1.GM will 'taint' natural canola crop
2.Supreme Court won't hear Monsanto case
EXTRACT: The report examines the experience of farmers in Canada, where segregation of GM and non-GM canola crops failed after a few years, causing the collapse of both industries, canola farmer and Canadian National Farmers Union vice-president Terry Boehm said. (item 1)
'The fact of GMO contamination and the reality of losses we organic farmers suffer because of it have not gone away. We will continue fighting to protect the right to farm GMO-free and the right to eat GMO-free.' - Canadian farmer Larry Hoffman (item 2)
---
1.GM will 'taint' natural canola crop
The Age, December 17 2007
http://news.theage.com.au/gm-will-taint-natural-canola-crop/20071217-1hll.html
It is inevitable that genetically modified (GM) canola will contaminate Australia's canola crops, according to a report released by Greenpeace.
The report examines the experience of farmers in Canada, where segregation of GM and non-GM canola crops failed after a few years, causing the collapse of both industries, canola farmer and Canadian National Farmers Union vice-president Terry Boehm said.
The report comes days after a group of Canadian canola farmers failed in a six-year legal battle to obtain class action status, to enable them to sue Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science for losses caused by the contamination.
The NSW and Victorian governments must reverse the decision to allow commercial GM canola crops until it can be shown that GM canola can be safely segregated and poses no environmental threat, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner Louise Sales said.
'All the evidence from Canada suggests that neither is the case,' she said in a statement.
'It is also important that the state governments introduce liability legislation, so that biotech companies are held accountable for the environmental and economic damage caused by genetic engineering contamination.'
---
2.Supreme Court won't hear Monsanto case
By Darren Bernhardt, Saskatchewan News Network The Leader-Post (Regina), 14 December 2007
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/business_agriculture/story.html?id=a006d6d2-b4a7-4bd5-9d27-9729adca30d1
SASKATOON -- A six-year battle by a group of Saskatchewan organic farmers to sue a pair of powerful ag-biotech companies has been snuffed out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The farmers, Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin, launched their case against Monsanto Canada and Bayer Crop Science in January 2002. They claim the organic industry has been seriously harmed as a result of genetically modified (GM) canola created by the companies. They sought compensation for losing canola as a crop due to genetic contamination and attempted to stop the production of genetically engineered wheat for the same reason. On Thursday, the country's top court announced it will not hear the case.
'We're obviously disappointed,' said Saskatoon lawyer Terry Zakreski, who represents the organic farmers. 'The ruling by the Supreme Court does not list any reasons, so we couldn't speculate as to why that decision was made.'
Monsanto spokeswoman Trish Jordan said the company is pleased. 'We have always maintained that the claims made by this group lacked merit and that they failed to meet any of the required criteria for certification. It is gratifying to see the Supreme Court of Canada support the strongly worded decisions of the lower courts,' she said.
Although there are two appellants named in the case, the farmers were represented and financed by the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) and its organic agriculture protection fund. SOD attempted to pursue a class-action lawsuit on their behalf just after Monsanto applied in December 2002 to the Canadian and American regulatory systems for approval to release Roundup Ready wheat as a commercial crop In order to launch the suit, SOD first needed to acquire class-action certification. Saskatchewan's Court of Queen's Bench denied it, saying the group failed to meet any of the required criteria. SOD appealed but in May 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the previous ruling, describing SOD's case as 'replete with weakness in every respect.'
Papers were filed in August by SOD for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In his memorandum of argument, Zakreski said the case 'seeks to ask whether biotechnology companies incur responsibility when their patented genetically modified seed, pollen and plants infiltrate farmland, causing harm.' The Supreme Court's decision is SOD's third strike. But that doesn't mean Hoffman and Beaudoin are out of options, Zakreski said in an interview.
'It (Thursday's decision) effectively ends the effort to get certification as a class action, but Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Beaudoin can pursue it individually,' he said. 'We will weigh that over the next month or so.'
In a media release from SOD Thursday, Hoffman said: 'The fact of GMO contamination and the reality of losses we organic farmers suffer because of it have not gone away. We will continue fighting to protect the right to farm GMO-free and the right to eat GMO-free.'