[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SANET-MG] EU farm chief wants more GM in organics



Hi Dale,
In reply to your comments. Neither you nor I are experts in Tort law. Nevertheless, we have a right to our opinions. You definition of pollution does not agree with dictionary definitions of that word. For example, two definitions below:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollution. pollution - the act of contaminating or polluting; including (either intentionally or accidentally) unwanted substances or factors
contamination
dirtying, soiling, soilure - the act of soiling something
dust contamination - the act of contaminating with dust particles
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pollution
pollution
n 1: undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities 2: the state of being polluted [syn: befoulment, defilement] 3: the act of contaminating or polluting; including (either intentionally or accidentally) unwanted substances or factors
It seems to me that your belief that dust is not pollution is just bogus.
The harmfulness of GM pollution can be in its potential injury to consumers of the crop but it also includes loss of value in sale which is clearly the case with GM polluted organic food. In Saskatchewan, which is questionably part of real planet earth, a judge proclaimed that GM pollution is like having a valuable bull jump a fence and party around until calves were produced with low value cows providing calves of increased value. However, that judgment ignores the fact that GM crops are hard to push on the world market, particularly the organic market. In France a judge determine that pulling up a GM crop was not vandalism because there was evidence that the crop was harmful to consumers. It seems clear that GM contamination of organic crops is pollution in any bodies book.The dastardly polluter is not providing benefit that they are just screwing their neighbors. Such scoundrel and their licenser should pay for their damage and should be penalized for their negligence. And that is that! Sincerely,Joe


Dale Wilson wrote:

Dear Joe,

From the press release:
"It's a standard threshold in the regulation," she told a news conference, referring to the 0.9 percent label level that is
already enshrined in current EU law on biotech food and feed.

Joe wrote:
EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel seems to have originated from a planet separate from earth. She believes that
organic farmers will have to pay for avoiding GM pollution.

The problem with your position is that the broader society does not
regard the presence of GM as "pollution".  The situation is analogous
to someone producing high-value seed crops, crops which often get
contaminated and ruined by pollen from other fields.

Because the contaminating agent is not regarded as generally harmful,
but only deleterious for the special purpose of the seed grower, it it
the responsibility of the seed grower to arrange for isolation.

In the case of contamination of organic crops by non-organic pollen
(i.e. GM), since the larger society does not regard this non-organic
pollen as generally harmful, it is the responsibility of the grower of
the organic crop to arrange for isolation in order to maintain the
value of his special-purpose crop.

The fact that real economic injury occurs in these cases doesen't
change the liability.  Suppose for example, I am making integrated
circuits, a special kind of manufacturing which requires unusually
clean conditions.  If my air-handling system is not adequate to remove
dust produced by the construction site down the street, I can't
successfully sue the construction company.  Why? because the
"pollution" they are making is not considered *by society* to be
generally harmful.  Am I injured by the dust?  You bet, but it is
nevertheless my problem. From the press release:
"We live in the real world. The lower we go (on a threshold),
the more expensive it will be for organic producers. We have
to find the right balance," she said.

This is a wise strategic adjustment given the legal realities.  And
biologically speaking, the previous limit was not zero.  I believe it
was 0.1%.  It seems to me that the difference between 0.1 and 0.9 is
not all that large.  But 0.9 is much easier to achieve in practice.

Dale

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.o

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.