Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2015, Agriculture & Food
This paper examines the threat posed by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to organic agriculture and certification. In the case of Marsh v Baxter an organic farm in Western Australia is contaminated by GMO material including seeds and seed pods blown from a neighbouring farm and the organic certification is lost. This paper presents a five-year chronology of events and the processes, outcomes and costs of seeking legal redress, of proving negligence and/or nuisance, and of seeking damages and an injunction to constrain the GMO farmer. Damages are agreed at A$85,000 (€60,000) while legal costs are in the region of A$2,000,000 (€1,400,000) to date.
Agriculture & Forestry
GMOs and organic agriculture: Six lessons from Australia2015 •
GMO moratoria are in place in Australia, in some states and not in others. Is co-existence possible between organic farming and GMO farming? And if so, under what circumstances? Australia has more certified organic land than any other country, with a reported 12.0 million hectares of certified organic land compared to the world total of 37.5 million hectares. In a recent court case, an organic farmer lost his organic certification because of GMO contamination. A total of 325 hectares of his 478 hectare farm were contaminated with GM canola blown from a neighbouring property, and this resulted in the decertification of most of the farm. The organic farmer sued his neighbour, a GMO farmer, on the basis of nuisance or negligence, he sought damages for loss of income, and he sought an injunction to rein in his neighbour‟s future GMO farming practices. The case ran before the Supreme Court of Western Australia over three weeks and it generated more than 1000 pages of transcript. The case was dismissed in its entirety, in a 150 page judgment, and is now subject to an appeal. This paper examines the judgment, in the light of the trial transcript of this landmark case, with the view to determining the implications for the future of organic farming and GMO farming, and in particular to ascertain what lessons can be learned from this litigation.
Journal of Organic Systems
Organic versus GMO farming: Contamination, what contamination?2014 •
A landmark case against the planting of GMO crops in Australia has delivered a big win for GMO farmers and produced no protection for organic farmers. The case pitted farmer against farmer. An organic farmer, Steve Walsh, initiated the legal action against his GMO growing neighbour, Michael Baxter in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Martin, 2014). The Marsh and Baxter farms (477 hectares and 900 ha. respectively) are adjacent to each other and located in Kojonup, 260 km south east of the capital city of Perth in the wheat belt of Western Australia (WA) -and coincidentally nearby Broomhill was one of the earliest sites in the development of the organic movement in Australia (from 1930). Just before Baxter's first crop of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready (RR) canola (a variety of rape) was harvested, the standing crop was sprayed with herbicide (glyphosate), and rather than being direct harvested, the crop was swathed, i.e. the stalks were mown off at ...
Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference
GMO agriculture versus organic agriculture – Genetic trespass, a case study2014 •
Western Australia (WA) has maintained a moratorium on the growing of genetically modified crops since 2003. An exemption was granted in 2008, for growing GM cotton, only in a specified remote region of the state. A general exemption was declared in 2010 for growing GM canola anywhere in WA. In a public review, over 400 submissions were received by the government with over ninety percent arguing for retaining the ban on GM crops, while Monsanto, Dow Agrosciences and the Grain Research and Development Corporation argued for lifting the moratorium. Many submissions argued that segregation of GM and non-GM crops would fail and that the doctrine of “mutual co-existence” was unsafe. In the first year of GM canola in WA, the certified organic mixed farm of Steve Marsh was contaminated with GM canola seed which was allegedly dispersed from a neighbouring farm which had planted GM canola in 2010. Marsh lost his organic certification due to GM contamination. Marsh has sought redress by consen...
Submission to: Review of Tasmania’s GMO Moratorium, DPIPWE
Tasmania's GMO Moratorium: 17 Good Reasons2019 •
The Tasmanian GMO Moratorium has served the interests of the state well. The ‘clean and green’ image of Tasmania continues to grow from strength to strength. This branding is underpinned by consumer, visitor, and investor perceptions. These perceptions continue to be validated by Tasmania’s GMO Moratorium. GMOs are a technology without a social licence and are a cause for social friction. They are not wanted by consumers. They attract a price penalty in the market place, and they contaminate non-GM farms and the food chain. The two GM crops in Australia are GM canola and GM cotton. The former is in decline (5% per year) and the latter is in decline (down 53% from the peak of 2010) and exhibits a highly volatile and erratic pattern of uptake. The relaxation of the WA Moratorium in Western Australia in 2010 (and subsequent relinquishment) has meant that there is now no GM-free canola available in WA. The so-called non GM canola (which is most of the WA canola) is contaminated by GM canola up to 0.9%, and the non GM canola seed sold to WA farmers is contaminated by GM up to 0.5%. It is claimed by GM advocates in WA that successful segregation is “impossible” (and they may be right). GM canola is a crop dependent on the herbicide glyphosate. The application of glyphosate is a required part of the production cycle for GM canola. Glyphosate is a carcinogen that also causes multigenerational disease and adverse health outcomes. Tasmania can produce premium quality food and be rewarded with premium prices. This can achieve the agricultural goals and aspirations of the State. Organic food is the ‘gold standard’ for premium food and attracts price premiums of 100%, and more. The global organic market is undersupplied and this is an opportunity for Tasmania (and others). Australia is the world leader in organics uptake, and Tasmania is well placed to grow its organic sector. GMOs are a threat to organic farming. It is recommended that the GMO Moratorium is retained and continued in perpetuity (i.e. renewed without a sunset and review clause). In this way producers and investors have a degree of certainty that can encourage investment in growth and marketing of Tasmanian produce as ‘clean and green, and as premium and GM-free. Seventeen reasons for maintaining Tasmania’s GMO Moratorium are presented.
Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species2018 •
This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. " An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live " (NNSS, 2017). Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no 'pull' factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are 'same but different'. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the 'same' as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are 'different' and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled-as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them. The release of a GMO calls for biosecurity measures. After trial plots of Monsanto GM canola in Tasmania in the 1990s, the sites continue to be biosecurity monitored for GMO escape, and volunteer canola plants continue to appear two decades later. In Western Australia the escape of GMO canola into a neighbouring organic farm resulted in the loss of organic certification and the monetary loss of the organic premium for produce. GMO produce sells for a 10% discount because of market forces and the consumer aversion to GMOs. Where non-GM product is accidentally contaminated with some GM grain, the whole batch is discounted and is sold as GMO. There is a lack of evidence that GMOs can be contained and many jurisdictions have banned the introduction of GMOs. GMOs have the potential and the propensity to contaminate non-GMO crops and thereby devalue them. The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue.
Published at (2014) 22 Torts Law Journal 160 In Marsh v Baxter the WA Supreme Court resolved a dispute between organic farmers, the Marshes, and their genetically-modified-crop-growing neighbour, Mr Baxter. Causes of action in negligence and nuisance each failed. The court denied that Baxter owed the Marshes a duty to prevent swathes of GM material entering their property, and denied that Baxter unreasonably interfered with the use of their property. In terms of principle, the case is notable for a narrow view of recoverability of pure economic loss and for application of principles of nuisance to the battleground of GM farmers and their anti-GM neighbours. The judgment could be seen as a step towards resolving the tension between those who adopt GM technology and those who eschew it, but not an entirely satisfying one.
Public Submissions to the GM Independent Report, Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA)
A Review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium and Fourteen Alternative Findings2019 •
The present review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium (Anderson, 2019) reports 14 alternative findings. It reveals that the so-called Independent Review is not independent at all and thus it falls at the first hurdle. Kym Anderson is a long term vocal advocate of genetically modified crops and has expressed such views regularly over the past two decades. The Independent Review was commissioned by the South Australian Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. There were 216 public submissions, of these, 78% (n=168) were for retaining the existing Moratorium, 18% (n=39) were for scrapping the Moratorium, and 4% (n=8) were undecided. 100% of the food available in Australian supermarkets is GM-free which mirrors the sentiments of Australian consumers, which are against GM-food; and Australian supermarkets are all aware of such sentiments. South Australia (SA) has a 'clean and green' image. This image serves SA well for food production, trade, tourism, education and migration. GMOs would damage SA's clean and green and smart image and can thereby be economically detrimental to the state. The Independent Review proposes that GM canola is the sole candidate for uptake were the GM Moratorium to be scrapped. The GM canolas (Round-up ready, TT) proposed for SA are herbicide-dependent crops relying on regimes of multiple toxic herbicide applications. Glyphosate is a carcinogen and triazine is banned in Europe. These are chemicals that are dangerous to the health and wellbeing of animals, including humans, and the environment, and prescribing their use can be expected to increase SA's health costs and future environmental clean-up costs. GM agriculture is an example of privatising the profits and socialising the costs. Australia is the world leader in organic agriculture and accounts for 51% of the world's certified organic hectares, and, of this, South Australia is the leading organics state in Australia accounting for 40% of Australia's certified organic hectares (and 20% of the world's certified organic hectares). Organic produce sells at a price premium-usually in the range of 10% and 110% (compared to non-organic). This contrasts with GM canola which sells at a price penalty of 7%. These price premiums and price penalties reflect market sentiment-what the market wants and what the market does not want. The GM Moratorium has a social licence and is serving SA well and should be maintained on economic and social grounds. The Independent Review should be rejected.
Biomed Journal of Scientific & Technical Research
Genetically Modified (GM) Canola: Price Penalties and Contaminations2019 •
The genetically modified (GM) canola grown in Western Australia (WA) is glyphosate resistant. It has been grown in WA since 2010, when an exemption under the WA GM Moratorium was declared. The price penalty for GM canola (compared to non GM canola) is 7.2% based on the past five years of price data from two WA receival depots (Albany and Kwinana). The average annual price penalty for GM canola varied from a low of 5.3% ($29 per tonne in the 2017/18 season at Kwinana) to a high of 9.2% ($49 per tonne in the 2015/16 season at Albany). WA GM canola has a lower oil content (e.g. 46.9% versus 48.4%) and a higher moisture content (e.g. 5.5% versus 5.3%) than non GM canola. It is suggested that the price penalty for GM canola in WA would be greater if the segregation, phytosanitary and cleaning regimes were more stringent, rather than tolerating 0.9% contamination by GMOs for WA’s so called ‘non GM canola’. In the future, the price penalty for GMOs may be higher as consumers and purchasers become aware that what has been passed off as ‘canola’ is GM canola. The Canola Receival Standards make no mention that 0.9% contamination of non GM canola (CAN1) by GMOs is tolerated. As markets tighten up their tolerance of GM contamination, the risk is that WA’s so called ‘non GM canola’ suffers market exclusions.
Environment, Development and Sustainability
Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: can regulations work?2011 •
2015 •