nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Organic Versus GM Agriculture in the Courtroom in Australia and the USA

verfasst von : Michael Blakeney

Erschienen in: The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods

Verlag: Springer New York

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The size of the trade in organic agriculture was estimated to be worth $US 64 billion in 2014 and has been increasing at a rate of 10 %. This valuable trade is of obvious interest also to developing countries which are primarily agriculture-based economies. As early as 2003 the European Commission identified that the cultivation of GM crops was likely to have implications for the organization of organic agricultural production. In a communication of that year it observed that the possibility of the adventitious presence of GM material in organic crops raised the question as to how producer choice for the different production types could be ensured. Additionally, the successful segregation of GM from organic agriculture is indispensable in preserving access to the lucrative trade in organic products. This chapter looks at litigation in Australia and the USA concerning the liability which arises in circumstances where GM cultivation was said to have imperiled organic agriculture.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Lessons from the Legal Cases of GM Alfalfa and Sugar Beet Deregulation in the United States

Nächstes Kapitel Coexistence—Under-Explored Facets for a USDA Policy

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2014, 23. Available at https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1636-organic-world-2014.pdf.

Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence2/index_en.htm.

[2014] WASC 187.

718 F.3d 1350, 1354 (2013).

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Overview of the Gene Technology Regulatory System, Fact Sheet, April 2008, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/content/gmofactsheets-3/$FILE/factregsysoverview08.pdf.

Gene Technology Act (2000) Cth, ss 32(1) and 33(1).

See M Young and S Haynes, ‘Genetically Modified Organisms: Environmental Regulation in Australia’ (2000) 52(5) Australian Company Secretary 295; C Lawson, ‘Risk Assessment in the Regulation of Gene Technology under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) and the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (Cth)’ (2002) 19 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 195; K. Ludlow, ‘Gene Technology Regulation and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)’ (2004) 30 Monash University Law Review165.

OGTR, Licence DIR 020/2002 for ‘Brassica Napus’; decision to grant licence. http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/content/dir020notific-htm.

C. Deakin, ‘Resolving the Regulatory Conflict: Lessons for Australia from the European Experience of Regulating the Release of Genetically modified Organisms into the Environment’ (2008) 25 Environmental Planning Law Journal 103.

See Karinne Ludlow, ‘The Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms as Actionable Damage in Torts’ (2005) 13(2) Tort Law Review 162.

K. Ludlow, ‘Genetically Modified Organisms and Private Nuisance Liability’ (2005) 13 Tort Law Review 92.

Karinne Ludlow and Stuart Smyth, ‘The Quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology, Pure Economic Loss, and Non-Adopters: Comparing Australia, Canada and the United States’ (2011) 52 Jurimetrics 27.

Mark Lunney and Robert Burrell, ‘A Farmer’s Choice? Legal Liability of Farmers Growing Crops: A Farmer’s Choice? Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (2006) 25.

Australia, Senate Community Affairs References Committee, ‘A Cautionary Tale: Fish Don’t Lay Tomatoes—Report on the Gene Technology Bill 2000’, Canberra, 2000, 149.

Ibid, 151–152.

Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Australian Agriculture—Towards the development of a vision and strategy for the application of biotechnology to Australian Agriculture (2011) http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology/reports/towards-development.

Colin Packham, ‘Australia risks organic export growth as it struggles to coexist with GMO’ (29 May 2014) Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/30/australia-gmo-organic-idUSL3N0OG0O720140530.

See FSANZ, ‘Genetically modified foods’ available at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/gmoverview/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 4 November 2015.

See OGTR, ‘Table of applications and authorisations for Dealings involving Intentional Release (DIR) into the environment’ available at http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/content/ir-1, accessed 4 November 2015.

S Apted, D McDonald and H Rodgers ‘Transgenic Crops: Welfare implications for Australia’ (2005) 12 Australian Commodities 532 at 540 cited in Deakin p 103.

Professor Mark Tester from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide has said that GM food should be embraced as farmers battle the effects of global warming, See ‘GMO emergency laws too risky’ The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, Australia) May 7 2007.

Managing Genetically Modified Crops in Australia: GM Crops, Segregation and Liability in Australian Agriculture’ (2005) prepared by Avcare for ACIL Tasman.

Liability Issues Study, n 1, p 3 citing Submission No 54 to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Parliament of Australia (Canberra, October 2000) (Organic Federation of Australia).

Liability Issues Study, n 1, p 4 citing Submission No 42 to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Parliament of Australia (Canberra, October 2000) (Florigene Ltd and Nugrain Pty Ltd (Vic)).

Karinne Ludlow, ‘Genetically modified organisms and private nuisance liability’ (2005) 13(2) Tort Law Review 159, 160.

