Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
waterboy 2.0

WA GM Court Ruling

Recommended Posts

GM farmer's court win is not end of matter, WA Farmers Federation says

Updated May 29, 2014 14:50:27

A court decision that ruled in favour of a West Australian farmer accused of contaminating his neighbour's grain crops with genetically modified (GM) produce is not the end of the issue, according to the state's peak farmers' group.

The landmark decision was passed down in the WA Supreme Court yesterday.

Michael Baxter was being sued by his neighbour, Steve Marsh, an organic certified farmer, who alleged his farm in the Great Southern region was contaminated by GM material blown onto his property from Mr Baxter's land.

Mr Marsh claimed the contamination caused him to lose his organic certification on more than half his Kojonup property for almost three years.

But the court ruled Mr Baxter could not be held responsible for growing a GM crop in a conventional way.

WA Farmers Federation president Dale Park said he never expected the issue to go to court.

"I could never see why people had gone to court over it in the first place," he said.

"The whole issue should have been settled over the back fence, farmer to farmer."

Ruling highlights issue of liability: Greens

Mr Park believes not much will change in the industry as a result of the ruling.

"WA Farmers has always maintained that farmers should be able to farm in the way that they want to, so we've always been in favour of co-existence with GM and non-GM," he said.

"So it doesn't change the rules there, whereas if it'd gone the other way, some of the ground rules would've had to have been changed."

Mr Park has, however, predicted it was a short-term win for those in favour of the ruling.

"It certainly is a thumbs up for GMO and growing of GMO, although I suspect this is not the last we've heard of it," he said. "I suspect we'll be finding that there'll be appeals courts and those sorts of things."

The Greens' Senator Rachel Siewert said the case had highlighted the issue of liability.

"We're extremely disappointed with the outcome of the court case, but it does highlight the need for changes in our laws, so that we address this issue of liability so that the liability is on the grower of the GMO crops rather than those that are contaminated," she said.

"What we should be seeing is that the farmers who choose to grow GM crops bear the responsibility of having made that decision." Senator Siewert said changes were needed, even in the short term.

"We think there should be a moratorium in place on grower GMO crops in Western Australia until we resolve these issues and until we can establish much more definitively whether the GMO food is safe," she said.

Nearly 17 per cent of all canola sown in WA last year was genetically modified.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/greens-unhappy-with-gm-decision-affecting-organic-farmer/5485796

**

Didn't see any comments on this...

SO if a neighbour is allowed in WA to spread genetically modified material up to 1.5km into a neighbouring property and get away with it what fckn hope is there....

Thanks WA judiciary....just fckn great

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooooo does this mean that its now ok to allow noxious materials to spread over ones neighbors?

Recon a good QC could probably successfully argue that.

Edited for piss poor grammar

Edited by shortly
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit courts are shit. Shit GMOs are shit. :blink:

That's about as much intelligence I can muster in the face of such a short-sighted and ignorant ruling. Thumbs up Monsanto, and of course, STRAYA! :huh::wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does that mean for Steve and other organic farmers, does this set a precedent that gives priority to GM farmers pumping tones of roundup into the environment over organic farmers.

If he has to wait 3 years to regain his organic certification then what's to stop the fuckwit nextdoor doing it again in subsequent years.

I can see the torture in the poor bastards' face.

A "supreme court" has just given corporate bioterrorism the big thumbs up. They've ruined his livelihood and made years of hard work worthless. What a pack of pricks.

Edited by Sally
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read something in one of those links you posted WB

Justice Martin said Mr Marsh's action was "without precedent."

And then he says

"No basis in principle was shown to extend the law to these events,"

???

What does that mean ?

Exactly what is the law, and why would it need to be extended to these events ?

Is the law contrary to this particular ruling or not ?

Is this outside the law ?

It sounds like a Kangaroo court ruling to me.

Edited by Sally
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...yep this ruling raises a raft of issues.... and the world has been watching.

I can only understand that know matter how you look at it this is a bad precedent.

There some bullshit spruiked about the certifying organisation revoking his orgainic status of those areas....not the actually fact that there was "genetic trrespass" from a neighbouring farm that caused the certification to be pulled. So his beef should be with

the certifying organisation.....FFS.

So then as Shortly alluded to I think as an example...does that mean at least in WA I can get away with "chemical trespass" and send a spray drift deep over the boundary line?

There is no protection for organic growers, with a nationally and internationally accepted certification.

Sorry, but it all smells of shit to me.....plain and simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×