Greenpeace and Palau bust pirates in Palau shark sanctuary

Wednesday, during our joint enforcement exercise with the Palauan authorities, we discovered a suspected illegal operation on board a long liner in Palau’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Taiwanese vessel the Sheng Chi Hui was spotted by our helicopter early yesterday morning. As they approached our photographer managed to get shots of shark finning occurring in Palauan waters, a blatant breach of the conditions of the Shark Sanctuary. When the patrol boat arrived, there was no sign of sharks on board but based on our photographic evidence, the Palauan Government has ordered that the ship be detained. The Esperanza is escorting the Sheng Chi Hui to port alongside the Palauan patrol vessel, the PSS President H.I.Remeliik,

But what is enforcement, and why does it matter?

 Overfishing is the biggest threat facing the future of the Pacific and its tuna stocks -one of the world’s last abundant tuna fisheries. The environmental, economic and social impacts of overfishing and pirate fishing are devastating to Pacific Island communities. Pacific Islanders are being robbed of the fish that is their primary source of protein, and the backbone of their economies.

There are three levels of pirate fishing formally described as ‘Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated’ fishing.

Illegal fishing refers to activities conducted by fishing vessels that either operate without a licence or is not abiding by the laws and regulations of that particular country or region.

Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities (usually about what they catch, how much they catch or where they fish) which have not been reporting, or have been misreported Greenpeace experienced these activities first hand.

Unregulated  fishing refers to fishing activities conducted by vessels without any nationality or by those flying the flag of a country not a member of the fisheries management body that governs that region.

Pirate fishing is stealing.  Stolen fish caught in the Pacific are laundered on the global market away from the watchful eyes of authorities, causing a huge economic loss for Pacific Island countries, and preventing proper assessment of tuna species.  Without proper stock assessments, sustainable management is impossible

The lack of resources available to effectively patrol the waters of the Western and Central Pacific, the unregulated nature of the high seas, and the inconsistent and unreliable nature of monitoring all make it far too easy for illegal activities to take place out here. These serious loopholes need to be closed and pirate fishing needs to be eliminated.

Undertaking a proper and consistent surveillance and enforcement exercise is a critical component to closing these loopholes.

 In the Pacific 17 developing countries with small governments share the migratory tuna stocks, and on average have one or two patrol boat to monitor their vast ocean. Kiribati’s waters, for example, cover an area of over 3 million square miles, yet the country has only one small patrol boat. There are over 6000 vessels registered to operate in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

All these vessels are supposed to carry what is called a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). It automatically collects, records and analyses information related to the location and activity of vessels. They are the backbone of surveillance as it is virtually impossible to monitor huge expanses of ocean. When vessels do not report there is no way of knowing how long boats stay out at sea, how much or what they catch.

A normal surveillance and enforcement exercise will target vessels of interest in known hot spots or overt illegal unlicensed vessels or activities. Enforcement officials will board and inspect the vessel at sea and will either order the vessel back to port to get its VMS fixed or impose a fine.

It is rare that Pacific governments get aerial surveillance to extend their range and coverage during a surveillance and enforcement exercise, though France, US, New Zealand and Australia have been providing at sea and air surveillance to the region.

Who rules the seas – the industry, pirates or enforcement?

No matter how many patrol boats or planes we mobilise, illegal fishing will continue. This is multi billion-dollar industry and the Pacific is the largest supplier of tuna in the world. Illegal fishing operations exploit the limitation in resources and capacity available to Pacific governments to properly police their waters. By demanding proper traceability and 100% assurance that the fish you are eating- in a can, fresh or frozen- is coming from a legal and sustainable source we can cut the life line of illegal fishing. They won’t have a reason to continue business as usual if we demand change

 

Turtle and FADSince leaving Port on Monday with the Palauan enforcement vessel the Remeliik, we have found eight illegal Fish Aggregation Devices, checked three suspect ships, documented shark finning in Palau’s shark sanctuary and escorted one vessel back to Port for further investigation.

 

Follow the last days of the tour

FADs – scourge of the sea

Fish Aggregation Devices are the scourge of the seas, floating death traps for fish, sharks, rays and turtles. But what is a FAD, and why are they used?

The majority of canned tuna worldwide is caught using purse seine nets with fish aggregation devices. A FAD can be any floating object – fisherman have been using FADs made of branches, palm fronds and logs for centuries.[1] Here in the Pacific Ocean we have seen a barrel drum, large missile-like objects and a haphazard collection of junk as well as more sophisticated FADs consisting of netted buoys and a radio beacon.

