Australian organic farmer loses landmark GMO contamination case
An organic farmer in Western Australia lost his bid to claim damages from a neighbor after genetically modified (GMO) canola seed heads blew on to his property, causing him to lose his license as an organic grower.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled on Wednesday against organic farmer Steve Marsh, who sued his former friend Michael Baxter after winds carried harvested seed from Baxter's Monsanto Roundup Ready canola crop on to Marsh's farm.
The case has been closely watched internationally as a win for Marsh could have opened the door to widespread changes to rules governing the cultivation of GMO crops, placing a greater onus of responsibility on GMO farmers.
Proponents of organic farming in Australia said the judgment will open the door to more farmers losing their organic license as GMO crop production increases.
"I am not satisfied that in 2010 Mr Baxter breached any (lesser) duty of reasonable care," the Hon. Justice Kenneth Martin said in his judgment.
The case pitted two former friends against each other, whose familes had farmed adjoining properties, Eagle Rest and Sevenoaks, for many years at Kojunip, 256 km (160 miles), southeast of Perth.
Baxter told Marsh during a 2010 "busy bee" working group at another farmer's property that he intended to plant GMO canola in two boundary paddocks. Marsh had found non-GMO canola from Baxter's property on his farm several years earlier, the judge said.
Marsh's lawsuit alleged that harvested seed heads from Monsanto's laboratory-created canola seed blew from Baxter's property across a dirt lane and over a boundary fence in November 2010, re-germinating on Marsh's land in January 2011.
The lawyer acting for acting for Marsh described the ruling as disappointing.
Comfort for GMO Growers
Lawyers told Reuters that a win for Marsh on the grounds of trespass could have led to new rules, such as larger buffer zones between GMO and organic farmers, potentially curbing the amount of GMO canola being planted.
"I think the ruling provides a lot of comfort to GM growers," said Joe Lederman, managing principal for FoodLegal, a law firm specializing in food industry issues.
"Unless something causes physical harm and that has not been shown to be the case here, it will be impossible for any person claiming to be affected economically by a GM crop to be successful in their claim," he said.
- Livestock futures led most ag markets lower Wednesday morning
- WSSA updates herbicide handbook
- Uncovered, the mystery of exchanging genes with wild relatives
- What will happen to farm leases with $3.25/bu corn?
- Easy Leaf Area software calculates leaf area from digital images
- CLA identifies areas for EPA to enhance effectiveness of WPS
- Suspected Bt corn rootworm resistance in Pennsylvania
- No El Niño in 2014? Drought-weary California in trouble
- BioNitrogen to build second fertilizer plant in Texas
- Soybean aphid numbers on the rise
- Commentary: Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'
- FCC aims to offer high-speed internet to rural America