Anti-GM farmers state case in Switzerland

Two farming couples from North America spoke out passionately against the cultivation of GM crops Keystone

Farmers from the US and Canada have briefed Swiss environmental groups on their experiences with genetically modified (GM) crops.

Their visit to Switzerland has been part of a campaign by Greenpeace and the Bern Declaration, a non-governmental group, to impose a moratorium on the commercial use of GM plants.

The Swiss government’s consultation period on future legislation for GM crops, known as the Genlex programme, ends in April. It is expected to incorporate legislation principles such as human and environmental protection and safeguards for biodiversity.

Percy and Louise Schmeiser of Canada and Tom and Gail Wiley of the United States have been battling against companies producing GM plants, which they say have contaminated their own crops. Both couples strongly advocate a moratorium on GM crops in Switzerland, if not more.

“My main advice would be a moratorium of GM crops, but a ban would be even better,” says Tom Wiley, who last year had an export contract to Japan cancelled because his crops had been contaminated from surrounding GM crop fields. “Unfortunately, there’ll probably be a lot of pressure in favour of bio-tech crops in Switzerland.”

Percy Schmeisser says that, in addition, Swiss authorities should also take into account farmers’ rights, the control and sale of seed supply and chemicals and broader health and safety issues.

GM giants

Schmeiser was taken to court by Monsanto, one of the world’s biggest biotechnology companies, for not paying the multinational’s technology fees after his rapeseeds were contaminated by GM plants. He now advocates more rights for non-GM farmers who want to keep their fields GM-free.

“There is no such thing as coexistence [with GM crops] – you cannot have a GM substance put into the environment without contamination,” says Schmeisser, adding that GM pollen can be carried in numerous ways. “Pollen flows not only by wind, but also by birds, bees and by other animals, who carry pollen on their fur. ”

“In the end, you’ll destroy organic and conventional farmers, because the GMO gene is a dominant gene and takes over the plant or seed it lands on,” says Schmeisser.

This view is endorsed by Wiley, who says that his Soya crops were rejected by Japanese authorities because of contamination by nearby GM fields.

“Tests in Japan showed that my crops were over 1 per cent GM modified,” says Wiley. “And my hands are tied because I can’t blame anyone – the pollen could have come from anywhere.”

Developing countries

Supporters of GM crops say that they are a solution for developing countries, leading to higher crop yields of high nutritional value using fewer pesticides and fungicides. Bio-technology companies also argue that there is no conclusive evidence showing that the crops are dangerous.

But Schmeisser says that testing GM-modified Monsanto crops in Canada on showed they did not compare favourably to non-GM crops.

“We found that Monsanto crops yielded about 15 per cent poorer less than traditional crops, that their nutritional quality was half (that of non-GM crops), and even that farmers were using six to ten times more chemicals,” he says.

By Billi Bierling and Vanessa Mock