Experts are still trying to understand why these floating devices attract so much marine life[2] – theories include “visual stimulus in an optical void”[3], a point of reference, or an attraction to the marine matter that attaches to floating objects.  What is certain is that they work.

Fishermen use them as a surefire way to catch a school of fish – usually skipjack tuna, but problems abound because when purse seine nets are set around FADs, everything underneath is caught and usually ends up dead.

Firstly, FADs attract baby tuna, often from at-risk species like bigeye and yellowfin. Fishing juveniles obviously damages the reproductive process, preventing fish from replenishing their stocks. In fact, according to the University of Hawaii’s pelagic fishing programme, FADs fished by purse seine nets are a major contributor toward yellowfin and bigeye tuna stocks being pushed toward depletion [4]. Both of these species are overfished and have been listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s red list as vulnerable and near-threatened respectively. At least 15 to 20 % of a FAD catch is expected to be juvenile bigeye and yellowfin.[5]

Secondly, FADs often trail netting which seems to add to their attractiveness to tuna, and can snag turtles, sharks, and other creatures, causing injury and death. [6] From the kings of the marine food chain – sharks – to turtles, manta rays, mahi mahi, and many other marine species, much more than just tuna is hauled up in the purse seine net as well, often dying in the process. These animals are euphemistically called ‘bycatch’ and FAD purse seine fishing can incur ten times the amount of other species killed as non-FAD fishing.[7]

For a disturbing look at some undercover footage of bycatch on board a tuna boat watch this film.

Globally it is estimated that FAD associated bycatch may now be as high as 182,500 tonnes annually.[8] This global bycatch would fill the equivalent of nearly 1 billion tins of tuna every year.[9]

Research presented to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Science Committee in 2009 showed that the use of FADs led to significant bycatch of bigeye and yellowfin, turtles, marlin, barracuda, whale sharks, silky sharks, olive ridley turtles and juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna.[10]

In particular, more than 75% of the oceanic pelagic shark and ray species are classified as threatened or near threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Whalesharks, IUCN red listed globally as vulnerable, are also caught incidentally in purse seine nets,[11] and in fact are sometimes used as living FADs by purse seine vessels. This is something Greenpeace is campaigning on to ban the intentional setting on whalesharks.

Longlining, gillnet and trawl fisheries are the main cause of turtle deaths, but purse seines using FADs are also responsible for the deaths of turtles.[12]

Combine the ruthless efficiency of FADs with the more widespread problem of overfishing – larger boats with greater capacity chasing fewer and fewer fish – and you begin to see the problem for remaining tuna stocks. Years of bad management and overfishing has left tuna stocks in crisis. The majority of tuna stocks are in decline and appear set to continue on this downward slide.

By 2006, of the 23 commercially exploitable tuna stocks identified:

• At least nine were classified by tuna management bodies as fully fished
• A further four were classified as overexploited or depleted
• Three were classified as critically endangered
• Three were endangered, AND
• Three were vulnerable to extinction.[13]

Without monitoring and effective management, even stocks of the healthiest remaining species, like skipjack, could suffer.[14][15][16][17]

And the real picture could be a lot worse than the formal stock assessment. Data is notoriously hard to gather and formalize across all tuna markets.

On the bright side, consumers, industry leaders and retailers are demanding a move away from FADs and towards more sustainable ways of fishing.

Recently, every major tuna brand in the United Kingdom committed to abandoning FADs, and leaders in the fishing industry are committing parts of their fleets to free school, or non FAD fishing to meet this growing consumer demand.

Pole and lines fisheries, in which each tuna are caught individually, reduce bycatch to almost zero.

There are other things that can be done. Retailers and tuna brands should endorse the creation of a global network of large scale marine reserves and should publicly support the call for the Pacific Commons to be off limits to fishing and ensure they are not selling any canned tuna caught in this area.

What you can do:

TAKE ACTION: Send a message to Chicken of the Sea telling them to not buy or sell tuna caught with FADs!

