News 
 State News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Buyers snub GM canola 

Buyers snub GM canola

15 Oct, 2009 04:00 AM
MAJOR canola purchasers CBH and Elders will not be buying GM canola this season, in a nod to the market sensibilities of major customers in Europe and Japan.

Europe has only just relaxed moratoria on buying GM canola seed and is unlikely to buy any GM this season due to a big harvest, while Japan prefers non-GM from Australia, even though most of its imports come from Canada, the largest GM canola producing nation in the world.

However, growers of GM will still have a market for their product, with large domestic crushers such as Cargill and Riverland buying GM crop, and marketers such as GrainCorp offering prices for the product.

It is expected there will be a $5-15 discount for CS01, which includes GM lines.

On Tuesday, a GrainCorp representative said the spread was $10/t, with CS01A, non-GM canola, on a base price of around $400/t, a discount of 2.5pc.

The pricing spread may effect non-GM growers nearest to sites offering the CS01 segregation, with reports that buyers wanting non-GM not wishing to buy from sites co--mingling GM and non-GM segregations for fear of contamination.

CBH regional manager for south-eastern Australia Georgina Whiting said her company’s decision reflected the desires of its domestic customers.

"At this stage CBH is opting not to buy GM canola, because we understand our domestic customers would prefer not to have it," Ms Whiting said.

"We deal with a number of dairy and stock feed customers on the domestic level."

She said this not reflect a conscious stance on the GM issue on CBH’s behalf.

"Overall, CBH is neither pro, nor anti-GM; we are a member of the Australian Oilseeds Federation, which supports market choice for growers."

Ms Whiting said there were markets for GM canola in Japan, China and the subcontinent, but that Europe was traditionally more sensitive to GM imports.

"We understand Europe will now allow GM seed for the first time this year, but will probably not need to import any, due to its big harvest," she said.

Elders Toepfer Grain canola trader Felix Mueller said his company was not buying GM due to European resistance.

"For export, GM is not workable," he said.

"You won't get it into Europe and I don’t think the Japanese are particularly keen on it."

He said Elders Toepfer was not buying GM, as there was sufficient non-GM to meet their needs.

Mr Muller said he thought the spread could open up further if there is no demand for the GM product.

As a major home for Australian canola, he said European considerations were crucial.

"Europe was the destination for 700,000 tonnes of Australian canola last year, although that is unlikely to be the case due to the good harvest there this year."

Mr Muller said Elders would review their position on GM.

"Once we can add value to marketing, which will be the case once Australia has an exportable surplus of GM Canola we will look at it, but not until then," he said.

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said the market was sending a powerful signal to growers.

"This market move shows the power of traders, processors and ultimately shoppers to dictate what products will be supplied but only when their preferences have some clout," Mr Phelps said.

He urged non-GM farmers to keep pressuring GrainCorp, the major bulk handler in the GM-producing states of Victoria and New South Wales, to retain GM-free sites.

"It is important to keep up the fight – the North American experience shows the GM giants will stop at nothing to ensure their products soon dominate the market."

Australian Oilseeds Federation (AOF) executive director Nick Goddard said the decision by CBH and Elders reflected market demand, and would not impact GM sales in a major way, due to the fact that the major trading footprint for both companies were in states where no GM is grown.

"They both have strong presences in WA and SA, where there is no GM grown, and they will do a large portion of their buying through these states," Mr Goddard said.

"Their decision will reflect their international customer requirements.

"Both Cargill and Riverland are offering prices, and with only an estimated 40,000ha of GM canola planted this year, I don’t think it is going to have a dramatic impact on the Australian market."

Mr Goddard said he did not imagine there would be a large spread in prices this season.

"With such a small tonnage of GM about, less than 10pc of the total crop, I wouldn’t imagine there will be a huge difference," he said.

