s
s s
Daily News Blog

FacebookTwitterYoutubeRSS

  • Archives

  • Categories

    • Agriculture (350)
    • Announcements (161)
    • Antibacterial (100)
    • Aquaculture (10)
    • Biofuels (5)
    • Biological Control (1)
    • Biomonitoring (14)
    • Children/Schools (179)
    • Climate Change (21)
    • Environmental Justice (56)
    • Events (55)
    • Farmworkers (65)
    • Golf (10)
    • Health care (18)
    • Holidays (23)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (25)
    • International (203)
    • Invasive Species (21)
    • Label Claims (25)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (135)
    • Litigation (145)
    • Nanotechnology (49)
    • National Politics (174)
    • Pesticide Drift (48)
    • Pesticide Regulation (437)
    • Pets (10)
    • Pollinators (186)
    • Resistance (47)
    • Rodenticide (16)
    • Take Action (154)
    • Uncategorized (10)
    • Wildlife/Endangered Sp. (191)
    • Wood Preservatives (16)

29
May

Australian Organic Farmer Loses GE Contamination Suit

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2014) The global fight to establish better protections from genetic contamination caused by genetically engineered (GE) crops suffered a legal setback in Australia this week. A ruling of the Supreme Court of Western Australia found that farmer Steve March could not seek compensation after losing his organic certification as a result of a neighbor’s GE crops contaminating his organic crops.

Mr. Marsh filed the lawsuit against Michael Baxter, a neighboring GE canola seed farmer, alleging that he had suffered economic damage because of his organic decertification. The decertification had been brought on by the confirmed presence of GE canola plants and seeds on his property and Australia’s zero-tolerance organic standard concerning GE contamination on organic lands. Mr. Baxter began farming GE canola just a few years before and was the likely source of the contamination.

Argued before the court earlier this year, the litigants as well as environmental and organic advocates across the globe had anxiously awaited the court’s decision. Supporters of the suit hoped it might advance much-needed protections against the economically devastating and oft uncontrolled invasion of GE crops on organic and non-GE lands. Opponents of the suit claim it would have burdened GE farmers with more rules and potentially restricted the amount of crops a farmer could plant.

Organic farmers and consumers did not receive the ruling that is needed to protect the viability of organic production systems. Instead of reinforcing the Australian organic zero-GE-tolerance standard and shifting the burden to GE farmers and the makers of GE crops, like Monsanto, to protect against the pollution their products create or pay the price, the court ruled that no physical harm had been shown and the burden rested on the plaintiff to clean up the GE-mess to reinstate his certification.

Justice Martin also added in his judgment that decertification of Mr. Marsh’s Eagle Rest farm appeared to be a “gross overreaction” by Australia’s organic certification body, observed Reuters journalists.

United States GE Contamination Suits

In the U.S. and under U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification standards, GE crops and their byproducts are prohibited. However, unlike Australia, USDA organic regulators take a process-based approach to GE contamination and, while organic farmers are expected to protect their farms without real guidance or established efficacy, there are currently no established contamination or allowable threshold standards. Nevertheless, litigation concerning GE crop contamination that exceeds that small threshold has still faced off on U.S. soil with many results still pending. Current food labeling claims of no-GMO or genetic contamination establish thresholds of allowable contamination.

And the fight has not limited itself to the defensive. To add insult to injury, farmers who have not purchased GE seeds and find them on their land face potential litigation from the seed producers for patent infringement. One case, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al. v. Monsanto, sought to protect non-GE and organic farmers from this absurd abuse of power and to establish protections against Monsanto, one of the world’s primary producer of GE seeds and aggressive GE patent-infringement litigant. (According to Reuters, between 1997 and 2010 the agrichemical giant filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers that it said made use of its seed without paying royalties.) While this case garnered Monsanto assurances to not pursue patent infringement cases where trace amounts of its GE crops or seed were discovered, the results failed to achieve any meaningful protections.

The uncertainty of the courts willingness to protect non-GE and organic farmers, both at home and abroad, has not overshadowed recent successes outside of the courts, in the form of county bans on GE crops and GE labeling bills.

For more information on the environmental hazards associated with GE technology, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage. Even with the potential for contamination, the best way to avoid genetically engineered foods in the marketplace is to purchase foods that have the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Certified Organic Seal. For many other reasons, organic products are the right choice for consumers and show support for farmers attempting to do the right thing for everyone.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources: Reuters

Share

Leave a Reply


eight + 6 =