Footnotes

[1] Dempster, T and Taquet, M: Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: gaps in current knowledge and future directions for ecological studies, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries March 2004; 14(1) : 21 – 42 http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2004/publication-721.pdf

[2] Dempster, T and Taquet, M: Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: gaps in current knowledge and future directions for ecological studies, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries March 2004; 14(1) : 21 – 42 http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2004/publication-721.pdf

[3] Hunter, JR and Mitchell CT (1966) “Association of fishes with flotsam in the offshore waters of Central America”. US Fishery Bulletin, 66: 13-29

[4] University of Hawaii, ‘The Associative Dynamics of Tropical Tuna to a Large-Scale Anchored Fad Array’, 2008 http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/biology/holland_itano_png.html

[5] International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, FAD: Fact aggregating Document, http://iss-foundation.org/resources/downloads/fad-fact-aggregating-document/

[6] ISSF Meeting on mitigation of by-catches in the Tuna Purse Seine Floating Object Fisheries – Final Report AZTI Sukarrieta, Spain, 24-27 November 2009. http://www.iss-foundation.org/FileContents.phx?fileid=e7f00ec6-01eb-4ba7-9ede-42f229199955, p15

[7] International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, FAD: Fact aggregating Document, http://iss-foundation.org/resources/downloads/fad-fact-aggregating-document/

[8] Calculation based on the FAO estimates that total purse seine catches were 2.607.201 MT in 2007. 70% FAD with 10% bycatch. Greenpeace International, ‘A Growing FAD’: Kobe-II Bycatch Workshop, Brisbane 23-25 June 2010. It had previously been estimated that total bycatch from the use of FADs amounted to some 100,000 tonnes every year: T. Dempster and M. Taquet ‘Fadbase and Future Directions for Ecological Studies of Fad-Associated Fish’, 2005. http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/Fish_News/112/Dempster_112.pdf

[9] 987,325,000 cans of tuna (i.e. almost 1 billion 185g cans)

[10] H.H. An et al (2009). ‘Effects of set type on catch of small-sized tuna by the Korean tuna purse seine fishery in the WCPO’. Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session, 10-21 August 2009, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), Kolonia, Pohnpei. WCPFCSC5- 2009/FT WP-02

[11] M.D. Camhi et al (2009). The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays. Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop. Tubney House, University of Oxford, UK, 19–23 February 2007 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ssg_pelagic_report_final.pdf

[12] From 2,400-8,600 caught in this fishery annually over the same period. Molony (2005). WCPFC. Estimates of the mortality of non-target species with an initial focus on seabirds, turtles and sharks. WCPFC–SC1 EBWP–1 http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/eb-wp-1/estimates-mortality-non-target-species-with-initial-focus-seabirds-turtles-and-sharks

[13] J. Maguire et al, ‘The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species’, 2006. http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0653e/a0653e00.htm

[14] IOTC (2009). IOTC Report of the Twelfth Session of the Scientific Committee, Victoria, Seychelles, 30 November-4 December, 2009 IOTC-2009-SC-R[E] http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2009/sc/IOTC-2009-SC-R%5BE%5D.pdf

[15] WCPFC 2010. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific. Ocean Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session Port Vila, Vanuatu 10-21 August 2009. Summary report. http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/2009/5th-regular-sessionscientific-committee

[16] ICCAT (2008). Skipjack executive summary. In: Report of the 2008 ICCAT yellowfin and skipjack stock assessments meeting. Florianópolis, Brazil, 21–29 July 2008. SCRS/2008/016 – YFT & SKJ Assessment. www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/ExecSum/SKJ_EN.pdf

[17] IATTC (2010). Fishery Status Report 7. Tunas and billfishes in the Eastern Pacific oceans in 2008. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. La Jolla, California 2010. http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/IATTC-80-05-Tunas-and-billfishes-in-the-EPO-2008.pdf

Pirates of the Pacific

Last week we found evidence of high seas pirates illegally fishing tuna.

The high seas pockets have long been a playground for pirate fishers making it difficult for surrounding Pacific Island countries to manage their shared fish stocks. Since 2008, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, the international body responsible for governing the overall management of the Pacific tuna fisheries, closed high seas pockets 1 and 2 to purse seine fishing.

In January 2010, an additional agreement by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) [1] closing additional areas of high seas to purse seine fishing protecting 4.5 million square kilometers of the Pacific. That’s an area approximately half the size of Europe.

However, pirate (or Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) fishing is alive and well in the high seas– globally, it could account for over one-third of the total catch [2] and at an enormous cost. One of the biggest threats to marine biodiversity, it is also a threat to the legitimate fishing industry. It damages the ocean habitat and steals food and income from vulnerable coastal communities.

