London (15.5.08)
– One of the arguments raised against cultivating transgenic crops in
Europe is the supposed difficulty of farmers obtaining insurance cover. Over
the years there have been a number of suggestions that European insurance
companies would be unwilling to offer cover.
Thus, in 2003, a UK survey found that none of the five main British insurance
underwriters would be willing to offer cover to farmers considering growing
GM crops, or to non-GM farmers seeking to protect their businesses from GM
crop contamination (1). They felt unable to insure farmers against potentially
huge compensation payouts if widespread fears about GM food and farming proved
to be realised. One company said it would refuse to give insurance of any
kind, including buildings insurance, to GM farmers amid fears that they could
be targets for environmental protesters. Another likened the risks of GM to
the thalidomide episode forty years earlier while some time later Lloyds regarded
GMOs as offering the same financial risk level as acts of terrorism (2).
A couple of years later, Mariann Fischer Boel, the European Commissioner for
Agriculture, said she was “convinced that coexistence is possible, using
measures adapted to local conditions”, she said. She added that this
would require the possibility for GM farmers to join an insurance fund (3)
although the purpose and nature of the insurance cover required was not stated.
Might it have been for compensating so-called ‘organic” farmers
for the presence of GM material in the produce, a presence detected with some
difficulty and expense in order, it might seem, the reduce the value of the
crop? Yet any losses would result from the organic lobby’s own rules
about GM content and have nothing at all to do with safety; there is more
than enough evidence and many years of experience to be confident that GM
products are at least as safe as organic, if not safer. Nor did the Commissioner
make any mention of insurance cover to be sought by those actions might, by
excessive regulatory demands, reduce the income of GM farmers pursuing their
legitimate activities.
More recently still, the European Commission financed a study of liability
and compensation schemes (4). However, the consultants appear to have overlooked
the question of insurance cover to be obtained by those whose actions might,
by their exercise of excessive regulatory demands, reduce the income of GM
farmers pursuing their legitimate activities.
How different things are in more enlighted jurisdictions. Just a few months
ago, CropGen commented on the fact that farmers in four US states who plant
a majority of their corn acres using hybrid seeds featuring Monsanto’s
YieldGard Plus® with Roundup Ready® Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple™
technology will be eligible in 2008 for lower crop insurance premiums (http://www.cropgen.org/article_166.html).
The matter was explored further on Minnesota Public Radio (5). The federal
government takes the view that the most recent the triple stack genetic technology
is less risky to grow so farmers should pay less to insure that specific variety.
Eldon Gould, the Federal Risk Management Agency Administrator, said the goal
was to save farmers and taxpayers money: "The premium that the farmer
is going to pay is subsidized by the taxpayer so by the fact the farmer is
paying less on his portion of the premium, the taxpayer is paying less on
the taxpayer portion of the premium so there is in fact a savings to the taxpayer".
Monsanto, the company providing triple stack maize, claims that farmers can
save $3.00-7.00 an acre on their crop insurance if they plant the new corn
varieties.
But Monsanto’s YieldGard triple-stack technologies are the only ones
so far approved making some farmers hesitant, partly from a fear of government
red-tape (including the complex record-keeping) and partly because in order
to benefit from the reduced insurance premiums, the new strains must comprise
the mprise at least 75% of their totals. Not all farmers are willing to commit
themselves so heavily to the products of a single company.
YieldGard Plus protects against a number of different rootworms, European
and soutwestern corn borers, cutworms, sugarcane borers, fall armyworms, stalk
borers, wireworms, white grubs, seed corn maggots, early flea beetles and
earworms (6). The regulations governing its use provide for 20% of the field
being a buffer zone of non-GM crops to minimise the risk of resistant inscets
arising. That obviously reduces the additional financial gain from usi9ng
the new strains.
Mr. Gould thinks it may take a couple of years for farmers to become comfortable
with the new programme but he says they should do so because in the future
it is likely there will be more government incentives to plant genetically
modified crops.
Sources:
1. Sally Bolton (7.10.03). Insurers 'would not cover' GM farmers.
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/oct/07/food.gm)
2. Movimento Verde Eufémia mows first GM Field in South Portugal.
Indymedia UK (26.08.07) (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/379708.html)
3. Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel starts dialogue with network of 26
GM-free regions of Europe. Agence Europe (8.4.05)
4. Liability and compensation schemes for damage resulting from the presence
of genetically modified organisms in non-GM crops. European Commission
(9.11.07)
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/liability_gmo/index_en.htm)
5. Dan Gunderson (28.4.08). Farmers can save on crop insurance with GMO
corn. Minnesota Public Radio (28.4.08) (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/20/corninsurance)
6. YieldGard Plus. Monsanto US ag, products (2005)
(http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/input_traits/products/yieldgard_plus.asp)
<<<back
