In both the US and Canada, yes, this is true, there was nothing to litigate. Why is that? Here the facts are simple; if a farmer wishes to grow and sell organic crops, he/she must have zero testable amounts of GMO content. Any content whatsoever, and the crop's resale value is destroyed as certainly as if it were consumed in fire or plague . . . or, more aptly, contamination more akin to vandalism.
Faced with contamination from GMOs, organic farmers have no recourse under the law. Why is that? Because, quite simply, Monsanto and all the others involved in patented crops have prevented a simple upgrade—a needed upgrade, given the situation faced by organic farmers—that would allow contamination suits to proceed.
The GMO manufacturers are preventing, in essence, anti-vandalism lawsuits by preventing an upgrade in the law—one the founders could never have predicted with 18th century farming technology—and all to protect a business model. Not a way of life, not a technology that could save the world: just a business model.
Europe does not suffer this nonsense simply because they do not regulate their food supply the same way. They have what's called a Precautionary Principal. Instead of running every new innovation by the FDA for a stamp of approval, the Precautionary Principal mandates that everyone do no harm with their innovations. If an innovation proves harmful, even in the very long run, the innovator gets to pay damages.
It's a better system, and the reason we cannot export our GMO crops to Europe.
(I am reminded of a very, very busy off-season at work on year. We were filling grain ships looong after harvest. Why? The grain had tested positive for GMO, and was rejected by Europe. That grain had to be carted by train all the way across the states and loaded on the West coast for Asian markets that have yet to find the brains to adopt the Precautionary Principal.)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 07:59 pm (UTC)Faced with contamination from GMOs, organic farmers have no recourse under the law. Why is that? Because, quite simply, Monsanto and all the others involved in patented crops have prevented a simple upgrade—a needed upgrade, given the situation faced by organic farmers—that would allow contamination suits to proceed.
The GMO manufacturers are preventing, in essence, anti-vandalism lawsuits by preventing an upgrade in the law—one the founders could never have predicted with 18th century farming technology—and all to protect a business model. Not a way of life, not a technology that could save the world: just a business model.
Europe does not suffer this nonsense simply because they do not regulate their food supply the same way. They have what's called a Precautionary Principal. Instead of running every new innovation by the FDA for a stamp of approval, the Precautionary Principal mandates that everyone do no harm with their innovations. If an innovation proves harmful, even in the very long run, the innovator gets to pay damages.
It's a better system, and the reason we cannot export our GMO crops to Europe.
(I am reminded of a very, very busy off-season at work on year. We were filling grain ships looong after harvest. Why? The grain had tested positive for GMO, and was rejected by Europe. That grain had to be carted by train all the way across the states and loaded on the West coast for Asian markets that have yet to find the brains to adopt the Precautionary Principal.)