UK Gov exposed by US GM lawsuit
The article below from an American farming journal on the class action law
suit being taken out against Aventis by US farmers relating to GM crop
contamination is interesting for a number of reasons, but particularly
because:
1. It is on behalf of farmers who did not grow the GM maize concerned
themselves but claimed to have suffered financial losses as a result of
contamination by neighbouring GM crops.
2. The suit claims that the separation distances supposed to apply for this
type of crop have not proved effective in preventing cross contamination
even though (at 660ft) they are well in excess of the standard separation
distance required for GM maize in the UK (only 50m).
3. The claim relates not only to contamination by cross-pollination but to
contamination of general maize supplies via mixing of GM and non-GM corn
during "planting, harvesting, storage and transport".
This type of contamination and resulting legal action was predicted two
years ago in Chartered Surveyor Monthy, the official journal of the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(see: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/CSMgmo.htm
).
Because of predicatable difficulties of this nature and related matters, the
RICS has been pushing for a compulsory land register of all GM crops in the
EU as part of a system of tracability (the lack of which has contributed
substantially to the problems in the US of the kind now seeking redress
through this law suit).
Such a register is now included in draft EU legislation, but in a move of
incredible irresponsibility the UK government is trying to block the
measure. According to a recent RICS news bulletin the proposed register is
now the chief contentious issue in the revisions to a general overhaul of EU
Directive 90/220 relating to the release of GM crops in the EU.
It is difficult to see how the UK government can justify its position on the
land register issue in the light of the experience of the US where lack of
tracability and record keeping is creating major physical and legal
complications.
Although this case is against Aventis it may pave the way for 'farmer V
farmer' nuisance actions in the future where GM crops grown both in the US
and elsewhere in the world lead to contamination of neighbouring crops. The
five point basis of the US claim should be studied carefully by all farmers
and their legal advisers where the growing GM crops is contemplated in the
future - claims for damages for any resulting contamination from neighbours
may be considerable if this case is anything to go by.
The current US suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages from Aventis for
being a public nuisance, for negligence and for committing consumer fraud
and deceptive trade practices.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
============================================================================
========
Class Action Suit Targets Aventis
12-06-2000 - Willie Vogt, E-Content Director, Farm Progress
There have been rumblings for the past few weeks that a lawsuit, or many
lawsuits, should be forthcoming in the StarLink fiasco. Last Friday, a
suit was filed on behalf of growers who didn't plant StarLink corn on their
farms.
Initiated by Raymond Mulholland, Marissa, Ill., the class-action suit
defines the class of farmers involved as: "All persons and entitites
(excluding Defendant Aventis and its officers, directors and employees,
and governmental entities) who grew and harvested non-StarLink corn during
the 2000 growing season inside the United States with the intent to sell the
crop. The Class seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief under the common law."
Ronald Osman, the attorney who filed the action, says StarLink growers
may have an action pending, but that Aventis -- working with 16 state
attorneys general -- was addressing those issues of growers and elevators
handling
the grain. It's the farmers with non-StarLink corn grown near farms with
the biotech crop that are suffering because of lost markets.
"I filed this suit for non-StarLink farmers because of Aventis' failure
to control all the StarLink corn," says Osman. He notes that export markets
are drying up and that this loss of markets could reduce the price of
corn, injuring all farmers, adding: "We raised 10.4 billion bushels of corn
this year and that is for domestic and foreign markets. Japan is already
excluding our corn, Korea wants to exclude our corn. We still have the
same supply of corn but with a lower demand."
Why Mulholland? "He's a large farmer in this area and a friend of mine,
and he was concerned about this issue so he agreed to work on this," Osman
says. Osman points out that this suit is not about biotechnology. "I'm not
taking the position that the technology is good, bad or indifferent," he
says.
According to Osman, Aventis did not tell farmers about the 660-foot
buffer zone, they did not get growers to sign an agreement for the
technology,
the company didn't have farmers segregate the grain and this has
contaminated grain with StarLink content.
Damages sought from Aventis
A look at the court documents in the case shows that Mulholland (as well
as other farmers who meet the description of the class) is seeking damages
for the following (actual wording from the suit):
* Aventis' negligent conduct in violation of the EPA registration permit
for StarLink by failing, either itself or through its agents, to
adequatelywarn farmers of the required safety precautions as to StarLink
corn and
to otherwise conduct itself as outlined in the registration permit.
* Aventis' marketing and sale of StarLink with the knowledge that
StarLink contained a known human allergen and that StarLink was likely to
contaminate or cross-pollinate with corn destined for the food supply.
* Aventis marketing and sale of StarLink with the knowledge that the
660-foot "buffer zone" required by the permit was an insufficient
precaution to prevent cross pollination with non-StarLink corn.
* Aventis' marketing and sale of StarLink with the knowledge that
StarLink was likely to contaminate non-StarLink corn in planting,
harvesting,
storage and transport.
* The resulting harm to Plaintiff and the Class Members, in the form of,
inter alia, loss of United States and export markets for U.S. corn and
subsequent diminished price when it was discovered that StarLink had
entered the human food chain by, inter alia contamination and/or
cross-pollination with non-StarLink corn, requiring expensive and
time-consuming testing to determine the presence or absence of StarLink
in perportedly non-StarLink corn, and harm to Class Members farming non-GM
(genetically modified) crops, or under so-called "identity-preserved"
contracts or as organic farmers who have lost the ability to obtain a
premium for their crops and/or incurred additional identity preservation
costs due to contamination and/or cross-pollination.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages from Aventis for being
a public nuisance, for negligence and for committing consumer fraud and
deceptive trade practices.
While Aventis is the sole plaintiff listed in the case so far, the seed
itself was sold by Garst and that firm is not named in the suit, so far.
In preparing for the case, Osman says he was told that Garst was a key
supplier of the seed and responsible for collecting signatures for
StarLink agreements. "Garst is not included because it was not the company
required by the EPA to fulfill the requirements of the product's
registration,"
Osman says. "However, if it appears that Garst is also responsible they
can be added to the suit later."
This case will take time to move through court. We'll keep you posted on
its progress.
Developed for DirectAg.com by Farm Progress. Copyright 2000, Farm
Progress.