News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Why this farmer is fighting GM crops 

Why this farmer is fighting GM crops

07 Oct, 2009 02:35 PM
BERRIGAN, NSW, farmer Gai Marshall says the need to maintain choice in what farmers are producing is one of the main reasons she is fighting hard against GM contamination.

Mrs Marshall said that contaminated canola seed had fallen from trucks alongside the Riverina Highway where she lived, leading to an issue with GM canola volunteers this season.

She began testing canola volunteers for the presence of GM after noticing the plants.

"The tests have proved these are GM canola volunteers," she said.

Mrs Marshall said first-hand from Canadian farmers their experiences since the introduction of GM had been a sobering account on the removal of choice.

"We wish to market our canola as GM-free, as that is what the market wants, and I object to have that right taken away," she said.

"They say GM is supposed to be about choice, so what about our choice to stay GM-free?"

Mrs Marshall said she had grave concerns about increasing corporate control into farming.

"By agreeing to the GM licensing agreement, you give Monsanto the right to come onto your farm whenever they like and to dictate the herbicide regime farmers will use.

"It is effectively like losing control of your land – and that loss of control was one of the big messages I got from the Canadian farmers."

Mrs Marshall stressed she was not against the technology per se, rather the way it was being used to infiltrate Australian agriculture without any protection for GM-free farmers.

"I am not an activist; this is about the GM industry taking responsibility for the control of their patent seed."

She claimed the usefulness of the Roundup Ready canola has yet to be publicly demonstrated and said it possessed neither a yield advantage nor a strong agronomic benefit.

"In the dry seasons we are having, the advantages of an early glyphosate application aren’t that significant.

"I think the costs of the technology will outweigh any of the so-called benefits."

And she is positive the decision to embrace GM will hurt Australian growers at the marketplace.

The pro- and anti-GM lobbies have argued furiously over the implication of growing GM on marketing, but Mrs Marshall said her research indicated it would cut down on market access for Australian growers, both at home and internationally.

In relation to the volunteer weeds, Mrs Marshall said they would soon be past the stage where they could be effectively controlled with herbicide and needed to be removed shortly before their seeds matured.

She called on the state minister to ensure the eradication of these GM plants.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The lady has every right to choose her path but legislation is not likely for her alone or for the many who are marginal food producers. The mainstream productive lands must produce more food on land already being farmed in stable countries of South America and Australia as population increases another 2.6 billion in the next 40 years or so. The science of food production has increased yields since WW2 and biotechnology including GM and the soil and weather sciences are the way to go on. It will have its problems along the way, like the invention of aircraft but they too will get fixed.
Posted by Robert Stewart, 8/10/2009 5:43:47 AM
Good on you Gai!
Posted by tigerdicky, 8/10/2009 7:45:35 AM
Sorry Gai, I struggle to not see the benefit from using Roundup instead of kgs of residual triazines in crop. It is just another agronomic tool to be used. As for any premium or being locked out of a market due to chance of adventitious presence: show me the money. I think this anti GM myth has been well and truly debunked.
Posted by Concerned, 8/10/2009 8:25:16 AM
Good on you Gai! When the likes of Monsanto come after us for "breach of IP" caused by wind borne contamination with the GM stuff, I think more than a few farmers will be changing their tune.
Posted by Farmer John, 8/10/2009 9:38:12 AM
Enough of these phrases that GM "is another tool in the toolbox" and is "needed to feed the world". GM is not more productive, has the probability of restricting biodiversity, delivers food control to a few multinational chemical companies (How did we let that happen?) and has never been proven to be safe, regardless of what FSANZ and Industry says. Gai has every right to be worried, as are the majority of consumers that are concerned that we are exposing our families to this unlabelled experiment every day. Bring in transparent labelling, ensure 100% segregation and grow the stuff if you must, but allow the majority of us to retain our GM free choice.
Posted by Hebe, 8/10/2009 4:12:48 PM
As someone who has experience with growing GM canola last year and this year let me answer a few points. Monsanto do not "come onto your farm whenever they like" nor do they dictate farmers agronomic practices. There has been no difference in the prices paid for non-GM against GM canola. The yields for the GM canola last year were marginally higher than conventional and look like they may be again this year - even though this is not the main reason for growing the crop. Contamination by Roundup Ready Canola in future crops will provide no greater management issues than other herbicide resistant weeds such as annual ryegrass which in some areas has been "Roundup Ready" for thirty years. Ms. Marshall has obviously no practical experience with the crop and is using emotional, non-science based hysteria to frighten people who do not have the time or the experience to do their own research and acquiant themselves with the facts.
Posted by Al, 9/10/2009 9:17:12 AM
Well, Al, the "facts" are that the public don't want GM crops in Australia. Naturally you are entitled to grow anything you choose to grow, but you must be out of your mind to grow what the buyers don't want!

It has yet to be proved that GM crops will provide better crops than non GM.


Posted by creeker, 15/10/2009 9:00:03 PM
It seems that a few of you are saying that GM produces a lot more yield when in fact it does not. The majority of the trials shows either slightly lower or slightly higher which represents that it does not produce extra yield.

How can it? It is only "herbicide resistant" and is not a higher yield variety. The variety is the same as non-GM.

Al, you are saying that Monsanto do not come onto your farm - you have not grown it for long enough for them to do it but you have signed on the dotted line to let them. How much did you lose last year if you add their fee and the increase in seed price against non-GM variety? Be prepared as their seed price goes up fivefold as soon as all are contaminated.

You are the problem here. You are not giving either the non-GM farmer or consumers choice because you believe that you can make a fast buck. Well, good luck with that as in other countries farmers that have taken it up are regretting it.

As a consumer, I know the health issues from all the independent testing is showing without doubt that it causes harm. Are you even concerned about that? Or are you just greedy? Keep it out of my food. Label it as I am not going to buy it.

Posted by Vicki Wilson, 16/10/2009 8:19:19 AM
I have no problem with the GM & non GM debate but I do have a problem with the commentary in the article about the current status of those particular identified plants. I heard on a radio interview that Gai had 5 out of 7 plants verified as GM escapees along a particular stretch of road near their farm. The photogragh shows Gai crouching near one of these plants. She also claims that the plants are passed spray control & says the minister should ensure they be eradicated. No problem with all this but surely if there are only a small number of plants as claimed, go & get a damn shovel Gai & dig the offending plants up & destroy them yourself right on the spot. The plant as in the photo is still flowering & not even close to seed maturity when it will be a problem. She then would have eliminated the risk near her farm. Waiting for the relevant authorities to remove them may never happen. As I said, I have no problem with Gai's stance towards GM but for goodness sake, be proactive & get rid of those plants herself & them the job is done !
Posted by Andrew Mason, 17/10/2009 8:48:03 AM
The reason Andrew, and this is from a press release that Gai sent out to a different newspaper, was that there is a 20km stretch of GM on the road side. I am sure that would require more than one shovel don't you think?
Posted by Vicki Wilson, 20/10/2009 4:02:19 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Anti-GM to be pro-choice...Berrigan farmer Gai Marshall.
Anti-GM to be pro-choice...Berrigan farmer Gai Marshall.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
06 October, 2009
07 October, 2009
06 October, 2009
POLL
Q: Should the Liberal Party follow Malcolm Turnbull's lead and push for amendments to Labor's emissions trading scheme (ETS)?

Yes - an amended ETS is needed
(39.7%)

No - they should flatly oppose the ETS
(51.9%)

Other
(8.5%)

Total Votes: 567
Poll Date: 04 October, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...