Spectre of the death of grass: GMO licenses in Australia

If one traces back to historical origin most of the world's cereal crops, one finds that they were first wild grasses either native to specific areas or more widely spread across regions.

One of the fears about genetically modified organisms (GMO) is the possibility of contamination and weakening of the genetic material of traditional grains used for commercial cropping.
My principal fear has always been that GMOs would make their way into grasses and go on to weaken the genetic robustness of both wild and cultivated varieties.

The death of grass is one possibility for a continent such as Australia if things go badly wrong (after all the country has a history of introduced biological controls getting out of hand and introduced plants/animals overwhelming native habitat/populations).

Australia has moved one step closer to being vulnerable to this scenario, with limited GM Canola crops due for harvest next month and the consideration of licenses to test plant:

• GM White Clover in Corowa Shire, NSW.
• GM Perennial Ryegrass and Tall Fescue at Southern Grampians local government area, Victoria
• GM Maize in the ACT

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is also considering a license for GM Torenia, a flowing creeper which has only been commercially available here for about 5 years but which has already become a non-indigenous weed in parts of Africa, USA and Asia.

Of further concern is the test plot application for GM Sugarcane in Burdekin, Caboolture, Hitchinbrook, Cairns, Bunderberg and Mackay areas of Queensland, along with further GM Cotton plots in Narrabri, NSW and Balranald, Bourke, Central Darling, Carathool, Coonamble, Hay, Lachlan, Lake Tandou, Moree Plains, Narrabri, Narromine, Walgett and Warren; Queensland shires of Balonne, Brisbane, Chinchilla, Jondaryan, Murilla, Paroo, Pittsworth, Tara, Toowoomba, Waggamba and Wambo; and the Western Australia shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley.

Unsurprisingly, amongst the named applicants are GM seed giants, Monsanto and Bayer.

Some of these limited GMO release applications are listed as having been open to submissions to OGTR before consent is granted.
Now I didn't see any newspaper advertisements notifying these applications - did you?

Given the importance of sugar crops to parts of the NSW Northern Rivers, it is time we all became more vigilant concerning the introduction of genetically modified material into Australia.

P.S. A little light reading for 'Mr. Monsanto'.

GENETICS AND GEOGRAPHY OF WILD CEREAL DOMESTICATION IN THE NEAR EAST

List of Victoria's top chefs opposed to GM food

Greenpeace on the GM-free Chefs Charter and online petition to the Rudd Government

What are you waiting for Iemma - Noah's Ark?

Now a boffin from the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and a proff from the ANU are warning us all that sea levels may rise even further than expected before the century ends.

 

With "700,000 homes located within 3km of the coast and less than six metres above sea level" Australia is running out of time.

 

News.com.au reported:

"Speaking on the first day of the Coast to Coast 2008 Conference in Darwin, Dr Mummery said there were "major information gaps'' in Australia.

Preliminary modelling has found that if there is a rise in sea levels, 269,505 houses could be at risk in NSW and 2,875 houses in the NT.

Dr Mummery - from the federal government's Department of Climate Change - said a rise of only one metre could put a number of Gold Coast properties at risk and impact on canal development."

 

You don't have to be Einstein to see how things might shape up for the NSW North Coast on these projections.

So where're the maps, Morrie?

We know you have them - fork 'em over so we can all plan an orderly retreat from the sea if need be.

Coastal developers, take note

A piece hidden away in The Sydney Morning Herald (Tuesday 19 August 2008) should be compulsory reading for all persons associated with local government, and especially those in coastal areas of Australia.

The Herald reports:

Sea levels thwart new homes
A decision by Victoria's Civil and Administrative Tribunal to overturn a South Gippsland Shire approval for six new homes because of the potential effect of rising sea levels could have ramifications for coastal areas around Australia. The tribunal found a "reasonably forseeable risk" of inundation, which it deemed unacceptable.

EnviroInfo has this to say about the decision:

Environment Defenders Office Victorian Principal Solicitor, Brendan Sydes, says the tribunal’s decision that the likelihood of sea level rises should be considered by councils when making planning decisions could have significance within Victoria and nationally.

Mr Sydes says VCAT’s decision may be an indication of the approach planning tribunals nationally could take when considering planning decisions made in coastal areas.

The case before VCAT involved the assessment of six planing permits granted by the regional South Gippsland Shire Council for dwellings located in a farming zone close to the coast.

In making its decision to overturn the council’s planning approval of the dwellings, VCAT considered the potential impact of sea level rises caused by climate change on the proposed developments.

To this end, the tribunal found increases in the severity of storm events and rising sea levels would create a “reasonably foreseeable risk” of inundation of the land and proposed dwellings, which VCAT deemed to be “unacceptable”.

While the tribunal noted the relevance of climate change considerations to planning decision-making processes is presently in an “evolutionary phase”, it concluded that sea level rise and the risk of coastal inundation are “relevant matters to consider in appropriate circumstances”.