Over the years, Greenpeace ship the Esperanza have been out at sea taking action on illegal and destructive fishing practices. Apart from the overt illegal operators, we have also proven that pirate fishing is associated with legal authorised vessels either facilitating the operations of illegal vessels or mis reporting and underreporting their catch.

See: Greenpeace reports 2008, 2009

In dollar terms, illegal fishing is estimated to cost the Pacific region up to $1.7 billion per year. [1]

The ship we came across today had no markings, and therefore no state to which it is flagged but most of the crew including the Captain were Filipinos. It was purse seining illegally in high seas pocket one, close to Indonesia. We filmed it bringing its haul of tuna on board and illegally transshipping its catch (transferring it to another boat).

Transhipping at sea is one of the main ways pirate fishers are able to avoid detection and launder their catch. Fishing vessels can remain at sea for months at a time resupplying, refueling and even changing their crew. Transferring their catch at sea allows pirate fishers to launder their illegal fish by mixing it with legally caught fish.

After receiving no reply to radio calls to both ships, Greenpeace activists in inflatable boats approached the ships to intervene in the transshipment, paint ‘Pirate’ on the side of the fishing vessel, and eventually went on board the fishing vessel to talk with the Captain.

Greenpeace actions at sea in recent years have brought IUU fishing to the attention of consumers and fisheries managers alike driving changes at sea and in seafood markets around the world. Vessel blacklists maintained by the Pacific tuna commission and Greenpeace help prevent repeat offenders and alert traders to illegal suppliers.

Consumers don’t want to support pirate fishing, and need to have full assurances that the products they are buying have not been caught in an unfair and illegal manner. Companies must be able to trace their seafood products back to the vessel. Otherwise there’s no way of knowing where a tuna product comes from or how it was caught.

Fishing nations need to reign in vessels that break the law and support Pacific efforts to clamp down on illegal and unsustainable fishing. This means closing the high seas pockets to all industrial fishing and strong measures to ensure those who break the rules don’t do so again.

Notes

[1] Forum Fisheries Agency, PNA announces date for closure of 4.5 million sq km high seas areas to purse seine fishing, http://www.ffa.int/node/330

[2] High Seas Task Force (2006) Closing the net: Stopping illegal fishing on the high seas. Governments of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, WWF, IUCN and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. http://www.illegal-fishing.info/item_single.php?item=document&item_id=58&approach_id=16

[3] Forum Fisheries Agency, PNA announces date for closure of 4.5 million sq km high seas areas to purse seine fishing, http://www.ffa.int/node/330

GMO Wheat on Trial – Q & A

What action have Greenpeace activists taken?

Greenpeace activists have taken non-violent direct action to stop Australia’s environment and food supply from being contaminated by genetically modified wheat. The GM wheat that has been released across Australia has not been proven safe. It hasn’t been tested for toxic and allergic effects. All evidence shows that GM wheat cannot be contained; it will contaminate our food supply and the environment.

The Australian Government has refused to protect Australians from harm caused by the release of unsafe genetically modified wheat. GM organisms are living organisms that can multiply and cross-breed. They pose a threat of irreversible damage to Australia’s environment and our food supply. Greenpeace has taken action to prevent contamination of our food supply and environment.

Why is Greenpeace opposing research – isn’t research necessary to test the impact of GM?

Greenpeace does not oppose safe research; we oppose open, risky experiments with something as fundamental as our food and the environment we depend on for life. Greenpeace does not oppose GM research in the lab, but we do oppose experiments known as ‘GM field trials’. These ‘GM field trials’ involve open, genetic experiments in the environment.

Greenpeace opposes field trials of GM organisms as the risks from such open experiments cannot be contained. The many incidents of contamination of the food chain with GM arising from field trials (e.g. the case of the experimental GM rice LL601, which had not undergone any prior assessment for its safety for feed, food or environment)* provide a clear illustration of the wider risk to the environment and society.

GM field trials cannot be justified on the basis that they support impact assessment as the impacts are then already real, potentially widespread and may be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

Why is Greenpeace targeting CSIRO?

Greenpeace’s work is targeting the release of unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. The CSIRO is working with foreign GM companies to release unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. These foreign GM companies include Limagrain, one of the biggest investors in GM in the world, and Arcadia Biosciences.

CSIRO’s closeness with foreign GM companies has created a clear conflict of interest within the CSIRO. The GM wheat field trial which Greenpeace has removed from the environment was proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO.  Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready products in Australia and Monsanto owns 90 per cent of GM products worldwide. Monsanto and its GM partners stand to make billions from the genetic modification of Australia’s wheat.

