Earlier this year, we co-chaired the Hawaii Agriculture Conference, and one of the hottest items on the agenda was the “GMO” issue, now brewing in at least two Hawaii courts (the Kauai ordinance was challenged in federal court, while the Big Island ordinance was challenged in the Third Circuit).
We’re not alone, and the Supreme Court of Western Australia recently issued a decision holding that a farmer who used GMO canola seeds was not liable when some of hs stuff blew over into his neighbor’s organic farm. The organic farmer claimed that the contamination resulted in him losing his organic certification on a large percentage of his land, and brought a nuisance claim. The court rejected the argument, holding it was lawful to grow GM crops, and the farmer’s practice “was entirely orthodox,” even if it resulted in contamination:
Mr Baxter [the GMO farmer] had used an orthodox and well accepted harvest methodology by swathing his RR canola crops in 2010. He had engaged a swathing contractor to cut the canola plants and push them into windrows, where they would dry out for some weeks before the final phase of harvest. The end of season winds and the blowing of swathes from Sevenoaks eastwards into Eagle Rest had not been an outcome intended by Mr Baxter. Even so, no physical injury whatsoever had been sustained at Eagle Rest in consequence. Mr Baxter was not to be held responsible as a broad acre farmer merely for growing a lawful GM crop and choosing to adopt a harvest methodology (swathing) which was entirely orthodox in its implementation.
WA apparently does not have a right-to-farm act as does Hawaii, but we’d expect the same result were this case here because generally-accepted farming practices are the heart of RTF Act arguments. Check out the Judgment Summary below (it isn’t all that long, six pages), and if you want to know more, you can read the full 150-page decision or see GM farmer wins landmark canola contamination case in WA Supreme Court, and In landmark case, Australian court rejects organic farmer’s claim of GMO “contamination.”
Judgment Summary – Marsh v Baxter (CIV 1561 of 2012) (S. Ct. Western Australia 28 May 2014