The tribunal said climate change would lead to extreme weather conditions beyond the historical record that planners rely on when assessing the potential future impact on proposed developments.

Read the VCAT’s decision here.

Hey, 'Mr. Monsanto' - are you enjoying this blog?

It seems that North Coast Voices may have joined the growing list of blogs being monitored by that genetically modified seed production giant, Monsanto.

Last week WaterDragon mentioned the Australian state of play concerning genetically modified canola and, up pops Monsanto (St. Louis, Missouri USA) scanning our site six hours later at 6.56am on the same day.
Monsanto also clicked the linked items.

In June Gristmill reported receiving a cease and desist letter from Monsanto's legal office.
At the same time it was reported that Monsanto was hiring a social media specialist to monitor Internet blogs.

We have decided to make the new 'Mr. Monsanto' very happy with today's Internet hunt and publish a form letter found at the Australian Network of Concerned Farmers:

To farmers considering growing GM canola or crops, ………………(date)

On behalf of growers wishing to remain GM-free, I wish to notify you of our intention for our property and produce to remain GM-free and of the risk that the planting of any GM crops on your property poses to our properties. Accordingly, we are also notifying you that we will not accept the burden of any damage, or loss, which may be consequent on any decision by you to grow GM crops. Should you wish to grow GM canola or other GM crops, you must ensure none of your GM crop or residue escapes and contaminates our land holdings or otherwise causes damage or loss.

Governments have recommended common law as suitable for recovering any damage and economic loss associated with GM crops. Therefore we will be seeking legal recourse if GM crops result in any costs, damage or economic loss including, but not limited to:

• Testing costs or additional contractual requirements required due to market perception that your choice to grow GM crops will cause contamination of our crops and/or produce.
• Segregation costs over and above what is currently required.
• Loss of market access or market premium due to detection of GM in our produce or an inability to prove a GM-free status.
• Loss of certification if applicable.
• New control measures required to remove canola from grain sold including any grading at outturn.
• Any payments due or deducted as end-point royalty or user fees from GM companies for unintentional GM use.
• Any costs associated with destroying unauthorised GM crops on our property.
• Spray drift from post emergent glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium.
• All associated and consequent costs and all legal costs.

We emphasise that this list is not closed, and the nature of GM technology means that the scope of potential damage and downstream effects may be far-reaching and significant. We accordingly are putting you on notice so you are aware that these and other scenarios and losses are fully foreseeable and not remote from any action taken by you to plant GM seeds.

While it is our preferred option to ensure the company selling you GM seeds is liable for any economic, environmental or health losses, we regret to inform you that as a GM grower, you will be held jointly and severally liable for any loss we experience. We suggest that you ensure that your insurance covers you for any future claims made against you.

Please be advised that following crop management plans or coexistence principles will not provide sufficient mitigation or afford you an adequate legal defence as these plans are based on an assumption that non-GM growers will accept unrealistic impositions. Management impositions NOT accepted include, but are not limited to:

• A "tolerance level" of GM contamination which will not be accepted in either seed or produce for market as these limits are set on labelling requirements for GM if applicable, not for non-GM products. As GM canola oil escapes a label for GM in Australia, to give consumers the promised choice, a "GM-free" or "Non-GM" label will be required. Any grower whose produce bears a "GM-free" label can be in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 if any amount of GM is detected in the product, even if unintentional. Action has recently been taken successfully against a company for false and misleading labelling when 0.007% GM was detected in both "GM-free" and "Non-GM" labelled products.
• Providing 5 metre or larger buffer zones on non-GM properties where produce derived from these buffer zones are not to be marketed as "GM-free".
• Responsibility for notification to the GM companies if unwanted GM plants are found on our property, following recommendations for volunteer control at our expense and allowing the GM companies access to assess if contamination was suitably controlled.
• Any fees applicable for growing GM crops if contamination is not controlled or a GM-free status is not proven unless the GM crop was deliberately planted.
• Sowing crops any differently to what is current best management practise (eg sowing crops off-season to avoid coinciding flowering times).
• Application of additional chemicals or tillage to control unwanted GM plants on our property.
• Routinely testing for GM.
• Cleaning out machinery more than is normally required.
• Compulsory quality assurance or identity preservation requirements.
• Loss of ability to save crop seed for replanting.
• To market produce co-mingled with GM produce if there is any sign of market rejection for GM.

As a precaution, we will be retaining seed samples pre seeding and post harvest and collecting any evidence of economic loss we have experienced.

Thank you.

….……………………………(signature) ……………………………(witness signature)

………..………………………… (name) ………..………………………(witness name)

…………………………………(address) ………..……………………(witness address)

…………………………………………… ………………………………………………….

Note: Please retain a copy of this letter.

Update 19.08.08:

Good morning, Monsanto. So nice of you to drop in four times this morning by 9am AEST. I'm particularly impressed that you spent over 41 minutes at North Coast Voices on one visit alone. You are turning out to be a real inspiration to WaterDragon who tells me that there is another Monsanto-related post on the way.