Recent comments by: Julie Newman
Grain of Truth
You've missed the point Gregor. No market in the world wants GM wheat and if GM wheat is grown commercially, all farmers are expected to market as GM because to market as non-GM is too expensive and too difficult.
The reason Canada and America are not growing GM wheat is because their market research showed that not only would their markets reject GM wheat but they would stop buying wheat from countries that grew GM wheat (ref. Canadian Wheat Board).
If you want to grow frost tolerant, drought tolerant plants that have market resistance, try growing weeds as it does not affect everyone elses market.
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
For those wanting the truth rather than speculation, I suggest you read the transcripts at http://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au /T/transcripts.aspx
I have attended court every day and the court case is not looking good for the GM grower at this stage. For clarification, if a chemical spray drift went on to another persons property (usually only if the farmer spraying was negligent in being aware of damage, wind directon etc), they claim their losses through insurance. Economic loss caused by GM is not insurable as it is an inevitability, not a risk. This case is about who should be liable.
As someone that has been involved in the debate for well over a decade and attended the court session every day, I can understand why Bill was asked to leave. He appears to have spent more time parading outside trying to dominate media than he has in the court. I wish to remind him that when he is in court, he should not be muttering loudly in response to statements made. As hard as he finds it to listen and not be given top stage, he needs to respect that the truth will be teased out in court.
Perhaps the only industry consultation was done with the industry that benefits.
The money is earmarked for upgrading South Perth and for plant breeding, but who is the key beneficiary?
All of our public plant breeding merged to form Intergrain. Monsanto paid a mere $10.5million for a 19.5% share of Intergrain and all the intellectual property that has taken decades to develop. Intergrain now occupies the main South Perth Ag Dept building.
Have the assets been sold to benefit Intergrain and Monsanto?
Monsanto's pricing structure is designed to charge farmers more than any benefit gained.
Terry Redman, Minister for Monsanto should be out picking this canola up by hand. He knew about these problems before he released GM canola without restrictions and he chose to ignore it leaving farmers to fight it out.
On one hand he told non-GM farmers that common law will work in these cases and on the other he told GM farmers that common law is not a threat to them.
Now we have farmers fighting farmers. Shame on you Redman.
Also interesting that I was ridiculed for my carefully calculated estimate of $68/tonne difference between GM and non-GM canola in the parliamentary advisory report when marketers claimed there would be no difference. Segregation was only expected to last for a year or two as there was apparently no demand for non-GM.
I hope marketers will be far more careful in warning their clients about the zero tolerance of GM in wheat as by removing the Gene Tech Act as proposed by the Coalition, there will be no barriers for GM wheat.
The website link mentioned is not active. It is unreasonable to make donations compulsory when farmers do not own the intellectual property they pay for and the aim of GRDC is to make money out of farmers rather than for farmers.
What about the anti-competitive practise of forcing market loss and additional costs on to farmers that do not want to grow GM crops? What about the anti-competitive deals with public researchers that (according to Intergrain) extend GM contracts and standards on non-GM varieties. What about anti-competitive contracts that lock farmers into being told what products to use, who to deliver grain to and who to sell it to. NCP compliance is based on conditional IMF loans that has been funded by multinationals.Are farmers and consumers being sold out by conditional funding? That's anti-competitive!
What sort of idiot would support GM wheat when no market in the world wants it and it is too difficult and too expensive to segregate it. The reason why no GM wheat is commercialised anywhere in the world is because it is little more than industry sabotage to introduce it. Even if only one grower grows GM wheat commercially in a state, the market perception will be that that state is GM and markets will move elsewhere. Stop pandering to the research sector that are looking at what they can make out of GM wheat and start looking at what farmers can lose by accepting it.
It is about time that someone took a stance against the ridiculous accusations and character assasinations that the GM industry resort to to against those opposing GM. It is a deliberate tactic used by those pushing GM to avoid debating the facts, and Bill Crabtree has got away with it for far too long.
Who should be liable for the economic loss associated with GM crops? Why should it be the non-GM farmer as proposed?
The government made it clear that common law was a way non-GM farmers could deflect liability and that is what this court case is about.
Zero tolerance is not just for the organic sector. All farmers currently agree to CBH delivery contracts that state that NO GM is present in grain delivered... that is zero tolerance.
If farmers read their CBH delivery contract conditions they will find that it is not just organics that have a zero tolerance. All non-GM farmers are signing to guarantee there is NO GM in their grain delivered. That is a zero tolerance.
There is market resistance and a price penalty associated with GM.
The question this truck spill raises is who is liable if it causes economic loss?
This article missed the point. If GM wheat is released commercially in WA, the market perception is that all of our wheat is GM unless we prove it is non-GM (meaning zero GM). In other words, we are all forced to market as GM and yet no market in the world wants GM. That is industry sabotage.
Paula Fitzgerald is paid $100,000/year by GRDC to push a pro-GM policy through farm lobby groups in support of the research sector who has alliances with Monsanto.
Why should farmers support GRDC when research is clearly in the hands of the corporate sector?
Why are the GM industry fighting so much against a strict liability legislation that makes the GM industry liable for any economic loss they cause to others? Those pushing GM claim there is no economic loss but want the non-GM farmers to pay if they are wrong. Zero is a reality as every farmer guarantees their seed has zero GM unless they declare it GM. Any positive test means the non-GM load or stack is declared GM. There is a price penalty associated with GM crops and those supporting GM opt to suffer that but they should not expect non-GM farmers to pay. Stop whining Jim and face facts.
Still at it eh Paula? Still well paid by the GM industry to promote misleading pro GM information?
Markets do not want GM, contamination can't be avoided but non-GM farmers are expected to pay for the economic loss.
Why? If the GM industry truly believe there are no economic problems with GM, they should accept liability for the economic loss it causes, not the non-GM farmers as planned. Removing the moratoria legislation removes the ability to assess economic risk. Who is stupid enough to support that?