This initial hearing considered whether or not loss of ‘organic’ status and resulting clean-up costs as a result of GM seed infiltration was sufficient grounds for a civil claim. The judge found that there was no basis for a claim in negligence, trespass or Rylands v Fletcher. However, nuisance and state environmental protection law could be sufficiently meritorious to warrant a subsequent hearing.
Evidence from:
K Garforth et al. Journal of Environmental Law (2006) Vol.18(3) p 459 – 477
Hoffman v Monsanto Canada Inc. (Larry Hoffman, L.B. Hoffman Farms Inc. and Dale Beaudoin v
Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer Cropscience Inc.)
Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 2005 SKQB 225 (CanLII); [2005] 7 W.W.R. 665; (2005), 264
Sask. R. 1
In our view, the claims lack evidence of physical harm and, whilst weeds can be a legitimate cause of loss in nuisance the claimant here would seem to be ‘particularly sensitive’ (i.e. other people would not regard this GM plant as a weed).
Further detail: