1.Govt stands firm against GM cotton in Top End
2.Revealed: sites of GM canola crops
------

1.Govt stands firm against GM cotton in Top End
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 7 October 2004
http://abc.net.au/nt/news/200410/s1214969.htm

The Northern Territory Government says growing genetically modified cotton on a commercial level would be damaging to the Territory's reputation.

The Territory Opposition says cotton farming could be considered around the second stage of the Ord River, on the Territory-Western Australian border.

But the Opposition has ruled out growing cotton in areas like the Douglas Daly.

The Minister for Primary Industry Kon Vatskalis says the Government is standing by its decision not to support the introduction of cotton farming anywhere in the Territory.

"If we want to continue to sell food from the Territory to promote the Territory as the origin of good quality food, clean food green food, we have to actually safeguard our other products from the perceptions of public," he said.
------

2.Revealed: sites of GM canola crops
Sunday Mail, 10oct04
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11026756%255E2682,00.html

THE State Government has revealed the locations of two genetically modified canola sites in the South-East.

Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen has disclosed the Global Positioning System (GPS) locations of the sites totalling 18 hectares following pressure from Democrats MLC Ian Gilfillan.

Agricultural research giant Bayer CropScience is paying two farmers at Lucindale and Padthaway to allow the controversial crops to be grown on their properties.

Mr Gilfillan, who obtained the information through a Freedom of Information request, says he intends to reveal the exact addresses to any concerned neighbouring farmers and the public.

"Keeping the locations close to their chest is a dishonest way of dealing with people (the Government) should be taking into their confidence," Mr Gilfillan said yesterday.

He said he was concerned about "contamination" of organic farms several kilometres away, as well as the potential impact of "open air" crops on South Australia's export industry.

"It's too late for farmers who already may have contaminated crops," he said.

The two sites which are larger than most of the earlier trial crops are regarded as the next major step towards the commercialisation of GM canola.

In May, the State Government approved an exemption for Bayer CropScience to plant GM canola at the sites, following about 130 trials throughout the state. The sites, as with the previous trial areas, were approved by the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

But Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics chief executive officer Professor Peter Langridge believes the landowners may now need "protection" against anti-GM activists.

Prof Langridge, who said the commercial production of canola in SA was probably "two or three years" away, said the disclosure might lead to vandalism attacks, as has occurred overseas.

"The State Government . . . need to make sure they will provide the proper protection," he said.

BayerScience general manager Susie O'Neill said she hoped anti-GM activists "respect the private property of farmers involved".

She said the company's canola sites were "a lawful business" and the "product is safe".

She said commercialisation of canola "was expected" in SA in the future.

GM canola varieties are touted by supporters as providing larger crop yields and offering herbicide and drought-resistant options for farmers.

Primary Industries and Resources SA strategic policy director Peter Carr said the sites were very closely monitored by PIRSA authorities. "No one can ever say there's no risk for anything but we believe we have adequate separation distances (between GM and organic crops)," he said.

Biological Farmers of Australia, which claims to be the largest certifier of organic farmers, last week wrote to Bayer CropScience, Premier Mike Rann and Victorian Premier Steve Bracks saying GM site disclosure in both states was "critical". "We believe that the opportunity for contamination is highest where pollen is transferred from canola to canola or related species," the letter says.

"Should farms be deemed to be at risk, we are likely to require them to test-product or face the risk of de-certification, market rejection and recall should they be found to sell product that is contaminated."

The group wants to notify organic farmers within a 10km radius of the sites. It says it is also concerned about the potential long-term health impact on humans consuming GM crops.

A spokesman for GM company Monsanto said it had temporarily "suspended any investment" in Australian GM sites because of its frustrations over inconsistent state-by-state laws on GM plantings.

John Tilley, who manages a 4500-acre property next to Lucindale GM crop, said he had no objection to it, largely because it was managed "responsibly".

"They come and see me every year, and I sign a form to say that I don't have a problem; you have to keep an open mind about these things," he said.

Mr Tilley also said monthly checks were carried out by field workers to ensure none of the canola has spread into his property beyond a regulation 300m buffer zone.

"I crop lucerne alongside, so it's not really a problem as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're doing what they say they're doing," he said.