CSIRO’s closeness to these GM corporations compromises their ability to make decisions in Australia’s public interest and has resulted in the release of unsafe genetically modified wheat into the Australian environment.

Why aren’t these GM wheat trials safe?

Open, genetic experiments in the environment are never safe, because they can’t be contained. There are massive gaps in the safety assessment that allowed experimental GM wheat to be released into the field.

  • All evidence shows GM contaminates. The Government’s own data documents extensive GM contamination in Australia. The biggest GM contamination incident in global history started from a small field trial like the one Greenpeace has taken action to contain.
  • GM hasn’t been proven safe to eat. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that GM wheat does not have toxic or allergic effects on humans or animals, and yet the Government approved release of GM wheat into the environment anyway.
  • There was no proof that the GM wheat released into the field was genetically stable. Genetic instability is one of the greatest risks associated with genetic modification. The Australian Government acknowledged this risk, stating that “Gene technology has the potential to cause unintended effects due to the process used to insert new genetic material or by producing a gene product that affects multiple traits.” They approved release of GM wheat regardless of such a serious risk.

Are the CSIRO really planning to test GM wheat on humans?

Yes, the CSIRO planned to test potentially unstable, experimental GMOs on Australians in the first ever human feeding trial of GM wheat in the world. They planned to test GM wheat on Australians even though there is no evidence that GM does not create toxic and allergic effects. Nor did the CSIRO intend to use these human feeding studies to test for any toxic and allergic effects of GM wheat. All of the available information indicates the CSRIO only intended to test the corporate parameters of the GM wheat; or put simply, that the product did what it was genetically modified to do, regardless of any unintentional effects.

Greenpeace entered a request under Freedom of Information laws for the ethics and health and safety papers relating to these human feeding trials. The CSIRO rejected this request and ask that Greenpeace remove any request for documents that related to CSIRO and its partners ‘corporate interests’.

Hasn’t Greenpeace created a GM contamination risk by penetrating the controlled research grounds?

Greenpeace has followed strict HAZMAT protocols in removing this experimental GM wheat from the environment. Our action was also taken prior to the GM wheat plants flowering. Greenpeace’s action has been taken to reduce the risk of contamination by GM wheat during field trials.

Has Greenpeace destroyed a farmer’s crop?

No. Greenpeace has removed a GM wheat experiment that is owned by the CSIRO and run in partnership with foreign GM corporations.

Has Greenpeace destroyed GM food that could feed the world’s hungry?

The GM industry has done nothing to feed the world’s poor and contrary to GM industry claims, the independent evidence shows that GM seeds do not produce more food. Hunger is not caused by a shortage of food. In 2010, almost one billion people went hungry, and millions died from malnutrition, despite the food system producing enough food for double the global population.

Hungry people need money to buy food or land to grow it. GM provides neither. In 2008 a UN report on the future of agriculture by 400 leading international scientists found no evidence that GM increases yields. The report warned that GM in fact hurts  poor farmers, because the patents attached to GM crops are expensive and stop farmers from saving seeds, which they have done for generations.

GM companies are saying there is nothing to worry about, is the threat of GM bread a reality?

The GM industry has responded to Greenpeace’s concerns about GM field trials by saying that GM bread is seven to ten years away. However, CSIRO documents claim that GM wheat will be ready for the market by 2015. If CSIRO and their corporate partners adhere to this timeframe, Australia could be facing GM field trials on a commercial scale within the next two years.

It suits the GM industry to have minimum scrutiny of their GM wheat commercialization push. Until the Australian Government commits to no further field trials of GM wheat, Greenpeace will continue to raise the alarm about the threats GM wheat commercialization poses to Australia.

Why should people trust Greenpeace over the CSIRO?

Greenpeace supports transparency and accountability.  We encourage people to ask questions and to be informed.  In this case, we have exposed the corporate links to these GM wheat trials and the compromised position of CSIRO in order to better inform the public about where their taxes are going. CSIRO has done the opposite – rejecting all requests by Greenpeace made under Freedom of Information legislation for information relating to their contracts with GM corporations and their intention to test experimental GM wheat on Australians.

There’s no proven health risk of GM, aren’t Greenpeace just scaremongering?