"Over time, in a couple of seasons, you may see a spread, as non-GM demands a higher price in line with marketing options, but that’s in the distance and the market will call it as it sees it."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
At least the grain buyers are lsitening to consumers and markets, none of which are making any demands for GM crops. I can only hope that the likes of Barnett, Redman and Grylls watch this development very closely before decisions on the WA moratorium are made later this year.
Posted by Hebe, 15/10/2009 2:19:18 PM, on Stock & Land
Monsanto and the other biotech corporations will not care if they cannot immediately sell their GM canola. Their aim is clear - to achieve maximum contamination. Before long, there will in NSW and Victoria - and WA if the Liberal government have their way - be no GM-free canola. Watch for the contamination to spread across state borders. This makes a mockery of the CBH policy of 'market choice for growers'. This translates into 'market choice' for farmers seduced by biotech spin. And NO CHOICE for farmers who want to be GM free! We are witness to a game of ruthless thuggery that will tear rural communities apart. It is tragic to witness a few selfish farmers who want 'choice' following a 'bugger thy neighbor' attitude on behalf of biotech corporations.
Posted by pdeburgh, 15/10/2009 10:18:35 PM, on Stock & Land
I fully concur with pdeburgh, well put. I would add that it is only a few selfish, un-neighbourly and ignorant farmers who are potentially party to one of the biggest environmental catastrophes to ever hit the Australian landscape. Wake up whilst you can.
Posted by ggwagga, 16/10/2009 7:48:27 AM, on Stock & Land
Consumers do not want GM in their food. If it was labelled it would clearly show that. There are health issues which are being ignored by our government regulators. For all you GM growers, here's a question - if your grain is discounted and your fees from Monsanto are more than non-GM variety with technology fees and seed price, how were you meant to make your fortune? You have been conned.
Posted by Vicki Wilson, 16/10/2009 9:23:22 AM, on Stock & Land
AT least someone is paying lip service to what consumers want. pdeburgh is probavly correct in that they all know that total contamination is only a year or two away and all this will be behind them anyway. We need legislation that holds the chemical company executives personally liable for any long term health effects.

"No scientific evidence" just means not yet. When it does emerge it will be suppressed "for the greater good" as well for a number of years.

Posted by denis, 16/10/2009 9:29:22 AM, on Stock & Land
Good on you CBH and Elders!
Posted by freeranger, 16/10/2009 10:24:41 AM, on Stock & Land
Canadian canola yields from 1965 to 1994 increased by an average of 0.2 bushels per acre per year. This was the result of selective breeding and improvements to farming techniques.

GM canola was introduced to Canada in 1996. However, from 1995 to 2004, canola yield only increased by an average of 0.1 bushels per year.

Those who claim that GM crop technologies positively contribute to yield - either directly or indirectly - have no data to prove that assertion.

To quote from the Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) 2005 "Farmers profits haven't just disappeared, they've been taken. The farm crisis didn't just happen, it was caused. The family farm isn't dying, it's being killed. And the perpetrators of this destruction are the agribusiness corporations who are using their market power to extract profits that would otherwise end up on our farms. Farmers cannot make a living because agribusiness giants insist on making a killing".

Net farm incomes in Canada have plummeted since the introduction of GM canola. So why would farmers grow GM? Consumers certainly do not want it as is clearly shown in this article.

Posted by Vicki Wilson, 16/10/2009 11:11:50 AM, on Stock & Land
A little win for the consumers! Common guys, keep at it! I want to know what I and my family are eating and I believe we all have the right to be able to choose.

Truth in labelling is a concern and consumers like to be able to follow the food from farm to table.

Was horrified to read that cattle buyers like Cargill are buying GM. Perhaps this is a timely reminder of the "Power of the People".

Posted by I care, 16/10/2009 11:57:05 AM, on Stock & Land
Seems like we have not got the full story here. CBH (through its subsidiary Grain Pool) is buying all the GM Canola being grown in WA trials this year, so story is incorrect to say they are not buying GM Canola.
Posted by Curious, 16/10/2009 12:27:39 PM, on Stock & Land
No-one has thought about the bees. Two years ago I asked the gene tecnology regulator: "as the colony collapse disorder which has accounted for a huge loss of bee colinies in the U.S. appeared closely after the introduction of G.M., what tests had been carried out in this country to ensure that G.M. was not the cause?" Answer: "None, G.M. is not thought to be the cause of cdc." Why should we worry when our regulators have it all under control? Alan Williams
Posted by Alan Williams, 16/10/2009 7:44:53 PM, on Stock & Land
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.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
12 October, 2009
13 October, 2009
14 October, 2009
POLL
Q: For which levy rate will you vote at this year's WoolPoll?

0%
(43%)

1%
(9.9%)

2%
(32.2%)

2.5%
(4.5%)

3%
(10.5%)

Total Votes: 314
Poll Date: 11 October, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



Stock & 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...