We need to take five and consider the future of our GE-free reputation

A national five-year freeze on commercial GE crop releases is necessary and possible. A process is needed by which the disparate views can be reconciled.

Voluntary Guidelines

The OGTR licenses GE releases under federal law. But Agriculture Ministers decided earlier this year to allow all aspects of GE canola release, from the seed to your spoon, to be managed under voluntary supply-chain protocols. AVCARE, the peak council of the agrochemical industry, set up the Gene Technology Grains Committee (GTGC) to develop the protocols. The GTGC is stacked with industry backers including Bayer and Monsanto and its draft protocols are weak and unenforceable.

Despite widespread dissent, the GTGC claims that all sections of the grain and food industries have now agreed to its protocols. But many constituencies - eg: local government, retailers, and food buyers - were not even consulted at all. The protocols are to be administered by the grains industry itself, especially the technology owners Bayer and Monsanto. They are not required to report compliance or breeches to the OGTR or any other authorities. The GE canola protocols mandate:

• five metre buffer zones (though canola pollen can go 3km);
• a one per cent threshold of "accidental" contamination in GE-free products (though markets will not accept the routine contamination envisaged);
• farmers to save seed for one year only (though many have always saved seed); and
• sole responsibility on farmers and supply chain managers for GE seed or pollen contamination of GE-free grains (though the GTGC admits contamination is inevitable).

The GE industry has been allowed to exonerate itself from any responsibility or liability for the inevitable failings of its flawed technology.

False promises

GE researchers and companies make many wild promises - eg: drought and salt-tolerant crops; more nutritious, healthier and longer shelf-life foods; designer animals - but there is scant evidence that they can deliver in the foreseeable future. Hence, the companies are determined to commercialise their existing herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant products now, before the global tide of rejection turns entirely against them.

GE crops are not the global success that is often claimed. GE companies want to stampede Australian growers into accepting their canola even though data from a reliable industry source shows acceptance by farmers overseas has stalled. Commercial GE crops:

• grow on less than 4 per cent of the world's broadacre farmlands,
• grow mostly in just four countries - USA 66 per cent, Argentina 23 per cent, Canada 6 per cent and China 4 per cent. Twelve other countries (including Australia) grow just 1 per cent of the total;
• are herbicide tolerant (70 per cent), or make their own insect toxins (~30 per cent);
• include only soy, corn, canola and cotton;
• acreages have not increased since 1999 (except for GE soy).

This mediocre performance can be explained. North American GE crop growers are plagued by a spectrum of problems: lower yields; crop failures; higher input costs; poorer quality products; the failure of GE/GE-free segregation; lower profits; and lost markets. Nearly a thousand Canadian growers are now jointly suing Monsanto because they cannot farm GE-free varieties and are seeking recompense for their losses. GE crops in the USA are kept afloat by:

• direct subsidies from the US Farm Bill, worth $33 billion annually;
• US government purchases of unsaleable GE foods, for foreign aid programs;
• sales for animal feed and use in ethanol production.

Conclusion

Australia needs at least another five years of research, assessment and genuine public participation to resolve all outstanding GE issues. Meanwhile, the unrestricted commercial release of genetically engineered organisms, particularly canola, should be banned.