Bruce Bisset: Farmer GE support questionable

Bruce Bisset

THOUGH they usually waltz in through a front door held open for them by their neoliberal mates, if there's a back-door way to promote potentially harmful technologies it seems Federated Farmers will find it.

Led by the unflinching champion of genetic modification, Dr William Rolleston, the Feds are appealing the recent Environment Court ruling supporting the right of local bodies such as the Hastings District Council to regulate the use of GE in their territory.

This legal challenge also lends tacit support to the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, through which the Ministry of Primary Industries intends for the planting of GE-trees to be designated a permitted activity - sidelining any council rules to the contrary.

The potential impact of such GMOs on native bush - or other exotics, for that matter - is unknown and untested, and it is particularly disturbing this proposed provision follows so soon after the ruling in the councils' favour.

However, it fits perfectly with Dr Rolleston's view, expressed at this year's local government conference, that "attempts to duplicate control of genetic modification at the local level is based on scientific fantasy as much as anti-fluoridation, anti-immunisation and anti-1080".

Which begs the question: where do the Feds get off promoting the arbitrary introduction of new technology with unknown effects, when as an industry body it is supposedly responsible for ensuring our agriculture is inherently healthy?

Federated Farmers claims to represent all pastoral farming in New Zealand; essentially everything that isn't forestry or horticulture.

That's around 42,000 out of 58,000 existing farms (2012 data).
But it appears they actually represent a small minority.

The Feds are a secret society, refusing to give out details of its membership. However, recently CEO Graham Smith let slip at its Auckland provincial conference that membership was 14,000 in total.

At the same meeting former Auckland president Barry McAlley complained that they "only represent a small amount of the agricultural community", adding, "What about the bludgers and freeloaders we carry?"

Rolleston recently tried to brush off criticism around the Feds' penchant for secrecy by claiming anyone could "do the math" to work it out based on fees and subscription income.

But the fee packages advertised range from $127 for a farm employee - or unclassified "supporter" - to $635 for a "business owner", so it's impossible to know either how many farms are represented, or how many members actually work on the land.

Given McAlley's comments you'd infer considerably fewer than 14,000 are, in fact, farmers. But even if they all were, that's only a third of 42,000 - nowhere near as solid a mandate as they like to pretend.

Moreover the leadership is inherited, limiting reform; the vice-president automatically becomes the next president, and there's a perception Rolleston was previously put in as Bruce Wills' deputy for exactly this reason - to put a check on change.

Yet Rolleston is quite prepared to champion change if it suits his own interests - as GE clearly does.

And bugger the precautionary principle, on which concept Rolleston recently commented: "Decision makers ... need to understand what drives the certainty of any one party and put the uncertainty of experts in context."

In other words, if I'm certain this is a good thing, your doubts about risk are worthless.
If you disagree you have until 5.30pm August 11 to get a submission on the proposed NES-PF into the Ministry of Primary Industry.

Mayhaps the silent majority two-thirds of farmers will do just that.

That's the right of it.

Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.