MADGE weighs in on GM case

19 May, 2011 02:45 PM

Anti-GM lobby group MADGE has weighed into the “Kojonup Contamination” issue, claiming the GM industry is falsely trying to paint WA organic farmer Steve Marsh as a bully for suing his neighbours because their GM canola contaminated his organic crop.

“Steve Marsh lost his organic status as a result of the GM contamination and suffered income loss. His farm may remain contaminated for years,” said MADGE spokesperson Fran Murrell.

“This situation needs to be examined. The neighbour, Mr Baxter, we are told, has a weed problem and so wants to grow GM canola. Mr Baxter has a range of options to deal with his weeds including different rotations, different chemicals and various land management practices.

“In contrast Mr Marsh is an organic farmer. He cannot supply any crops or produce that is contaminated by GM. This means that the contamination by Mr Baxter has removed his opportunity to farm in the way that he and his customers want.”

Date: Newest first | Oldest first


Ian Mott
19/05/2011 3:08:28 PM

So, the Fran who has been posting here is Fran Murrell from Madge. And if she is so partisan then she should be the first to ask Marsh for his crop stats. So how about it, Fran. How many hectares did Marsh grow, what was the yield/ha so we can get to the bottom of how much he actually lost from the downgrade. And then tell us what the cost of the certifier was. And as you seem to be so up to speed on weed removal costs (not) perhaps you could tell us what Marsh spent (all up) on his weed control. You do believe in transparency and informed debate, don't you Fran? Oh Frraaaan?
19/05/2011 4:23:06 PM

I am sure we will see some 'scientific' sources soon from the activist post etc
19/05/2011 6:32:01 PM

As I understand it there is no evidence that any GM material was found in the harvested grain or that any GM crop was actually growing on Marsh's farm. Mr Marsh can supply his crop to market, even if he is unjustly precluded from the organic market by NASAA's unrealistic and prjudicial standard. Where is the evidence of the actual cost incurred by Mr Marsh because of GM? MADGE and cohorts have been misleading the public at every stage of this travesty. The fact that they have been helping Marsh raise money under the auspices of a legal battle with Monsanto, when Marsh is actually suing his neighbour is a prime example. This is a pathetic story distorting the real issues and facts again to demonise the Baxter's who have done nothing wrong. It is irrelevant if you are pro or anti GM. The Baxter's have exercised their duty of care and as sad as it is that Mr Marsh has allegedly found GM material in his paddock, it is not through any negligence of the Baxter's. Therefore Mr Marsh has no grounds to sue.
19/05/2011 7:28:31 PM

Fancy Ian Mott commenting on a GM article! Obviously life is pretty boring in the Mott household. Found any fancy words in the thesaurus lately? Iaaaaan
spare us
19/05/2011 8:54:27 PM

FRAN : Oh I am like Mr Mott waiting eagerly to hear about Mr Marsh's yeilds so busting to hear what the tonnage is per ha he harvested . Thinking if better yeild than commercial farm might go organic (not)
20/05/2011 6:16:13 AM

Mott and spare us do you know what organic canola sells for? I would suspect there is a fair premium like most organic products, that is why it is the fastest growing industry in Australia.
John Niven
20/05/2011 7:25:43 AM

Needs an NLIS tag on it.
Ian Mott
20/05/2011 8:33:22 AM

Get up to speed, Holisticmuck. The GM price in WA is $585/tonne while the non-GM price is only 4% more at $610/tonne. And while the retail price of organic product might be higher, the price paid to farmers is not. But the fact that it is now a week since we requested Marsh's crop data without joy is the best indicator that the reality of this case is a lot more squalid than the anti-GM branch of "rent-a-zombie-nutter" would have us believe. And if Marsh is dumb enough to let these clowns stooge him into court then the piddly $25/tonne he claims to have lost will be the least of his expenses.
20/05/2011 10:14:54 AM

Holistic-hippy. If every grower goes organic, you will very quickly lose that premium.
give me strength
20/05/2011 2:29:05 PM

Well done 'Tonto' - about time somebody said some sense. The actual seed from the organic crop (the crop supposedly contaminated was not an organic canola crop) was not contaminated as the crop was not harvested until quite a few weeks later, the ground was supposedly contaminated by gm canola plants that surprisingly were still intake after blowing a long way (and in a strong southerly wind). Ian Mott - keep going - you have my full attention and I salute you. Holisticmick - the reason why organic produce is paid at a higher premium is because there is a lot of gullible people out there who believe they will live longer and healthier eating organic. Hate to say it - but my nan who was 93 at her death - smoked, drank sherry and lived on a conventional cropping farm all her life in the wheatbelt.
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who