THE National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia's (NASAA) organic standards were again scrutinised last Thursday as summaries pertaining to the Marsh v Baxter case were put forward in WA's Supreme Court.
Senior legal counsel for the defendant, Patricia Cahill, Bradley Bayley Legal, hit home a number of points highly regarded by Michael Baxter's supporters both in and out of the courtroom.
Ms Cahill summarised to presiding judge, Kenneth Martin, that the improper construction and ineffective application of NASAA's questionable standards (and not her client's actions) should be blamed for the situation plaintiff's Steve and Sue Marsh found themselves in following the alleged contamination of their organic farm by windblown GM canola swaths from Mr Baxter's farm in late 2010.
According to her, a reckless, indifferent or cavalier grower (as her client Mr Baxter was referred to by the plaintiff's counsel) wouldn't have allowed for the proper buffer zones or told plaintiffs Steven and Sue Marsh of his planting intentions - all of which Mr Baxter did in accordance with his Roundup Ready seed contract...
The full story @ Case considers GM pros and cons - Agriculture - Cropping - General News - Farm Weekly:
No comments:
Post a Comment