Food & Farming

The federal government’s Agriculture and Food Reference Group handed down its report last week titled ‘Creating Our Future: Agriculture and food policy for the next generation’ (4,700 kbs). It is very long, over 200 pages, and covers a range of issues including GM food crops. I haven’t had a proper read yet, but received the following note from Roger Kalla:

Jennifer,

You might be interested to know that the Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group (that called for submissions to its review of Agriculture and Food policy in August) has delivered its report to the Minister for Agriculture.

It was reported in Friday’s The Age under the heading ‘Call for ban to GM crops to end’.

I had a conversation with the Gene Technology Regulator, Sue Meek, about it on Wednesday at the launch of the Victorian Agribiosciences Centre.

Sue was very encouraged by the findings of the review led by the leader of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, which put the emphasis on the lifting of the GM crop moratoria so that the Australian farmers could catch up with the rest of the world.

By the way, during the launch Minister Brumby was unashamedly spruiking for a new comapny Gramina PL which has developed GM grass with new health and animal production traits. The GM rye grass is hypoallergenic and has got a superior herbage quality.

No sneeze (humans) and sweeter taste (cows) are the real benefits of these GM grasses.

The problem is that they can’t be grown in Australia and have had to be field evaluated in the US!

Regards,

Roger

The National Farmers Federation has so far been silent on GM issues. It is great to see Peter Corish calling for a lifting of the bans and to see The Age reporting this.

……………………..

You can read my submission to the Reference Group by clicking here.

I lived in Madagascar for several years in the late 1980s. They ate locust over there, fried they tasted OK.

A locust is a short-horned grasshopper when it swarms. I always thought a locust swarm was something to fear.

There have been claims that the terrible famine in north west Africa last year could have been prevented if only environmentalists had not prevented aerial spraying with some residual chemicals.

Then this afternoon, after a morning at the beach, I turn on my computer and I have an email from Jim Pashley wishing me a Happy New Year and asking your opinion – as a reader of this blog – on a website run by a group of concerned environmentalists and farmers.

It is all about locusts, but with a twist. The site suggests that contrary to popular perceptions regarding the recent locust plague in New South Wales and Victoria:

For the most part, locusts have ignored irrigated pastures, mature crops and dry feed. The losses that have occurred, contrary to sensational media articles, were largely confined to unseasonal summer green. Spring sown crops are the rarity in this district and are always a gamble, and lucerne (and native pasture) re-growth, brought about by summer rains, is not something that dry-land farmers in our area budget on. From this perspective, the impacts were no more than the other seasonal variations farmers deal with everyyear.

The idea that something as abundant as a species of “plague” locust could become extinct seems impossible; yet this is exactly what has happened to the “plague” locust that used to occur in the USA, and it could also happen here. Already, what was once a one in five year event has been reduced to a one in thirty. The impact of such extinction would be more far-reaching than we realise. Locusts are a natural grazer of our grasslands and a welcome food source to other wildlife. Flocks of over a thousand Ibis, have been observed feasting on un-sprayed bands of locusts. Other native wildlife such as Falcons, Bearded Dragons and Shingle-back Lizards, to name just a few, have all been seen enjoying the feast. The rare Fat-tailed Dunnart has increased its activity since the arrival of the locusts, and even a Bustard (once abundant in Northern Victoria, now virtually extinct), was sighted last summer, in the same season and district that the Locusts swarms occurred. Co-incidence? With wildlife numbers low due to the recent drought: What role might the locust migrations have played in population recovery? And what impact are we having by our interference?

Anyway, they are keen for feedback. The site is here: http://www.savethelocust.com/.

I am not into organics, but I do take an interest in animal welfare issues. I used to keep backyard chickens, and always buy free range eggs.

I was recently sent an email with the very simple message:

Freeranger Eggs now has a website: www.freeranger.com.au .

Isn’t this dog gorgeous, click here.

According to today’s ABC Online:

The commercial camel industry is hopeful the development of overseas markets will reduce the rate of expansion in the wild herd.

Environmental concern is mounting over the impact of central Australia’s burgeoning camel population with numbers increasing by up to 100,000 a year.

Central Australian Camel Industry Association spokesman Peter Siedel says in the long term they hope to send 25,000 camels a year to Muslim markets overseas.

“They’re nearly all Muslim markets throughout the world but we’re finding health-conscious people, the restaurant trade and even supermarket trade in places like Europe and US are looking for alternate meats,” he said.

Plans are also under way for an abattoir that can handle camels.

The camel industry also says the higher deck height on some live export ships will encourage the export of more live camels.

But Mr Siedel says it is likely culling will be needed in the short term.

“If we can achieve that 25,000 per annum deduction from the feral herd, that will bring it back almost to the status quo, so you’ll halt the increase,” he said.

“The problem will still be there but it won’t be doubling every eight to 10 years.”

