Insurers
refuse to cover GM farmers
Leading
companies liken risk to thalidomide and terrorism
Paul
Brown, environment correspondent Wednesday October 8, 2003
The
Guardian
Insurance
companies are refusing cover for farmers considering growing GM crops or for
conventional farmers anxious to insure against GM contamination of their
crops.
The
main farming underwriting firms likened the idea of insuring against the
dangers of GM to the situation with asbestos, thalidomide and acts of
terrorism. Some had a total exclusion clause so that any damage which might be
associated with GM crops, even arson of farm buildings, nullified insurance
claims.
All
the companies surveyed by Farm, a group campaigning on behalf of small
farmers, felt that too little was known about the long-term effects of these
crops on human health and the environment to be able to offer any form of
cover.
NFU
Mutual, the company closest to the farming community, told Farm: "NFU
Mutual will not indemnify the insured in respect of any liability arising from
the production, supply of, or presence on the premises of any genetically
modified crop, where liability may be attributed directly or indirectly to the
genetic characteristics of the crop.
"In
particular, no indemnity will be provided in respect of liability arising from
the spread or the threat of spread of genetically modified organism
characteristics into the environment or any change to the environment arising
from research into, testing of, or production of genetically modified
organisms."
The
decision not to take on GM risks is another serious blow to the government's
plans to introduce crops next year. A report from the Cabinet Office earlier
this year said unless conventional and organic farmers are guaranteed full
compensation for losses it would be an open invitation to those opposed to GM
crops to destroy them before they flowered and contaminated neighbouring land
or crops.
Robin
Maynard, the national coordinator for Farm, said: "When insurers quantify
GM crops in the same category as thalidomide, asbestos and terrorism, no
thinking farmer should risk their business and public reputation by taking on
this unproven, unwanted and unnecessary technology.
"If
government and the biotech companies dispute the judgment of the professional
insurers, perhaps they will offer unlimited cover to the few farmers willing
to risk growing GM crops. In addition, for both farmers and consumers, they
need to guarantee, what the insurers believe isn't possible, that GM crops can
be grown without contaminating the crops of the majority of farmers who want
to remain GM-free."
Other
companies were as adamant as NFU Mutual that they did not want GM business.
The Agricultural Insurance Underwriters Agency, which places business with
Norwich Union/Sun Alliance, has an exclusion clause for liability arising from
GM crops and said it did not anticipate any change in that position because it
had no idea what the long-term effects might be. Rural Insurance Group, which
places business at Lloyds, puts GM crops in the same bracket as "acts of
terrorism". The insurer said it had no track record upon which it was
willing to base risk assessments.
BIB
Underwriters Ltd, with AXA Insurance, has a set exclusion clause which has
been amended over the past year. It said it would turn down any policy that
has any association with GM, which would include farm buildings and property
insurance as well as public liability.
The
reason for this is that along with the problems of cross-contamination, the
company envisages problems associated with arson or vandalism due to anti-GM
protesters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1058077,00.html
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for
continuing information on pesticides, please email us.
Click
Here to Add Comment