A PETITION tabled in the Western Australian Legislative Council earlier this month to compensate farmers who lose money due to genetic modification (GM) organism contamination has been labelled as an anti-GM stunt by farming and biotechnology groups.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
The FOODwatch WA petition, which contained more than 900 signatures and was tabled by The Greens WA South West member Diane Evers, called for an introduction of “farmer protection legislation to compensate any non-GM farmer who suffers economic loss from GM contamination”.
Ms Evers said by tabling the petition she wanted to see some debate about the introduction of a scheme.
“The financing of it isn’t set, I would like to see some debate about how we decide how it is done but the petition is wanting to get it out there that this is important, that this is an impact on people and farmers and that they have no recourse when their financial viability is affected,” Ms Evers said.
“The State government position on GM crop farming does not provide certainty to organic or GM-free farmers whose livelihoods continue to be threatened by the spread of GM canola.
“WA farmers who want to retain their clean, green farming reputation, and the premium price it demands, deserve our support.”
But Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA (PGA) graingrowers committee chairman Gary McGill said a compensation fund was “unnecessary”.
“It is one of the techniques that the Greens and the anti-GM technology lobby are using to place pressure on the use of the technology in the farming sector of WA, to frighten and scare people away of using it by the threat of some sort of legal threat that may require people to stump up for seed liability issues,” Mr McGill said.
“It is the persistent attempt by those against the technology – all those under the ‘green umbrella’ – who cannot and will not accept that the technology is safe, legal and been tested in the courts.”
A spokesperson for Agriculture and Food Minister Alannah MacTiernan said the State government was “considering this issue and this petition and would provide a response in due course”.
WAFarmers Grains Section president Duncan Young said the industry would evaluate the concept if it proceeded further through parliament.
“The public must be reminded that GM canola is not a contaminant; it is a safe and legal crop that has been approved by the regulator,” he said.
“In Australia, in line with world standards, we have adventitious presence acceptance of up to 0.9 per cen, and to date there have been no export issues in WA.”
Mr McGill said the PGA had met with Ms MacTiernan and had discussed the possibility of a compensation fund for GM contamination.
He said the farming group was against any type of scheme.
“We are concerned that there seems to be this thinking that there needs to be a liability responsibility on a GM grower if there happens to be an incursion onto somebody else’s property and there has to be proved there is some sort of economic loss,” he said.
“There are thousands of examples of neighbours suffering some consequence of something coming from the neighbouring farm and it all gets worked out in various ways.
“If it’s a spray drift, if there’s some other incursion, there are protection measures in place with insurance and there’s the business of neighbours when they just help each other out – it is how it has always been done and that is how it ought to be done in the future.”
The federal government’s statutory review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 in 2006 considered – and subsequently disregarded – the development of a compensation fund for GM contamination, believing it was contradictory as GMOs were considered safe by regulators.
CropLife Australia chief executive officer Matthew Cossey said it was disappointing to see politicians cause conflict between farmers for their own narrow political purposes and agendas.
“Organic farmers across the country are still making their premium while farmers using GM canola are making the most of the weed management benefits and increased yields biotech seeds provide them,” Mr Cossey said.
“This idea from The Greens WA and their anti-science activist friends will impose unnecessary costs on WA’s agricultural sector and cause pointless conflict between farmers for nothing more than an ideological view with no basis in science or reality.”
Mr Cossey said the Australian organic industry needed to “urgently” put its marketing rules in line with the rest of the world.
The Australian Certified Organic Standard has a zero tolerance towards GM contaminants, while worldwide standards accept a 0.9pc tolerance.
“Formally clarifying Australia’s organic marketing rules and bringing them in line with the rest of the world will help protect all farmers regardless of their farming method,” he said.
“All Australian farmers should have a choice to grow any approved crop on their land and no farmer should have to change their farming methods or have unnecessary costs imposed on them simply because of unreasonable, unworkable and internationally inconsistent organic marketing rules.”