Will Hardy, ‘Preparing the Law for a GMO Outbreak’ (2008) 4.

Because of Australia’s size, produce is often transported thousands of kilometres, for example in 2002 GM seed from New South Wales was spilled in Darwin on its way to Western Australia. See J Randerson, ‘GM-food safety checks inadequate, says report’ New Scientist 4 February 2002.

Connor Adams ‘Australian GMO ‘Contamination’ Case Could Have International Repercussions’ (9 May 2014) The International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.com/australian-gmo-contamination-case-could-have-international-repercussions-1582157.

Parliament intended that liability with respect to GMO contamination be consistent with how contamination is dealt with in other areas: Science and Economic Policy Branch, Liability Issues Associated with GM Crops in Australia, Scoping Study (Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, September 2003) (Liability Issues Study) p 5, citing Senate Community Affairs References Committee, ‘A Cautionary Tale: Fish Don’t Lay Tomatoes—Report on the Gene Technology Bill 2000’, Canberra, 2000, 140 and 146.

[2014] WASC 187.

Ibid at [660], [662], [669], [686].

Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187.

Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA 169.

[2014] WASC 187 at [307].

[2014] WASC 187 at [328]–[330], [336]–[338].

[2014] WASC 187 at [333]–[334], [335].

[2014] WASC 187 at [341]–[343].

Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258.

[2009] NSWCA 258.

Karinne Ludlow and Stuart Smyth, “The Quandary of Agricultural Biotechnology, Pure Economic Loss, and Non-Adopters: Comparing Australia, Canada and the United States” (2011) 52 Jurimetrics 15.

Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180, 194 (Gleeson CJ), 222 (McHugh J).

Kathryn Garforth, ‘When Worlds Collide: Biotechnology meets Organic Farming in Hoffman v Monsanto’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law 459, 462.

Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180; 164 ALR 606 at [13] per Gleeson CJ and [211], [213] and [409] per Gummow J.

See Dovuro Pty Ltd. v Wilkins (2000) 105 FCR 476, 485-86 (Austl.) (describing the vulnerable class, comprising the ultimate purchasers of contaminated seed, as limited and ascertainable).

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, 328 per Callinan J.

Managing Genetically Modified Crops in Australia: GM Crops, Segregation and Liability in Australian Agriculture’ (2005) prepared by Avcare for ACIL Tasman, p 4.

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, 224 (McHugh J).

Brenda McGivern, ‘Tortious Liability for (Selected) Genetic Harm: Exploring the Arguments’, (2002). 10 Torts Law Journal 41, 60.

[2003] 215 CLR 317 at 330.

Thomas Ambrose ‘Supreme Court decides GM canola crop case’ (18 June 2014) Holding Redlich http://www.holdingredlich.com/agribusiness-rural-industries/supreme-court-decides-gm-canola-crop-case.

Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187 at [321].

[2014] WASC 187 at [741].

Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA 169.

Ibid at para 385.

Ibid at para 426.

Ibid at para 647.

Hill v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159.

Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609.

Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1976) 136 CLR 529.

Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA 169 at para. 649.

Ibid at para 745.

Ibid at para 704.

Ibid at para 744.

Ibid at para 135.

Ibid at para 136.

Ibid at para 316.

Ibid at para 212.

[2014] WASC 187 at [371].

[2014] WASC 187 at [714].

[2014] WASC 187 at [713].

[2014] WASC 187 at [717].

Smith, Rebekah Gray, Joseph Elks, ‘Love thy neighbour? The potential coexistence of organic and GM farming is examined by the Supreme Court’ (29 July 2014) Herbert Smith Freehills http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ed87e0fe-4c8a-4bbf-bda4-61adb3e28a60.

Nicolas Perpitch, ‘Friends still foes but clears GM crops’, The Australian, May 28 2014.

Thomas Ambrose ‘Supreme Court decides GM canola crop case’ (18 June 2014) Holding Redlich http://www.holdingredlich.com/agribusiness-rural-industries/supreme-court-decides-gm-canola-crop-case.

Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187 at [321].

[2014] WASC 187 at [379].

[2014] WASC 187 at [381].

Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA 169 at para. 779.

Ibid at para 780.

Ibid.

Ibid at para. 781.

Ibid at para. 782.

Ibid at para 3.

Ibid at para 258.

Ibid at para 271.

Ibid at para 272.

Ibid.

Ibid at para. 274.

[2013] FCA 65.

(1959) 102 CLR 252.

D’Arcy vs. Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115.

Ibid at para [2.04].

Ibid at para [2.16].

D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35.

Ibid at para. 4.

Ibid.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64a7af1d-8a54-4dc8-9e59-58f992fe1600.

