Advertisement

Harvest methods key to GM case

Former WA Governor Malcolm McCusker, who is representing Steve Marsh, arrives at the WA Supreme Court yesterday. Picture: Danella Bevis/Countryman/The West Australian.

A landmark legal battle between Kojonup neighbours over the use of genetically modified crops has taken a twist and could come down to a debate over harvest methods.

Former WA governor Malcolm McCusker, who is acting for organic farmer Steve Marsh, yesterday focused an appeal before three Supreme Court judges on whether GM-canola grower Mike Baxter should have swathed his crop or performed a standard harvest.

Mr McCusker distanced himself from parts of 10 grounds for appeal filed by legal firm Slater & Gordon on behalf of Mr Marsh. He began by saying the case had nothing to do with the safety of growing GM crops.

Mr McCusker said two controversial issues - whether GM products were harmful to livestock or humans and whether organic foods are healthier - were not up for determination.

"At the heart of this clash between two neighbours in Kojonup is the question of how different systems of agriculture may co-exist," he said.

Mr Marsh is no longer seeking injunctions preventing Mr Baxter growing or swathing GM canola. Swathing involves piling crops into wind rows to dry them out.

Mr Marsh is pursuing an $85,000 damages claim against Mr Baxter over alleged contamination that led to the privately run National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia removing his organic certification.

About 25 anti-GM protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court for the start of the two-day appeal against a sweeping judgment by Justice Ken Martin rejecting the damages claim. Another day is set aside for an appeal against a costs ruling that left Mr Marsh facing a legal bill of about $800,000.

Mr McCusker, acting as senior counsel for the first time since stepping down as governor last June, indicated the two men could farm side-by-side without a ban on Mr Baxter growing GM canola.

However, he said Mr Baxter had breached his duty of care by swathing GM canola on paddocks on the boundary of his farm adjoining Mr Marsh's property.

He said swathing increased the risk of the GM canola blowing on to Mr Marsh's property.

Swathed canola stalks blew on to Mr Marsh's farm in 2010, sparking a long-running legal battle.