an important part of many cropping programs and helped address multiple challenges facing the WA agricultural landscape.
“They have another tool in their tool box to address root disease, foliar disease, weed management and herbicide rotation,” Ms Taylor said.
“Growers have started seeding, dry seeding, waiting for the rain, and they need that technological flexibility to work out which way they’ll go.”
The presentations last Thursday followed three previous hearings as part of the inquiry, with FOODwatch, Australian Certified Organic Pty Ltd, Gene Ethics and the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia among others to give evidence.
A levy-based protection fund from the sale of GM seed was among recommendations put forward in previous hearings, along with mandating WA’s GM management guidelines.
The inquiry is on-going, with no date set for the committee to present its findings.