Michael Jones, ‘WA’s court verdict on GM crops is a dose of common sense’ (29 May 2014) The Conversation http://theconversation.com/was-court-verdict-on-gm-crops-is-a-dose-of-common-sense-27287.

100

New Zealand Law Commission, ‘Liability for Loss Resulting from the Development, Supply or Use of Genetically Modified Organisms’ (2002) p 5.

101

Andrew Gill, ‘Is the answer still blowing in the wind after the GM canola case?’ (3 June 2014), Minter Ellison http://www.minterellison.com/publications/is-the-answer-still-blowing-in-the-wind-after-the-GM-Canola-Case/.

102

Catherine McAloon, ‘Genetic modification test case highlights gaps in Australian regulations’ (28 May 2014) ABC Rural http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/gm-court-case-debate/5349598.

103

In the United States, for example, there are broad-scale examples of GM and organic crops being grown in close proximity. In fact, in some farming operations in the United States the same farmer will be using both GM and organic production. See Jon Entine, ‘’No Such Thing as GMO Contamination ‘Rules Australian Court in Landmark Decision, Rebuffing Organic Activists’ (28 May 2014) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/05/28/no-such-thing-as-gmo-contamination-rules-australian-court-in-landmark-decision-rebuffing-organic-activists/.

104

Organic Trade Association, Draft Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering, April 21, 2014 available at https://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/OTA_Docket%20No_00D-1598_FDA_Final.pdf, accessed 4 November 2015.

105

106

Claire Deaking (2008) 25 EPLJ 103.

107

NASAA Media Release—29 May 2014.

108

Managing Genetically Modified Crops in Australia: GM Crops, Segregation and Liability in Australian Agriculture’ (2005) prepared by Avcare for ACIL Tasman, 8.

109

718 f.3d 1350, 1354 (2013).

110

[2014] WASC 187.

111

Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser. [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34.

112

‘Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits’ http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx.

113

Ibid.

114

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., 851 F. Supp. 2d 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (No. 11-CV-2163).

115

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,322,938 (“DNA sequence for enhancing the efficiency of transcription”); 5,352,605 (“Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters”); 5,362,865 (“Enhanced expression convention in plants using non-translated leader sequences”); 5,378,619 (“Promoter for transgenic plants”); 5,424,412 (“Enhanced expression in plants”); 5,463,175 (“Glyphosate tolerant plants”); 5,530,196 (“Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters”); 5,554,798 (“Fertile glyphosate-resistant transgenic corn plants”); 5,593,874 (“Enhanced expression in plants”); 5,641,876 (“Rice actin gene and promoter”); 5,659,122 (“Enhanced expression in plants using non-translated leader sequences”); 5,717,084 (“Chimaeric gene coding for a transit peptide and a heterologous peptide”); 5,728,925 (“Chimaeric gene coding for a transit peptide and a heterologous polypeptide”); 5,750,871 (“Transformation and foreign gene expression in Brassica species”); 5,859,347 (“Enhanced expression in plants”); 6,025,545 (“Methods and compositions for the production of stably transformed, fertile monocot plants and cells thereof”); 6,040,497 (“Glyphosate resistant maize lines”); 6,051,753 (“Figwort mosaic virus promoter and uses”); 6,083,878 (“Use of N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine and derivatives thereof”); 6,753,463 (“Transformed cotton plants”); 6,825,400 (“Corn plants comprising event PV-ZMGT32 (nk603)”); RE38,825 (“Glyphosate tolerant plants”); and RE39,247 (“Glyphosate-tolerant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthases”).

116

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013).

117

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 901 (2014).

118

Organic Seed Growers, 851 F. Supp. 2d at 548.

119

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013) at p. 13.

120

Ibid at p. 14.

121

Organic Seed Growers, 851 F. Supp. 2d at 548.

122

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013) at p.13.

123

Ibid.

124

403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

125

Ibid at 1339–40.

126

569 U.S. U.S. at ___, 133 S.Ct. 1761 (2013).

127

Id. at 1765–67.

128

Ibid.

129

561 U.S. at ___; 130 S.Ct. 2743 (2010).

130

Ibid at 2752-54.

131

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013) at pp. 17–18.

132

Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. ___, _____, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1151 (2013).

133

Christopher M. Holman, ‘How Real Is the Concern that Seed Patents Will Turn Farmers into Inadvertent Infringers?’ (2014) 33(5) Biotechnology Law Report 165 at n.20.

134

Ibid at 168.

135

Ibid.

136

Ibid at 169.

Titel: Organic Versus GM Agriculture in the Courtroom in Australia and the USA
verfasst von: Michael Blakeney
Verlag: Springer New York
Buch: The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3725-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4939-3727-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_11

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"