Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 30, 2011 at 4:16pm

Roger,

Having been involved in assessing insurable risks in the distribution of Golden Rice, developed at the Rice Research Institute at Los Banos in the Philippines, a GM rice engineered to code with alumina soils of the tropics to release Vitamin A. The lack of which in paddy rice, is a long time major cause of fetal abnormalities in pregnant women and "tropical blindness" in children.

The institute has for many years been funded by both the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller but we dont hear much about their philanthropy

One would have to live there in the provinces for awhile to appreciate the impact of a diet deficiency of the staple of rice and dried fish or chicken at every meal. Consider for a moment that the gift of an apple or an orange to children was a grand event that resulted in a slug of lambonog and a hospitality session like no other for the gift.

That the organic farmer here did not take any notice or understand GM or the transmission risks from the surrounding area or from Nature itself merely suggests that his attempts to GM Free Accreditation was for profit. Not for the purity of his crop or any noble virtue of being GM free. To sue the neighbor for his loss of profit is far removed from any attempt to prove GM food crops in any way impact on the health of man or beast. I have had the opportunity to repeat the history of British beer in a thought process.

For many years up to the mid 50's. the barley "Maythorpe", the malting grain grown extensively in Britain for beer had a nasty habit of falling over from a weak stalk holding the heavy grain making it difficult to harvest and resulting losses.

In but one of hundreds of experiments to genetically alter the fibre structure to strengthen the stalk, the British Atomic Energy Commission zapped several batches of seed. The result was a tall standing grain genetically altered that increased the fibre length in the stalk and subsequently reduce the grain loss.

The Brits today still do not realize that they were drinking GM altered beer for 35 years until new varieties were developed

.... but,the organic farmer has every right to protest his situation in Court. His decision to do so possibly reflects his judgement to proceed to GM Accreditation in the first instance

Bob

Permalink Reply by Peter Schuback on January 30, 2011 at 6:56pm

This is one of the major factors with GM crops , Even if you have a farm and have been working it for many years you have no right to allow your crops to invade another farmers land . It Called DUTY OF CARE and if you fail to keep your GM crops off of some one elese land regardless of if they are GM farming or not you have failed in your DUTYOF CARE and you are liable under the Civil Liabilities act oF 2002 section five . It is a problem and it should have been solved before GM crops were introduced , But I belive after reading the current laws on DUTY of CARE ( SECTION 289 AND 290 OF the Queensland Criminal code of 1882 and the other laws that come in under this banner that not only farmers that grow GM crops could be liable but also farmers and local governments could also have a problem if they do not keep weeds like giant rat tails grass and other declaired weeds from spreading from one property to another . If you own a property and it is invaded with weeds from another property and those weeds are declaired as a pest weed you may be able to claim damages for your costs to get rid of the weeds , Would make an interisting court case but the law are rather plain on these issues

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 30, 2011 at 7:24pm

Peter,

Duty of care may well apply to those matters that are within the responsibility of any reasonable person to prevent. But Roger has described a natural occurrence next door that may well have produced the same claim for damages if it originated 20kms away in a stiff wind.

Bob

Peter Schuback said:

This is one of the major factors with GM crops , Even if you have a farm and have been working it for many years you have no right to allow your crops to invade another farmers land . It Called DUTY OF CARE and if you fail to keep your GM crops off of some one elese land regardless of if they are GM farming or not you have failed in your DUTYOF CARE and you are liable under the Civil Liabilities act oF 2002 section five . It is a problem and it should have been solved before GM crops were introduced , But I belive after reading the current laws on DUTY of CARE ( SECTION 289 AND 290 OF the Queensland Criminal code of 1882 and the other laws that come in under this banner that not only farmers that grow GM crops could be liable but also farmers and local governments could also have a problem if they do not keep weeds like giant rat tails grass and other declaired weeds from spreading from one property to another . If you own a property and it is invaded with weeds from another property and those weeds are declaired as a pest weed you may be able to claim damages for your costs to get rid of the weeds , Would make an interisting court case but the law are rather plain on these issues

Permalink Reply by Colin J Ely on January 30, 2011 at 8:13pm

Roger

What happens if the owner goes to town and stops at a hotel for a non-organic beer, then comes home and goes out and waters the lemon tree? Is this classed as 'non-organic contamination'?

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 30, 2011 at 8:40pm

Colin,

Thanks for that. I often wondered what happened to my lemon tree

Colin J Ely said:

Roger

What happens if the owner goes to town and stops at a hotel for a non-organic beer, then comes home and goes out and waters the lemon tree? Is this classed as 'non-organic contamination'?

Permalink Reply by Max Mitchell on September 20, 2011 at 5:01pm

This argument becomes circular in nature. Because as Roger stated if the farmer next door grew non-organic crops and they invaded the organic farm no one would necessarily know. However because the crop was GM it waved a big red flag that said look at me I'm GM. This then provides the victim (organic farmer) with an assailant (GM farmer) to pursue.

In an ideal world situations like this would not occur. We have been conditioned to blame others and expect someone to fix our problems.

Under common law you are not permitted to do something that impacts in a negative way on another person.

Did organic farmer do a risk assessment on potential contamination prior to achieving certification.

Did GM farmer do a risk assessment of potential contamination of neighbours properties.

The answer to both would most certainly be no as we make assumptions about how we see the situation.

Organic farmer worked hard to achieve a status in order to achieve a higher price for his product.

GM farmer hoped to achieve a better yield with lower overall costs in labour and chemicals etc.

In the end both have lost. The only winners will be the lawyers. Not good for any one.