Destroying GM crops is..... legal.

Gordon

I was just flicking through the pages of Sky's website and saw this article. It seems to say that there has been a landmark ruling which I presume means a precedent?

Maybe someone could read this and tell me if this means what I think it means... you can destroy a GM crop as long as no-one sees you. ( )

here starteth the quote ....
"GM Crops Damage Legal: Court Rules
The High Court has ruled it is legal to destroy GM crops - if no-one's there to see it.

The decision has been hailed a victory by campaigners against the use of genetic modification.

Both protesters and the Crown Prosecution Service had challenged conflicting decisions over the issue in lower courts in different parts of the country.

Rowan Tilly, 43, of North Laine (correct), Brighton, and the other campaigners were charged in two separate cases with causing criminal damage to genetically modified crops with the intention of disrupting the lawful activity of growing crops, contrary to section 68 of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.

Cambridge courts found the protesters guilty, but Weymouth magistrates had acquitted them.

Clarifying the law in a landmark ruling in the High Court, Mrs Justice Rafferty today said the protesters could not be convicted in either case because the 1994 Act required that other people had to be engaged, or about to be engaged, in a "lawful activity" on the land for there to be an offence.

In other words, someone needed to be present in the fields in order for the damage to be an offence.
"

Am I goin freakin mad or am I blind? (no smart comments please nanook )
Here is the URL if it is still there http://www.sky.com/skynews/storytemplate/storytoppic/0,,30000-1032470,00.html

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

An incredibly bizzare ruling, one that is certain to be over-turned either by Appeals or the Lords, but its message is certainly a welcome one. The modification of an entire ecosystem begins with unimaginably minute changes. Introducing several new species isn't just touching up the painting, but re-drawing the whole landscape. It's a question of scale- if a minute random change can wipe out a species in the long run, or bring one to prominence, then the wholesale introduction of mutations into a system can only be a recipe for disaster in the long run. This is just the problem- executive government and corporations care nothing for the long run- they only care about the next election, or this quarter's profits.

I'm glad to see the judiciary is acting as a restraining arm on the private sector and the executive branch- which is its job in an ideal balance of power. Just quite how it's being done seems illogical, specious and more than a little amusing. The idea that a crime doesn't occur if there are no witnesses is a dangerous idea in criminal jurisprudence...though that may be the way it works in practice...that should never become the spirit of the law.

But, as I said, even a ludicrous step in the right direction can be a good one- it's left to the rather more enlightened judges of the Appeals and the Privy Council to sort out this legal tangle while still retaining the message that the (probably soon to be defunct) judge intended to be broadcast in his original summary judgement.

Let's see how the executive respond- it'll be amusing if nothing else

Ivan

I was under the impression that unless there was proof shown then the accused party automatically received a not-guilty verdict. If they arent in the act, about to commit the act or just after commiting the act - how exactly do you know it was them without witnessess or forensic proof - which might be rather difficult if the crime was commited in the middle of the field

For what its worth - The human race cant possibly hope to provide enough food for the entire human race if it continues to expand at the rate that it does at the moment, without either
A) Matter conversion from energy (i.e. Teleporters/Food replicators)
GM Foods
C) Some really nice alien comes along and provides us with an unexhaustable source of food.

Well now, me personally - I think option is the most likely.
It may come at the cost of damaging ecological effects, but c'mon, dont you people have enough to complain about. The extinction of entire species of plants/animals. Destruction of the rainforest, O-Zone layer depletion. GM, imho, is possibly one of the least damaging of them all. Problems with GM seems to come from pyschological/philosophical or perhaps religious fears of what may happen.
We dont know that man may create a super plant or insect or something that will wipe us all out. For all we know some intelligent chap may create a super plant. Keep the entire race well feed and stop/prevent alot of deaths and wars with no ecological backlashes what-so-ever. Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell.

Destruction of Crops, not just GM crops is what that quote is about. It isnt just referring to Genetically modified crops. Its about ALL crops**







**Said twice for emphasis :P

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

On the point of agragrian sustainability- a recent ECOSOC study showed that the twice the world's current population could be housed quite comfortably in the state of Texas, and fed with roughly a third of the world's food output. The problem is not with food production- it's with distribution, and cultural barriers that encourage people to eat certain foods. And even if we needed to increase food production, the rate at which we are developing eco-friendly fertilizers is phenomenal- production capacity is being doubled over a 10-year time-frame if current research patterns continue- certainly faster than any population boom. The "Green" revolution is no longer a thing of yesterday- but is happening every day on a wide scale. GM foods offer the corporate world a degree of certainty- sterile seeds so poor nations will have to keep buying grain, plus resistance and lifespan factors to ensure that we always have "fresh" food. This is done for convenience, not to maximize output. The increase in quantity of production is a miniscule one- efficiency and market certainty are the main influences on a policy that could yet radically change various ecosystems.

And for what? A few extra 0's on the end of a biotech company's bankroll? No thanks- I'd rather see the money go to the desperately poor and underfunded farmers both in the developed, and developing worlds.

Occy

bonkey

Oc makes a very interesting point about what GM foods are being used for.

I recall that when they were first introduced, the concepts were promoting things like increased vitamin content and non-allergenic foods (e.g. non-allergenic peanuts), not to mention specialist foods that could "carry" immunisation agents etc to help fight disease in impoverished nations.

What have we got instead? Larger foods, more regular sizes, disease resistant (to give larger yields), coupled with sterile seeds to ensure a continuous market for their sale.

The concept of GM was to make our world a better place for us. The reality of GM is that it makes our world a better place for the GM manufacturers, and possibly for some farmers.

Whether or not you agree with the severity of the risks, you cannot argue that there are no ecological risks with GM foodstuffs. Are these risks worth the benefits? What benefits have you seen from GM foods? None, I would wager.

jc

Victor

I think the point of the article is that they were charged under Public Order legislation. If there is no 'victim', there is no Public Order offence. I think the law might work similarly with Criminal Damage - the law is quite 'neutral' if there is no victim present (but remember there is a difference between treading on GM maize and burning down a building).