Display:
Will approval to grow MON 810 hold the manufacturer harmless from legal actions such as Beyer has recently suffered in the USA when its strain escaped and contaminated seed stock in the Mississippi Delta?GMO

Ken Bell, a rice grower in southwestern Missouri, remembers that 2006 was shaping up to be one of those years farmers only dare to dream about. "Not only was the market up," he told me, "but we had a good crop growing."

Then on August 18, a Friday, Bell's world collapsed. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that traces of genetically modified rice produced by Bayer CropScience, a division of the huge German drug and chemical company, had somehow escaped test plots and found their way into rice fields in Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The GM crop was engineered to survive applications of Liberty Link, a Bayer herbicide. The USDA still does not know what caused the widespread contamination.

By the following Monday morning, worldwide markets for American long-grain rice had evaporated. Japan, Russia, Canada, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Iraq imposed restrictions on U.S. rice imports. The European Union demanded that all incoming U.S. rice be tested and certified as free of GM traits. Bell had incurred all of the up-front costs of what was to be that year's bumper harvest, but suddenly no one would buy it. He lost more than $1.9 million. "It went from a great year to a disaster," he said.

Last Friday, Bell and another Missouri farmer, John Hunter, had their day in federal court. A St. Louis jury found Bayer negligent and awarded them almost $2 million in compensatory damages (though it did not award punitive damages). For Bayer, it may be the first battle in a very long war. Some 3,000 rice producers have sued the company.


The legal exposure to Beyer appears to be well over $1 billion at present, not including legal fees.  How does that compare to the revenues they are likely to get?

And what are the politics here. Who got and/or gets the donations and how does Barroso benefit? Or is that something that we will find out in 10 or 15 years?

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Feb 10th, 2010 at 05:23:45 PM EST
More likely never.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Feb 10th, 2010 at 11:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it will depend on Member State law. Maize pollen escaping is supposed to be guaranteed against, but the procedures as proposed in France are laughable (insufficient distance between GM and non-GM).

The real problem is that "choice" for farmers and consumers - depending on the existence of separate lines of production and transformation ending with products stamped "No GM" on the shelves - is a lie. Once GM gets going, no one but organic farmers will fight for anything else, and they're a tiny minority.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Feb 11th, 2010 at 02:05:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it will depend on Member State law. Maize pollen escaping is supposed to be guaranteed against, but the procedures as proposed in France are laughable (insufficient distance between GM and non-GM).

Good news for attorneys in France who have experience in environmental law. I suspect that, even were the plants grown in greenhouses, pollen would escape. Ventilation is a necessity and I rather doubt that HEPA level filtering would be applied, thought double filtering through water might work. But do farmers have the equivalent to a tort process for damages in France?

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Feb 11th, 2010 at 12:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series