There is evidence of health risks for animals like rats, which have been fed GM plants under test conditions.  Some of the health impacts identified in animal feeding studies include increased organ size, reduced fertility and increased allergic responses. The CSIRO’s own animal feeding study documented that GM caused an allergic response in mice and prevented the animals from gaining weight.

These studies raise significant concerns about the potential impact of GM on people. The safety of GM for humans is unknown and our current testing regimes are inadequate. GM crops are also subject to unexpected and unpredictable results. That means that no amount of preliminary testing can guarantee the ongoing safety of living, GM products. The Australian Government has been negligent in investing in the commercialization of GM wheat without any evidence that it is safe.

CSIRO claims that this GM wheat could prevent bowel cancer. Can GM really stop bowel cancer and is Greenpeace preventing work that could reduce bowel cancer rates?

No, GM wheat will not stop bowel cancer. According to the Public Health Association of Australia and earlier statements made by the CSIRO themselves, no one food can reduce the risk of disease, which is affected by total diet and lifestyle.

CSIRO is currently claiming that its GM wheat could help reduce bowel cancer rates because it has more ‘resistant starch’ in it. Resistant starch is good for digestive health.

There are already a lot of safe, healthy food products available with high resistant starch contents that haven’t been genetically modified and don’t come with the risks attached to GM. CSIRO themselves have already developed a number of high resistant starch products without using GM. Hi-Maize and BarleyMax for example, are already on the market.  These non-GM products have a higher amylose content than the GM wheat CSIRO is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to develop.

A non-GM wheat product high in resistant starch is not needed to supplement Australians already diverse, natural diet in Australia. If CSIRO wanted to develop high-amylose wheat, it could do so easily without using risky GM techniques. Non-GM methods however, would not attract big biotech company dollars, as corporations are only interested in GM products that can be patented for super profits.

CSIRO is also on the record arguing that only a balanced diet and exercise can reduce the risk of disease. This is in line with policy form the Public health Association of Australia, which states that the reduction in risk for disease is affected by the total diet and lifestyle pattern, not by use of an individual food.

How does Greenpeace expect CSIRO to test for health risks if they don’t test it on humans?

It is never safe to test GM products on humans, because GM crops are subject to unexpected and unpredictable results. That means that no amount of preliminary testing can guarantee the ongoing safety of GM products.

The testing regime CSIRO has proposed to follow for testing experimental GM wheat on Australians is inadequate. CSIRO documents state that GM wheat will be tested on humans in stages of just one day, for example. This is incredibly lax when compared with pharmaceutical regimes, for example, where experimental products are first tested on animals for two years, to to provide evidence of potential carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive dysfunctions.

The lax standards surrounding CSIRO’s testing regimes raise the concern that CSIRO testing will be nothing more than a PR exercise for the GM industry.

Greenpeace agrees with most of the science on climate change, but when it comes to GM tells us not to trust a lot of what scientists say. Is this a contradiction?

Greenpeace encourages people to read science critically and to be aware of vested interests.  There are many vested interests of concern in relation to the development of GM wheat.  Greenpeace’s recent report on the corporate links to the GM wheat trials highlights some of these.

Greenpeace is saying that the trials are linked to Monsanto, but in fact they are funded by CSIRO.  Aren’t you being misleading?

These GM wheat trials are being conducted by CSIRO in collaboration with Limagrain.  Other GM wheat trials being conducted by CSIRO are done in partnership with Arcadia Biosciences, a company that is linked to Monsanto.  The web of public-private partnerships that sits behind these research programs is misleading and makes it challenging for the public to know where and to whom their tax dollars are being spent.  This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the public to exercise its right to hold the government to account.

This difficulty is exacerbated by the secrecy surrounding government documents related to GM plants.  Greenpeace’s Freedom of Information request for documents about the commercial partnership between CSIRO and Limagrain was refused.  The documents are ‘commercial in confidence’.  Australian taxpayers cannot properly exercise their rights to hold the government to account under these conditions.

What does Greenpeace want?

Greenpeace is asking the Australian Government to:

  • halt all field trials of GM wheat;
  • increase transparency around public spending on agricultural research and development, disclosing all details of public-private partnerships
  • increase support for Australia’s world-leading sustainable farming industry

How can I help?

Help us tell the Australian Government to stop all GM wheat trials and keep Australian bread healthy, safe and fair. Go to www.greenpeace.org/australia/wheatscandal and write to the Australian Government and demand an end to the GM wheat trials.