The Rich

Prince Charles and Camilla visited an organic farm near San Francisco over the weekend, and reader of this blog David Tribe made a few comments about organics on ABC Television Landline over the weekend.

I rather like this extract from the Landline commentary:

PRUE ADAMS: In Australia, there is no doubt organics is catching on among consumers and farmers. Still, it accounts for less than 1 percent of our agricultural output. Proponents point to little government support as one reason for its relatively slow growth.

BERNWARD GEIER: I must say – allow me to be critical for a moment although I’m a guest in your country – compared to other governments, Australia not only can do much more, it has to do much more, otherwise you will be left behind, because other governments have much more understood how important it is to support organic farmers, up to getting votes for doing the right thing because that’s what consumers want.

PRUE ADAMS: The organic sector is still rather a small niche in Australia and that’s where Dr David Tribe says it should stay.

DAVID TRIBE: I think in many areas, in many localities, it’s a great way of producing good quality food for rich people.

Prince Charles is rich enough to not only eat it, but also grow it.

Organic Tolerance

Interestingly under standards set by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA), organic products are allowed 5 percent non-organic material and there are allowances throughout the standards for the use of non-organic inputs where it can be established that organic alternatives are not available.

GM Tolerance

But the organic growers want zero tolerance for genetically modified crops:

“Contamination of organic grain production is a very real possibility in Australia with this latest announcement. While the loss of premiums due to GM contamination might be arguable with conventional grains, it is a major reality with organic grains where premiums can be up to 100 precent above conventional prices.

BFA & ACO believe as a minimum that State Governments should:

1. Indemnify growers against loss of premium, cost of testing, liability for contamination costs down the supply chain

2. Introduce legislation to make seed companies strictly liable for any future sale or planting of contaminated seed

3. Seek to recover the cost of the contamination identified in Australia this year from the Seed Company(s) concerned

4. Reject any calls for pro GM industry groups to legalise contamination of up to 0.9 percent.”

In summary, organic can be only 95 percent pure, but a 0.9 percent contamination with GM is unacceptable?

Strict Liability

The Network of Concerned Farmers and organic growers have advocated the introduction of a ‘strict liability’ regime for GM crops. Mark Barber has just authored a significant report for Acil Tasman titled Managing genetically modified crops in Australia.

Barber makes the following comments concerning ‘strict liability’:

The Australian Government has chosen not to implement a strict liability regime for possible damage caused by GM organisms, and nor have the United States, New Zealand, Canadian or United Kingdom Governments.

Even so, the courts may be asked to consider the application of the principle of strict liability by a plaintiff. Strict liability is a tortious common law principle which imposes liability at law to a third party for the actions of another party, without proof of fault in their own actions. In other words, strict liability is liability regardless of fault, rather than without fault. The doctrine relates predominantly to matters of public and/or social policy importance. Its intention is to provide a safety net for compensation of activities, particularly those considered hazardous and inherently dangerous.

However, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, after
discussing a range of case law, concluded that the doctrine has “no place in Australian law”.

The Australian courts resistance to strict liability is also partly explained by the difficulty the courts may face in defining what an extra-hazardous activity is.

Defining GM crops as extra-hazardous would mean that the courts are over turning the OGTR [Office of Gene Technology Regulator] approval process.

In the US ‘there is no strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff’s activity (Kershen 2002): it is reasonable to assume that this concept would be also be considered by the courts in Australia.

It may be difficult for the organics industry to claim damages under ‘strict liability’ on the basis that GM crops are ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ as it would be difficult to establish that these farmers’ tolerance of GM crops was not abnormally sensitive, given that other areas of their activities allow quite generous tolerances of the use of non-organic inputs in comparison.

Is GM Different?

According to Mark Barber:

The Australian Trade Practices Act, 1974 has little concern with the actions of farmers growing GM crops per se or with AP [adventitious presence*] tolerances, other than ensuring that farmers (or any other parties) deal with each other in a truthful and honest manner. The Act does become relevant when a specified claim (whether non-GM, GM-free or organic) by sellers is found to be misleading or deceptive, just as in any other commercial situation.

Marketing claims by sellers have to be able to be substantiated by an assurance or identity preservation system. This is why, for example, NASAA emphasises that organic production relates to a set of production standards, not product standards:
‘Organic products shall not be labelled as GMO free in the context of this Standard. Any reference to genetic engineering on product labels shall be limited to the production and processing methods themselves having not used GMOs.’

In any event, a claim that a product is GM-free, non-GM or organic would only be made when there is a clear economic incentive. However, as noted earlier, most analysis conducted on the impact of GM crops in Australia has concluded that there are few price premiums available in conventional markets for non-GM crops proven to be free of co-mingling with GM product.”

…………

* Inadvertent mixing of one grain with another is often referred to as ‘adventitious presence’.